research-article

Factors that affect software systems development project outcomes: A survey of research

Authors:
Laurie McLeod

Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
View Profile

,
Stephen G. MacDonell

Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand

Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand
View Profile

Authors Info & Claims

ACM Computing Surveys Volume 43 Issue 4Article No.: 24pp 1–56https://doi.org/10.1145/1978802.1978803

Published:18 October 2011Publication History

ACM Computing Surveys

Abstract

Determining the factors that have an influence on software systems development and deployment project outcomes has been the focus of extensive and ongoing research for more than 30 years. We provide here a survey of the research literature that has addressed this topic in the period 1996–2006, with a particular focus on empirical analyses. On the basis of this survey we present a new classification framework that represents an abstracted and synthesized view of the types of factors that have been asserted as influencing project outcomes.

Supplemental Material

Available for Download

zip

mcleod.zip (51.7 KB)

Supplemental movie, appendix, image and software files for, Factors that affect software systems development project outcomes

References

Akkermans, H. and van Helden, K. 2002. Vicious and virtuous cycles in ERP implementation: a case study of interrelations between critical success factors. Europ. J. Inform. Syst. 11, 1, 35--46.Google ScholarCross Ref
Aladwani, A. M. 2000. IS project characteristics and performance: a Kuwaiti illustration. J. Global Inform. Manage. 8, 2, 50--57. Google ScholarDigital Library
Aladwani, A. M. 2002. An integrated performance model of information systems projects. J. Manage. Inform. Syst. 19, 1, 185--210. Google ScholarDigital Library
Al-Karaghouli, W., Alshawi, S., and Fitzgerald, G. 2005. Promoting requirement identification quality: enhancing the human interaction dimension. J. Enterprise Inform. Manag. 18, 2, 256--267.Google ScholarCross Ref
Alvarez, R. 2002. Confessions of an information worker: a critical analysis of information requirements discourse. Inform. Organiz. 12, 2, 85--107.Google ScholarCross Ref
Amoako-Gyampah, K. 1997. Exploring users' desires to be involved in computer systems development: an exploratory study. Comput. Human Behav. 13, 1, 65--81.Google ScholarCross Ref
Amoako-Gyampah, K. and White, K. B. 1997. When is user involvement not user involvement&quest; Inform. Strategy: Executive's J. 13, 4, 40--45.Google ScholarCross Ref
Asaro, P. M. 2000. Transforming society by transforming technology: the science and politics of participatory design. Accounting, Manage. Inform. Technol. 10, 4, 257--290.Google ScholarCross Ref
Avgerou, C. 2001. The significance of context in information systems and organizational change. Inform. Syst. J. 11, 43--63.Google ScholarCross Ref
Avison, D. E. and Fitzgerald, G. 2003. Where now for development methodologies&quest; Comm. ACM 46, 1, 79--82. Google ScholarDigital Library
Baddoo, N., Hall, T., and Jagielska, D. 2006. Software developer motivation in a high maturity company: a case study. Softw. Proc. Improve. Practice 11, 3, 219--228.Google ScholarCross Ref
Bahli, B. and Tullio, D. 2003. Web engineering: an assessment of empirical research. Comm. AIS 12, 203--222.Google Scholar
Barki, H. and Hartwick, J. 1994. Measuring user participation, user involvement and user attitude. MIS Quarterly 18, 1, 59--82. Google ScholarDigital Library
Barki, H., Rivard, S., and Talbot, J. 2001. An integrative contingency model of software project risk management. J. Manage. Inform. Syst. 17, 4, 37--69. Google ScholarDigital Library
Barry, C. and Lang, M. 2003. A comparison of ‘traditional’ and multimedia information systems development practices. Inform. Soft. Technol. 45, 217--227.Google ScholarCross Ref
Baskerville, R. and Pries-Heje, J. 2004. Short cycle time systems development. Inform. Syst. J. 14, 3, 237--264.Google ScholarCross Ref
Beynon-Davies, P., Tudhope, D., and Mackay, H. 1999. Information systems prototyping in practice. J. Inform. Technol. 14, 1, 107--120.Google ScholarCross Ref
Bradley, J. H. and Hebert, F. J. 1997. The effect of personality type on team performance. J. Manage. Devel. 16, 5, 337--353.Google ScholarCross Ref
Briggs, R. O., De Vreede, G.-J., Nunamaker, J. F., and Sprague, R. H. 2003. Special issue: information systems success. J. Manage. Inform. Syst. 19, 4, 5--8. Google ScholarDigital Library
Britton, C., Jones, S., Myers, M., and Sharif, M. 1997. A survey of current practice in the development of multimedia systems. Inform. Softw. Technol. 39, 10, 695--705.Google ScholarCross Ref
Bussen, W. and Myers, M. D. 1997. Executive information systems failure: a New Zealand case study. J. Inform. Technol. 12, 145--153.Google ScholarCross Ref
Butler, T. 2003. An institutional perspective on developing and implementing intranet and internet-based information systems. Inform. Syst. J. 13, 3, 209--231.Google ScholarCross Ref
Butler, T. and Fitzgerald, B. 1997. A case study of user participation in the Information Systems process. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Information Systems. K. Kumar and J. I. DeGross, Eds., Association of Information Systems, 411--426. Google ScholarDigital Library
Butler, T. and Fitzgerald, B. 1999a. The institutionalisation of user participation for systems development in Telecom Eireann. In Success and Pitfalls of Information Technology Management. M. Khosrowpour Ed., Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, 68--86. Google ScholarDigital Library
Butler, T. and Fitzgerald, B. 1999b. Unpacking the systems development process: an empirical application of the CSF concept in a research context. J. Strategic Inform. Syst. 8, 4, 351--371.Google ScholarCross Ref
Butler, T. and Fitzgerald, B. 2001. The relationship between user participation and the management of change surrounding the development of information systems: a European perspective. J. End User Comput. 13, 1, 12--25.Google ScholarCross Ref
Chae, B. and Poole, M. S. 2005. The surface of emergence: agency, institutions, and large-scale information systems. Euro. J. Inform. Syst. 14, 1, 19--36. Google ScholarDigital Library
Chang, H. H. 2006. Technical and management perceptions of enterprise information system importance, implementation and benefits. Inform. Syst. J. 16, 3, 263--292.Google ScholarCross Ref
Charette, R. N. 2005. Why software fails. IEEE Spectrum 42, 9, 42--49. Google ScholarDigital Library
Chatzoglou, P. D. 1997. Use of methodologies: an empirical analysis of their impact on the economics of the development process. Euro. J. Inform. Syst. 6, 4, 256--270.Google Scholar
Christiaanse, E. and Huigen, J. 1997. Institutional dimensions in information technology implementation in complex network settings. Euro. J. Inform. Syst. 6, 2, 77--85.Google Scholar
Clegg, C. W., Axtell, C., Damodaran, L., Farbey, B., Hull, R., Lloyd-Jones, R., Nicholls, J., Sell, R., and Tomlinson, C. 1997. Information technology: a study of performance and the role of human and organizational factors. Ergonomics 40, 9, 851--871.Google ScholarCross Ref
Coakes, J. M. and Coakes, E. W. 2000. Specifications in context: stakeholders, systems and modelling of conflict. Require. Eng. 5, 3, 103--133.Google Scholar
Constantinides, P. and Barrett, M. 2006. Negotiating ICT development and use: the case of a telemedicine system in the healthcare region of Crete. Inform. Organiz. 16, 1, 27--55. Google ScholarDigital Library
Coombs, C. R., Doherty, N. F., and Loan-Clarke, J. 1999. Factors affecting the level of success of community information systems. J. Manag. Medicine. 13, 3, 142--153.Google ScholarCross Ref
Coughlan, J., Lycett, M., and Macredi, R. D. 2003. Communication issues in requirements elicitation: a content analysis of stakeholder experiences. Inform. Softw. Technol. 45, 2, 525--537.Google ScholarCross Ref
Crowston, K., Howison, J., and Annabi, H. 2006. Information systems success in free and open source software development: theory and measures. Softw. Proc. Improve. Practice. 11, 2, 123--148.Google ScholarCross Ref
DeLone, W. H. and McLean, E. R. 2003. The DeLone and Mclean of information systems success: a ten-year update. J. Manag. Inform. Syst. 19, 4, 9--30. Google ScholarDigital Library
Dhillon, G. 2004. Dimensions of power and IS implementation. Inform. Manag. 41, 5, 635--644. Google ScholarDigital Library
Doherty, N. F. and King, M. 1998a. The consideration of organizational issues during the systems development process: an empirical analysis. Behav. Inform. Technol. 17, 1, 41--51.Google ScholarCross Ref
Doherty, N. F. and King, M. 1998b. The importance of organisational issues in systems development. Inform. Technol. People. 11, 2, 104--123.Google ScholarCross Ref
Doherty, N. F. and King, M. 2001. An investigation of the factors affecting the successful treatment of organisational issues in systems development projects. Euro. J. Inform. Syst. 10, 147--160. Google ScholarDigital Library
Doherty, N. F., King, M., and Al-Mushayt, O. 2003. The impact of the inadequacies in the treatment of organizational issues on information systems development projects. Inform. Manag. 41, 49--62. Google ScholarDigital Library
Doolin, B. 1999. Sociotechnical networks and information management in health care. Accounting, Manag. Inform. Technol. 9, 2, 95--114.Google ScholarCross Ref
Doolin, B. 2004. Power and resistance in the implementation of a medical management information system. Inform. Syst. J. 14, 4, 343--362.Google ScholarCross Ref
Drummond, H. 1996. The politics of risk: trials and tribulations of the Taurus project. J. Inform. Technol. 11, 2, 347--357.Google ScholarCross Ref
Eason, K. 2001. Changing perspectives on the organizational consequences of information technology. Behav. Inform. Technol. 20, 5, 323--328.Google ScholarCross Ref
Enquist, H. and Makrygiannis, N. 1998. Understanding misunderstandings. In Proceedings of the 31st Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Vol. 6, 83--92. Google ScholarDigital Library
Espinosa, J. A., DeLone, W. H., and Lee, G. 2006. Global boundaries, task processes and IS project success: a field study. Inform. Technol. People. 19, 4, 345--370.Google ScholarCross Ref
Fitzgerald, B. 1998a. An empirical investigation into the adoption of systems development methodologies. Inform. Manag. 34, 6, 317--328. Google ScholarDigital Library
Fitzgerald, B. 1998b. An empirically-grounded framework for the information systems development process. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Systems, R. Hirschheim, M. Newman and J. I. DeGross, Eds., Association of Information Systems, Atlanta, GA, 103--114. Google ScholarDigital Library
Fitzgerald, B. 1998c. A tale of two roles: the use of systems development methodologies in practice. In Educating Methodology Practitioners and Researchers. N. Jayaratna, A. T. Wood-Harper and B. Fitzgerald, Eds., Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, B. 2000. System development methodologies: the problem of tenses. Inform. Technol. People. 13, 3, 174--185.Google ScholarCross Ref
Fitzgerald, B. and Fitzgerald, G. 1999. Categories and contexts of information systems development: making sense of the mess. In Proceedings of the 7th European Conference of Information Systems. C. Ciborra, Ed., 194--211.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, B., Russo, N. L., and Stolterman, E. 2002. Information Systems Development: Methods in Action. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
Flynn, D. J. and Jazi, M. D. 1998. Constructing user requirements: a social process for a social context. Inform. Syst. J. 8, 1, 53--83.Google ScholarCross Ref
Foster, S. T. and Franz, C. R. 1999. User involvement during information systems development: a comparison of analyst and user perceptions of system acceptance. J. Engin. Techn. Manag. 16, 3-4, 329--348.Google ScholarCross Ref
Galliers, R. D. and Swan, J. A. 2000. There's more to information systems development than structured approaches: information requirements analysis as a socially mediated process. Requir. Engin. 5, 2, 74--82.Google ScholarCross Ref
Gallivan, M. J. and Keil, M. 2003. The user-developer communication process: a critical case study. Inform. Syst. J. 13, 1, 37--68.Google ScholarCross Ref
Gärtner, J. and Wagner, I. 1996. Mapping actors and agendas: political frameworks of systems design and participation. Hum.-Comput. Inter. 11, 3, 187--214. Google ScholarDigital Library
Gasson, S. 1999. A social action model of situated IS design. Data Base Advances Inform. Syst. 30, 2, 82--97. Google ScholarDigital Library
Gasson, S. 2006. A genealogical study of boundary-spanning IS design. Euro. J. Inform. Syst. 15, 1, 26--41. Google ScholarDigital Library
Goldstein, H. 2005. Who killed the Virtual Case File&quest; IEEE Spectr. 42, 9, 24--35. Google ScholarDigital Library
Gowan, J. A. and Mathieu, R. G. 2005. The importance of management practices in IS project performance. J. Enterprise Inform. Manag. 18, 2, 235--255.Google ScholarCross Ref
Guinan, P. J., Cooprider, J. G., and Faraj, S. 1998. Enabling software team performance during requirements definition: a behavioral versus technical approach. Inform. Syst. Res. 9, 2, 101--125. Google ScholarDigital Library
Hardgrave, B. C., Wilson, R. L., and Eastman, K. 1999. Toward a contingency model for selecting an information system prototyping strategy. J. Manag. Inform. Syst. 16, 2, 113--136. Google ScholarDigital Library
Hartwick, J. and Barki, H. 2001. Communication as a dimension of user participation. IEEE Trans. Prof. Comm. 44, 1, 21--31.Google ScholarCross Ref
Heiskanen, A., Newman, M., and Similä, J. 2000. The social dynamics of software development. Accounting, Manag. Inform. Technol. 10, 1, 1--32.Google ScholarCross Ref
Hornik, S., Chen, H.-G., Klein, G., and Jiang, J. J. 2003. Communication skills of IS providers: an expectation gap analysis from three stakeholder perspectives. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 46, 1, 17--34.Google ScholarCross Ref
Howcroft, D. and Light, B. 2006. Reflections on issues of power in packaged software selection. Inform. Syst. J. 16, 3, 215--235.Google ScholarCross Ref
Howcroft, D. and Wilson, M. 2003. Participation: ‘bounded freedom’ or hidden constraints on user involvement. New Technology, Work and Employment. 18, 1, 2--19.Google ScholarCross Ref
Hunton, J. E. and Beeler, J. D. 1997. Effects of user participation in systems development: a longitudinal field experiment. MIS Quarterly. 359--388. Google ScholarDigital Library
Hwang, M. I. and Thorn, R. G. 1999. The effect of user engagement on system success: a meta-analytical integration of research findings. Inform. Manag. 35, 4, 229--236. Google ScholarDigital Library
Iivari, J., Hirschheim, R., and Klein, H. K. 2000/2001. A dynamic framework for classifying information systems development methodologies and approaches. J. Manag. Inform. Syst. 17, 3, 179--218. Google ScholarDigital Library
Iivari, J. and Igbaria, M. 1997. Determinants of user participation: a Finnish survey. Behav. Inform. Technol. 16, 2, 11--121.Google ScholarCross Ref
Iivari, J. and Maansaari, J. 1998. The usage of systems development methods: are we stuck to old practices&quest; Inform. Softw. Technol. 40, 9, 501--510.Google ScholarCross Ref
Iivari, N. 2004a. Enculturation of user involvement in software development organizations—an interpretive case study in the product development context. In Proceedings of the 3rd Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. ACM Press, New York, 287--296. Google ScholarDigital Library
Iivari, N. 2004b. Exploring the rhetoric on representing the user: discourses on user involvement in software development. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Information Systems. R. Agarwal, L. J. Kirsch and J. I. DeGross, Eds., 631--643.Google Scholar
Irani, Z., Sharif, A. M., and Love, P. E. D. 2001. Transforming failure into success through organisational learning: an analysis of a manufacturing information system. Euro. J. Inform. Syst. 10, 55--66. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jiang, J. J., Chen, E., and Klein, G. 2002a. The importance of building a foundation for user involvement in information systems projects. Proj. Manag. J. 33, 1, 20--26.Google ScholarCross Ref
Jiang, J. J. and Klein, G. 1999. Risks to different aspects of system success. Inform. Manag. 36, 5, 263--272.Google ScholarCross Ref
Jiang, J. J. and Klein, G. 2000. Software development risks to project effectiveness. J. Syst. Soft. 52, 1, 3--10. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., and Balloun, J. L. 1996. Ranking of system implementation success factors. Project Manag. J. 27, 50--55.Google Scholar
Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., and Balloun, J. L. 1998a. Perceptions of software development failures. Inform. Softw. Technol. 39, 14-15, 933--937.Google ScholarCross Ref
Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., and Balloun, J. L. 1998b. Systems analysts' attitudes towards information systems development. Inform. Resources Manag. J. 11, 4, 5--10. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., and Chen, H.-G. 2006. The effects of user partnering and user non-support on project performance. J. Assoc. Inform. Syst. 7, 2, 68--90.Google ScholarCross Ref
Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., and Discenza, R. 2002b. Pre-project partnering impact on an information system project, project team and project manager. Euro. J. Inform. Syst. 11, 2, 86--97.Google Scholar
Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., and Means, T. L. 2000a. Project risk impact on software development team performance. Proj. Manag. J. 31, 4, 19--26.Google ScholarCross Ref
Jiang, J. J., Sobol, M. G., and Klein, G. 2000b. Performance ratings and importance of performance measures for IS staff: the different perceptions of IS users and IS staff. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 47, 4, 424--434.Google ScholarCross Ref
Johnson, J., Boucher, K.D., Connors, K., and Robinson, J. 2001. The criteria for success. Softw. Mag. 21, 1, S3--S11.Google Scholar
Jonasson, I. 2002. Trends in developing web-based multimedia information systems. In Information Systems Development: Advances in Methodologies, Components and Management, M. Kirikova, J. Grundspenkis, W. Wojtkowski, W. G. Wojtkowski, S. Wrycza and J. Zupancic, Eds., Kluwer Academic, New York, 79--86. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jones, M. C. and Harrison, A. W. 1996. IS project performance: an empirical appraisal. Inform. Manag. 31, 2, 51--65. Google ScholarDigital Library
Jurison, J. 1999. Software project management: the manager's view. Comm. AIS, 2, (Article 17). Google ScholarDigital Library
Kappelman, L. A., McKeeman, R., and Zhang, L. 2006. Early warning signs of IT project failure: the dominant dozen Inform. Syst. Manag. 23, 4, 31--36.Google ScholarCross Ref
Karlsen, J. T., Andersen, J., Birkel, L. S., and Odegard, E. 2005. What characterizes successful IT projects. Inter. J. Inform. Tech. Decision Making 4, 4, 525--540.Google ScholarCross Ref
Kautz, K. 2004. The enactment of methodology: the case of developing a multimedia information system. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Information Systems. R. Agarwal, L. J. Kirsch and J. I. DeGross, Eds., Association for Information Systems, Atlanta, GA. 671--684.Google Scholar
Kautz, K., Hansen, B. and Jacobsen, D. 2004. The utilization of information systems development methodologies in practice. J. Inform. Technol. Cases Appl. 6, 4, 1--20.Google ScholarCross Ref
Kautz, K. and Nielsen, P. A. 2004. Understanding the implementation of software process improvement innovations in software organizations. Inform. Syst. J. 14, 1, 3--22.Google ScholarCross Ref
Keil, M., Cule, P., Lyytinen, K., and Schmidt, R. 1998. A framework for identifying software projects risks. Comm. ACM. 14, 11, 76--83. Google ScholarDigital Library
Keil, M. and Robey, D. 2001. Blowing the whistle on troubled software projects. Comm. ACM. 44, 4, 87--93. Google ScholarDigital Library
Keil, M. and Tiwana, A. 2006. Relative importance of evaluation criteria for enterprise systems: a conjoint study. Inform. Syst. J. 16, 3, 237--262.Google ScholarCross Ref
Keil, M., Tiwana, A., and Bush, A. 2002. Reconciling user and project manager perceptions on IT project risk: a Delphi study. Inform. Syst. J. 12, 2, 103--119.Google ScholarCross Ref
Kiely, G. and Fitzgerald, B. 2002. An investigation of the information systems development environment: the nature of development life cycles and the use of methods. In Proceedings of the 8th Americas Conference of Information Systems. AIS, 1289--1296.Google Scholar
Kiely, G. and Fitzgerald, B. 2003. An investigation of the use of methods within information systems development projects. In Proceedings of the IFIP WG8.2 and WG9.4 Working Conference on Information Systems Perspectives and Challenges in the Context of Globalization (In Progress Research Papers), M. Korpela, R. Montealegre and A. Poulymenakou, Eds., IFIP, 187--198.Google Scholar
Kim, H.-W. and Pan, S. L. 2006. Towards a process model of information systems implementation: the case of Customer Relationship Management (CRM). Data Base Advances Inform. Syst. 37, 1, 59--76. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kim, C. S. and Peterson, D. K. 2003. A comparison of the perceived importance of information systems development strategies by developers from the United States and Korea. Inform. Resources Manag. J. 16, 1, 1--18. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kim, C. S., Peterson, D. K. and Kim, J. H. 1999/2000. Information systems success: perceptions of developers in Korea. J. Comput. Inform. Syst. 40, 2, 90--95.Google Scholar
Kirsch, L. J. and Beath, C. M. 1996. The enactments and consequences of token, shared, and compliant participation in information systems development. Accounting, Manag. Inform. Technol. 6, 4, 221--254.Google ScholarCross Ref
Knights, D. and Murray, F. 1994. Managers Divided: Organisation Politics and Information Technology Management. Wiley, Chichester. Google ScholarDigital Library
KPMG. 2005. Global IT Project Management Survey. KPMG International, Switzerland.Google Scholar
Krishna, S. and Walsham, G. 2005. Implementing public information systems in developing countries: learning from a success story. Inform. Technol. Develop. 11, 2, 123--140. Google ScholarDigital Library
Kujala, S. 2003. User involvement: a review of the benefits and challenges. Behav. Inform. Technol. 22, 1, 1--16.Google ScholarCross Ref
Kumar, K., van Dissel, H. G., and Bielli, P. 1998. The Merchant of Prato—revisited: toward a third rationality of information systems. MIS Quarterly. 22, 2, 199--226. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lang, M. and Fitzgerald, B. 2005. Hypermedia systems development practices: a survey. IEEE Softw. 22, 2, 68--75. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lang, M. and Fitzgerald, B. 2006. New branches, old roots: a study of methods and techniques in Web/hypermedia systems design. Inform. Syst. Manag. 23, 3, 62--74.Google ScholarCross Ref
Larman, C. and Basili, V. R. 2003. Iterative and incremental development: a brief history. Comput. 36, 6, 47--56. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lemon, W. F., Liebowitz, J., Burn, J. M., and Hackney, R. 2002. Information systems project failure: a comparative study of two countries. J. Global Inform. Manag. 10, 2, 28--39.Google ScholarCross Ref
Li, E. Y. 1997. Perceived importance of information system success factors: a meta analysis of group differences. Inform. Manag. 32, 1, 15--28. Google ScholarDigital Library
Liebowitz, J. 1999. Information systems: success or failure&quest; J. Comput. Inform. Syst. 40, 1, 17--26.Google Scholar
Lin, W. T. and Shao, B. B. M. 2000. The relationship between user participation and system success: a contingency approach. Inform. Manag. 37, 6, 283--295. Google ScholarDigital Library
Linberg, K. R. 1999. Software developer perceptions about software project failure. J. Syst. Softw. 49, 177--192. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lu, H.-P. and Wang, J.-Y. 1997. The relationships between management styles, user participation, and system success over MIS growth stages. Inform. Manag. 32, 4, 203--213. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lucas, H. C. 1975. Why Information Systems Fail. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
Luna-Reyes, L. F., Zhang, J., Gil-Garcia, J. R., and Cresswell, A. M. 2005. Information systems development as emergent socio-technical change: a practice approach. Euro. J. Inform. Syst. 14, 1, 93--105. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lynch, T. and Gregor, S. 2004. User participation in decision support systems development: influencing system outcomes. Euro. J. Inform. Syst. 13, 286--301. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lyytinen, K. and Hirschheim, R. 1987. Information systems failures: a survey and classification of the empirical literature. Oxford Surveys Inform. Technol. 4, 257--309. Google ScholarDigital Library
Lyytinen, K. and Robey, D. 1999. Learning failure in information systems development. Inform. Syst. J. 9, 85--101.Google ScholarCross Ref
Mabert, V. A., Soni, A., and Venkataramanan, M. A. 2003. Enterprise resource planning: managing the implementation process. Euro. J. Oper. Res. 146, 2, 302--314.Google ScholarCross Ref
Mahaney, R. C. and Lederer, A. L. 2003. Information systems project management: an agency theory interpretation. J. Syst. Softw. 68, 1, 1--9. Google ScholarDigital Library
Mahmood, M. A., Burn, J. M., Gemoets, L. A., and Jacquez, C. 2000. Variables affecting information technology end-user satisfaction: a meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Inter. J. Hum.-Comput. Studies. 52, 751--771. Google ScholarDigital Library
Marion, L. and Marion, D. 1998. Information technology professionals as collaborative change agents: a case study of behavioral health care. Bull. Amer. Soc. Inform. Sci. 24, 6, 9--12.Google ScholarCross Ref
Markus, M. L. and Benjamin, R. I. 1996. Change agentry—the next IS frontier. MIS Quarterly. 20, 4, 385--407. Google ScholarDigital Library
Markus, M. L. and Mao, J.-Y. 2004. Participation in development and implementation—updating an old, tired concept for today's IS contexts. J. Assoc. Inform. Syst. 5, 11--12, 514--544.Google ScholarCross Ref
Markus, M. L. and Robey, D. 1988. Information technology and organizational change: causal structure in theory and research. Manag. Sci. 34, 5, 583--598. Google ScholarDigital Library
Martin, A. and Chan, M. 1996. Information systems project redefinition in New Zealand: will we ever learn&quest; Austral. Comput. J. 28, 1, 27--40.Google Scholar
McKeen, J. D. and Guimaraes, T. 1997. Successful strategies for user participation in systems development. J. Manag. Inform. Syst. 14, 2, 133--150. Google ScholarDigital Library
Mitev, N. 2000. Towards social constructivist understandings of ISD success and failure: introducing a new computerised reservation system. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information Systems, W. J. Orlikowski, S. Ang, P. Weill, H. C. Krcmar and J. I. DeGross, Eds., Association for Information Systems, 84--93. Google ScholarDigital Library
Myers, M. D. and Young, L. W. 1997. Hidden agendas, power and managerial assumptions in information systems development: an ethnographic study. Inform. Technol. People. 10, 3, 224--240.Google ScholarCross Ref
Nandhakumar, J. 1996. Design for success&quest;: critical success factors in executive information systems development. Euro. J. Inform. Syst. 5, 1, 62--72.Google Scholar
Nandhakumar, J. and Avison, D. E. 1999. The fiction of methodical development: a field study of information systems development. Inform. Technol. People. 12, 2, 176--191.Google ScholarCross Ref
Nandhakumar, J. and Jones, M. 1997. Designing in the dark: the changing user-developer relationship in information systems development. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Information Systems. K. Kumar and J. I. DeGross, Eds., Association for Information Systems, Atlanta, GA. 75--88. Google ScholarDigital Library
Nelson, R. R. 2005. Project retrospectives: evaluating project success, failure and everything in between. MIS Quart. Exec. 4, 3, 361--372.Google Scholar
Newman, M. and Sabherwal, R. 1996. Determinants of commitment to information systems development: a longitudinal investigation. MIS Quarterly. 20, 23--54. Google ScholarDigital Library
Nicolaou, A. I. 1999. Social control in information systems development. Inform. Technol. People. 12, 2, 130--147.Google ScholarCross Ref
Olesen, K. and Myers, M. D. 1999. Trying to improve communication and collaboration with information technology: an action research project which failed. Inform. Technol. People. 12, 4, 317--332.Google ScholarCross Ref
Oz, E. and Sosik, J. J. 2000. Why information systems projects are abandoned: a leadership and communication theory and exploratory study. J. Comput. Inform. Syst. 44, 1, 66--78.Google Scholar
Pan, G. S. C. 2005. Information systems project abandonment: a stakeholder analysis. Int. J. Inform. Manag. 25, 173--184. Google ScholarDigital Library
Pan, G. S. C. and Flynn, D. J. 2003. Information systems project abandonment: a case of political influence by the stakeholders. Technol. Anal. Strat. Manag. 15, 4, 457--466.Google ScholarCross Ref
Pan, G. S. C., Pan, S. L., and Flynn, D. J. 2004. De-escalation of commitment to information systems projects: a process perspective. J. Strat. Inform. Syst. 13, 247--270.Google ScholarCross Ref
Parr, A. and Shanks, G. 2000. A model of ERP project implementation. J. Inform. Technol. 15, 4, 289--303.Google ScholarCross Ref
Peterson, D. K. and Kim, C. S. 2003. Perceptions on IS risks and failure types: a comparison of designers from the United States, Japan and Korea. J. Global Inform. Manag. 11, 2, 19--38.Google ScholarCross Ref
Peterson, D. K., Kim, C. S., Kim, J. H., and Tamura, T. 2002. The perceptions of information systems designers from the United States, Japan, and Korea on success and failure factors. Int. J. Inform. Manag. 22, 6, 421--439. Google ScholarDigital Library
Pouloudi, A. and Whitley, E. A. 1997. Stakeholder identification in inter-organizational systems: gaining insights for drug use management systems. Euro. J. Inform. Syst. 6, 1, 1--14.Google Scholar
Poulymenakou, A. and Holmes, A. 1996. A contingency framework for the investigation of information systems failure. Euro. J. Inform. Syst. 5, 1, 34--46.Google Scholar
Procaccino, J. D. and Verner, J. M. 2006. Software project managers and project success: an exploratory study. J. Syst. Softw. 79, 11, 1541--1551.Google ScholarCross Ref
Procaccino, J. D., Verner, J. M., Darter, M. E. and Amadio, W. J. 2005. Toward predicting software development success from the perspective of practitioners: an exploratory Bayesian model. J. Inform. Technol. 20, 3, 187--200.Google ScholarCross Ref
Procaccino, J. D., Verner, J. M., and Lorenzet, S. J. 2006. Defining and contributing to software development success. Comm. ACM. 49, 8, 79--83. Google ScholarDigital Library
Ravichandran, T. and Rai, A. 2000. Quality management in systems development: an organizational system perspective. MIS Quarterly. 24, 3, 381--415. Google ScholarDigital Library
Reel, J. S. 1999. Critical success factors in software projects. IEEE Softw. 16, 3, 18--23. Google ScholarDigital Library
Riley, L. and Smith, G. 1997. Developing and implementing IS: a case study analysis in social services. J. Inform. Technol. 12, 4, 305--321.Google ScholarCross Ref
Roberts, T. L., Leigh, W., and Purvis, R. L. 2000. Perceptions on stakeholder involvement in the implementation of system development methodologies. J. Comput. Inform. Syst. 40, 3, 78--83.Google Scholar
Robey, D. and Boudreau, M.-C. 1999. Accounting for the contradictory organizational consequences of information technology: theoretical directions and methodological implications. Inform. Syst. Res. 10, 2, 167--185. Google ScholarDigital Library
Robey, D. and Newman, M. 1996. Sequential patterns in information systems development: an application of a social process model. ACM Trans. Inform. Syst. 14, 1, 30--63. Google ScholarDigital Library
Robey, D., Welke, R. J., and Turk, D. 2001. Traditional, iterative, and component-based development: asocial analysis of software development paradigms. Inform. Technol. Manag. 2, 1, 53--70. Google ScholarDigital Library
Royal Academy of Engineering. 2004. The Challenges of Complex IT Projects. Royal Academy of Engineering, London.Google Scholar
Saleem, N. 1996. An empirical test of the contingency approach to user participation in information systems development. J. Manag. Inform. Syst. 13, 1, 145--166. Google ScholarDigital Library
Sarkkinen, J. and Karsten, H. 2005. Verbal and visual representations in task redesign: how different viewpoints enter into information systems design discussions. Inform. Syst. J. 15, 3, 181--211.Google ScholarCross Ref
Sauer, C. 1999. Deciding the future for IS failures: not the choice you might think. In Rethinking Management Information Systems: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, R. D. Galliers and W. L. Currie, Eds., Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 279--309.Google Scholar
Sawyer, S. 2001a. Effects of intra-group conflict on packaged software development team performance. Inform. Syst. J. 11, 155--178.Google ScholarCross Ref
Sawyer, S. 2001b. A market-based perspective on information systems development. Comm. ACM. 44, 11, 97--102. Google ScholarDigital Library
Sawyer, S. and Guinan, P. J. 1998. Software development: processes and performance. IBM Syst. J. 37, 4, 552--569. Google ScholarDigital Library
Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., Keil, M., and Cule, P. 2001. Identifying software project risks: an international Delphi study. J. Manag. Inform. Syst. 17, 4, 5--36. Google ScholarDigital Library
Scott, J. E. and Vessey, I. 2002. Managing risks in enterprise systems implementation. Comm. ACM. 45, 4, 74--81. Google ScholarDigital Library
Serafeimidis, V. and Smithson, S. 1999. Rethinking the approaches to information systems investment evaluation. Logistics Inform. Manag. 12, 1/2, 94--107.Google Scholar
Sharma, R. and Yetton, P. 2003. The contingent effects of management support and task interdependence on successful information systems implementation. MIS Quarterly. 27, 4, 533--555. Google ScholarDigital Library
Skok, W. and Legge, M. 2002. Evaluating enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems using an interpretive approach. Knowl. Process Manag. 9, 2, 72--82.Google ScholarCross Ref
Software Magazine. 2004. Standish: Project Success Rates Improved Over 10 Years. http://www.softwaremag.com/L.cfm?Doc=newsletter/2004-01-15/Standish (8/04).Google Scholar
Somers, T. M. and Nelson, K. 2001. The impact of critical success factors across stages of Enterprise Resource Planning implementations. In Proceedings of the 34th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol. 8, IEEE Computer Society, 8016. Google ScholarDigital Library
Somers, T. M. and Nelson, K. 2004. A taxonomy of players and activities across the ERP project life cycle. Inform. Manag. 41, 3, 257--278. Google ScholarDigital Library
Standing, C., Guilfoyle, A., Lin, C., and Love, P. E. D. 2006. The attribution of success and failure in IT projects. Industrial Manag. Data Syst. 100, 8, 1148--1165.Google ScholarCross Ref
Standish Group International. 1999. CHAOS: A Recipe for Success (1998). The Standish Group International, Inc., West Yarmouth, MA.Google Scholar
Standish Group International. 2001. Extreme CHAOS (2000). The Standish Group International, Inc., West Yarmouth, MA.Google Scholar
Staples, D. S., Wong, I., and Seddon, P. B. 2002. Having expectations of information systems benefits that match received benefits: does it really matter&quest; Inform. Manag. 40, 2, 115--131. Google ScholarDigital Library
Stockdale, R. and Standing, C. 2006. An interpretive approach to evaluating information systems: a content, context, process framework. Euro. J. Oper. Res. 173, 3, 1090--1102.Google ScholarCross Ref
Sumner, M. 2000. Risk factors in enterprise-wide/ERP projects. J. Inform. Technol. 15, 4, 317--327.Google ScholarCross Ref
Sumner, M., Bock, D., and Giamartino, G. 2006. Exploring the linkage between the characteristics of It project leaders and project success Inform. Syst. Manag. 23, 4, 43--49.Google ScholarCross Ref
Symon, G. 1998. The work of IT system developers in context: an organizational case study. Human-Comput. Inter. 13, 1, 37--71. Google ScholarDigital Library
Symon, G. and Clegg, C. W. 2005. Constructing identity and participation during technological change. Human Relat. 58, 9, 1141--1161.Google ScholarCross Ref
Taylor, M. J., McWilliam, J., Forsyth, H., and Wade, S. 2002. Methodologies and website development: a survey of practice. Inform. Softw. Technol. 22, 381--391.Google ScholarCross Ref
Taylor-Cummings, A. 1998. Bridging the user-IS gap: a study of major information systems projects. J. Inform. Technol. 13, 1, 29--54.Google Scholar
Terry, J. and Standing, C. 2004. The value of user participation in e-commerce systems development. Informing Science, 7, 31--46.Google ScholarCross Ref
Umble, E. J., Haft, R. R., and Umble, M. M. 2003. Enterprise resource planning: implementation procedures and critical success factors. Euro. J. Oper. Res. 146, 2, 241--257.Google ScholarCross Ref
Urquhart, C. 1999. Themes in early requirements gathering: the case of the analyst, the client and the student assistance scheme. Inform. Technol. People. 12, 1, 44--70.Google ScholarCross Ref
Urquhart, C. 2001. Analysts and clients in organisational contexts: a conversational perspective. Strat. Inform. Syst. 10, 243--262.Google ScholarCross Ref
van Offenbeek, M. A. G., and Koopman, P. L. 1996. Information systems development: from user participation to contingent interaction among involved parties. Euro. J. Work Organiz. Psych. 5, 3, 421--438.Google ScholarCross Ref
Verner, J. M. and Evanco, W. M. 2005. In-house software development: what project management practices lead to success&quest; IEEE Softw. 22, 1, 86--93. Google ScholarDigital Library
Vidgen, R. 2002. Constructing a web information system development methodology. Inform. Syst. J. 12, 3, 247--261.Google ScholarCross Ref
Vidgen, R., Madsen, S., and Kautz, K. 2004. Mapping the information systems development process. In IT Innovation for Adaptability and Competitiveness. B. Fitzgerald and E. H. Wynn, Eds., Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, 157--172.Google Scholar
Vinekar, V., Slinkman, C. W., and Nerur, S. 2006. Can agile and traditional systems development approaches coexist&quest; An ambidextrous view. Inform. Syst. Manag. 23, 3, 31--42.Google ScholarCross Ref
Wallace, L. and Keil, M. 2004. Software project risks and their effect on outcomes. Comm. ACM. 47, 4, 68--73. Google ScholarDigital Library
Walsham, G. 1993. Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester. Google ScholarDigital Library
Walsham, G. 2002. Cross-cultural software production and use: a structurational analysis. MIS Quarterly. 26, 4, 359--380. Google ScholarDigital Library
Wang, E. T. G., Chou, H.-W., and Jiang, J. J. 2005. The impacts of charismatic leadership style on team cohesiveness and overall performance during ERP implementation. Inter. J. Proj. Manag. 23, 2, 173--180.Google ScholarCross Ref
Wang, E. T. G., Shih, S.-P., Jiang, J. J., and Klein, G. 2006. The relative influence of management control and user-IS personnel interaction on project performance. Inform. Softw. Technol. 48, 3, 214--220. Google ScholarDigital Library
Warne, L. and Hart, D. 1996. The impact of organizational politics on information systems project failure-a case study. In Proceedings of the 29th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Vol. 4, 191--201. Google ScholarDigital Library
Wastell, D. and Newman, M. 1996. Information system design, stress and organisational change in the ambulance services: a tale of two cities. Account. Manag. Inform. Technol. 6, 4, 283--300.Google ScholarCross Ref
Wiersema, M. F. and Bantel, K. A. 1992. Top management team demography and corporate strategic change. Acad. Manag. J. 35, 1, 91--121.Google Scholar
Williams, L. and Cockburn, A. 2003. Agile software development: it's about feedback and change. Comput. 36, 6, 39--43. Google ScholarDigital Library
Wilson, M. 2002. Making nursing visible&quest; Gender, technology and the care plan script. Inform. Technol. People. 15, 2, 139--158.Google ScholarCross Ref
Wilson, M. and Howcroft, D. 2000. The politics of IS evaluation: a social shaping perspective. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Information Systems. W. J. Orlikowski, S. Ang, P. Weill, H. C. Krcmar and J. I. DeGross, Eds., Association for Information Systems, 94--103. Google ScholarDigital Library
Wilson, M. and Howcroft, D. 2002. Re-conceptualising failure: social shaping meets IS research. Euro. J. Inform. Syst. 11, 236--250.Google Scholar
Wilson, S., Bekker, M., Johnson, P., and Johnson, H. 1997. Helping and hindering user involvement—a tale of everyday design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, S. Pemberton, Ed., ACM Press, New York, 178--185. Google ScholarDigital Library
Wixom, B. and Watson, H. J. 2001. An empirical investigation of the factors affecting data warehousing success. MIS Quarterly. 25, 1, 17--41. Google ScholarDigital Library
Wynekoop, J. L. and Russo, N. L. 1997. Studying system development methodologies: an examination of research methods. Inform. Syst. J. 7, 1, 47--65.Google ScholarCross Ref
Yetton, P., Martin, A., Sharma, R., and Johnston, K. 2000. A model of information systems project performance. Inform. Syst. J. 10, 4, 263--289.Google ScholarCross Ref
Zeffane, R. and Cheek, B. 1998. Does user involvement during information systems development improve data quality&quest; Human Syst. Manag. 17, 2, 115--121.Google Scholar

Index Terms

Factors that affect software systems development project outcomes: A survey of research
1. Social and professional topics
  1. Professional topics
    1. Management of computing and information systems
      1. Project and people management
      2. Software management
2. Software and its engineering
  1. Software creation and management
    1. Software development process management
  2. Software notations and tools
    1. Software configuration management and version control systems

Recommendations

Identifying key success factors for globally distributed software development project using simulation: a case study
ICSP'08: Proceedings of the Software process, 2008 international conference on Making globally distributed software development a success story

With the increased pressure to reduce cost, reduce development time,and improve quality, many software companies are moving toward using aGlobally Distributed Software Development (GSD) paradigm. Due to the challengesand difficulties with GSD, ...
Read More
Prioritizing and Assessing Software Project Success Factors and Project Characteristics using Subjective Data

This paper presents a method for analyzing the impact software project factors have on project success as defined by project success factors that have been prioritized. It is relatively easy to collect measures of project attributes subjectively (i.e., ...
Read More
Towards a hypothetical framework of humans related success factors for process improvement in global software development: systematic review
SAC '17: Proceedings of the Symposium on Applied Computing

Presently, the majority of the software development organizations are adopting the phenomena of Global Software Development (GSD), mainly because of the significant return on investment it produces. However, GSD is a complex phenomenon and there are ...
Read More

Reviews

Reviewer: Angelica de Antonio

McLeod and MacDonell present a survey of relatively current research (from 1996 to 2006) about the factors that affect project outcomes in software systems development. They try to determine if there has been an evolution in the identified factors when compared with more traditional studies dating as far back as 1975. Their aim is to propose a comprehensive classificatory and analytical framework that allows both the categorization of the factors identified as relevant determinants of project success or failure and the facilitation of future research. As an interesting by-product, the resulting framework could also have practical use in risk management, helping to systematize the identification and management of potential risk areas. A total of 177 papers were reviewed for this study; only empirical research with a focus on software systems development was considered. The authors have made a very valuable synthesis of this huge amount of information, organizing the findings along four dimensions-people and action, project content, development processes, and institutional context-within which the empirical conclusions about the relevant factors are discussed in a narrative, with appropriate references to the sources where these findings are reported. An interesting discussion about the very concept of project outcome precedes the survey of factors, and an even more interesting discussion follows it. The authors stress the importance of the institutional context in which the development project takes place (an aspect almost neglected in early research) and the increasing evidence that people and process have a greater effect on project outcomes than technology. A final reflection on why projects still continue to fail-even if we seem to know the factors that lead to success-raises a question on the utility of prescriptive factor-based research and leads to considerations that could inspire future research. Online Computing Reviews Service

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Article

Published in

ACM Computing Surveys Volume 43, Issue 4
October 2011
556 pages
ISSN:0360-0300
EISSN:1557-7341
DOI:10.1145/1978802
Issue’s Table of Contents

Copyright © 2011 ACM
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]
Sponsors
In-Cooperation
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
- Published: 18 October 2011
- Accepted: 1 October 2009
- Revised: 1 May 2008
- Received: 1 January 2007
Published in csur Volume 43, Issue 4

Permissions
Request permissions about this article.
Request Permissions

Check for updates
Author Tags
Development processes
institutional context
people and action
project content
project outcomes
Qualifiers
- research-article
- Research
- Refereed
Conference
Funding Sources
Other Metrics
View Article Metrics

Article Metrics
- 116
  Total Citations
  View Citations
- 7,307
  Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)118
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)12
Other Metrics
View Author Metrics
Cited By
View all

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Factors that affect software systems development project outcomes: A survey of research

ACM Computing Surveys

Abstract

Supplemental Material

Available for Download

References

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Identifying key success factors for globally distributed software development project using simulation: a case study

Prioritizing and Assessing Software Project Success Factors and Project Characteristics using Subjective Data

Towards a hypothetical framework of humans related success factors for process improvement in global software development: systematic review

Reviews

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Comments

Login options

Full Access

Published in

Sponsors

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Publication History

Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Conference

Funding Sources

Other Metrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Cited By

PDF Format

eReader

Digital Edition

Caption

Factors that affect software systems development project outcomes: A survey of research

ACM Computing Surveys

Abstract

Supplemental Material

Available for Download

References

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

Identifying key success factors for globally distributed software development project using simulation: a case study

Prioritizing and Assessing Software Project Success Factors and Project Characteristics using Subjective Data

Towards a hypothetical framework of humans related success factors for process improvement in global software development: systematic review

Reviews

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Comments

Login options

Full Access

Published in

Sponsors

In-Cooperation

Publisher

Publication History

Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Conference

Funding Sources

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

PDF Format

eReader

Digital Edition

Share this Publication link

Share on Social Media