Advertisement

Situational Incompetence: The Failure of Governance in the Management of Large Scale IT Projects

  • Darryl Carlton
  • Konrad Peszynski
Conference paper
Part of the IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology book series (IFIPAICT, volume 533)

Abstract

Information technology (IT) projects in the government (public) sector experience significant challenges. Despite decades of research, the adoption of formal methods, the use of external suppliers and packaged software, these remediation attempts have not appeared to have reduced nor mitigated the problems faced when the public sector undertakes large IT projects. Previous studies have examined the causes of IT project failure, in particular these have focused on factor analysis. A relatively limited number of studies have investigated the contribution of IT competence, and even fewer have considered the role and contribution of non-IT executives in IT project outcomes. This study sought a deeper understanding of what drives the behaviour of large scale IT projects. Of particular note was the finding by Kruger and Dunning (2009) that ‘the skills required to do the job are the same skills needed to identify competence in others’. It was this finding which was found to most influence the observed behaviours of executive leadership leading to IT project failure.

This research reports on a qualitative study that investigated 181 interviews and 5,000 pages of project data drawn from a large-scale public sector IT project which resulted in a cost overrun that exceeded AUD$1 Billion. The interview transcripts and project data were analysed using an inductive case study methodology and the research process was influenced by aspects of Grounded Theory.

A new Theory of Situational Incompetence has been developed as a result of the analysis. The research culminates in a proposed measurement instrument intended to gauge leadership competence in the context of increasing project size and complexity.

Keywords

IT project failure Public sector waste Failed projects Governance Project management Critical success factors Situational incompetence 

References

  1. Al Neimat, T.: Why IT Projects Fail (2005). www.projectperfect.com.au
  2. Al-Ahmad, W., Al-Fagih, K., Khanfar, K., Alsamara, K., Abuleil, S., Abu-Salem, H.: A taxonomy of an IT project failure: root causes. Int. Manag. Rev. 5(1), 93–103 (2009)Google Scholar
  3. Andersen, E.S.: Are we getting any better? comparing project management in the years 2000 and 2008. Proj. Manag. J. 41(4), 4–16 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Avison, D.E., Fitzgerald, G.: Information Systems Development: Methodologies, Techniques and Tools, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  5. Baccarini, D.: The concept of project complexity: a review. Int. J. Proj. Mang. 14(4), 201–204 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baccarini, D., Salm, G., Love, P.E.D.: Management of risks in information technology projects. Ind. Manag. Data Syst. 104(4), 286–295 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baker, C., Wuest, J., Stern, P.: Method slurring, the phenomenology/grounded theory example. J. Adv. Nurs. 17, 1355–1360 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourne, L.: Cobb’s Paradox is alive and well (2011). http://www.mosaicprojects.wordpress.com. Accessed 2 Sept 2016
  9. Charmaz, K.: Constructing Grounded Theory. A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Analysis. Sage, London (2006)Google Scholar
  10. Charmaz, K.: Constructionism and the Grounded Theory. In: Holstein, J.A., Gubrium, J.H. (eds.) Handbook of Constructionist Research, pp. 397–412. The Guildford Press, New York (2008a)Google Scholar
  11. Charmaz, K.: Grounded theory as an emergent method. In: Hesse-Biber, S.N., Leavy, P. (eds.) Handbook of Emergent Methods, pp. 155–172. The Guildford Press, New York (2008b)Google Scholar
  12. Chesterman, R.N.: Queensland Health Payroll System Commission of Inquiry”, Queensland Government Gazette (2013). ISSN 0155-9370Google Scholar
  13. Churchill, G.A.: A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J. Market. Res. XVI, 64–73 (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clark, L.A., Watson, D.: Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol. Assess. 7(3), 309–319 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coertze, J., von Solms, R.: A model for information security governance in developing countries. In: Jonas, K., Rai, I.A., Tchuente, M. (eds.) AFRICOMM 2012. LNICST, vol. 119, pp. 279–288. Springer, Heidelberg (2013).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-41178-6_29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Davis, G.B.: Management Information Systems: Conceptual Foundations, Structure and Development. Mcgraw Hill Inc., NY (1974)Google Scholar
  17. deBakker, K., Boonstra, A., Workmann, H.: Does risk management contribute to IT project success? a meta-analysis of empirical evidence. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28, 493–503 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dekker, S.: The Field Guide to Human Error Investigations. Cranfield University Press, Bedford (2014)Google Scholar
  19. Drummond, H.: Riding a tiger: some lessons of taurus. Manag. Decis. 36(3), 141–146 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dwivedi, Y.K., Wastell, D., Henriksen, H.Z., De, R.: Guest editorial: grand successes and failures in IT: private and public sectors. Inf. Syst. Front. 17, 11–14 (2015a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dwivedi, Y.K., et al.: Research on information systems failures and successes: status update and future directions. Inf. Syst. Front. 17, 143–157 (2015b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ehrlinger, J., Johnson, K., Banner, M., Dunning, D., Kruger, J.: Why the unskilled are unaware: further explorations of (absent) self-insight among the incompetent. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Processes 105(1), 98–121 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eisenhardt, K.M.: Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Acad. Manag. J. 32, 543–576 (1989a)Google Scholar
  24. Eisenhardt, K.M.: Building theories from case study research. Acad. Manag. Rev. 14, 532–550 (1989b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Eisenhardt, K.M., Graebner, M.E.: Theory building from cases: opportunities and challenges. Acad. Manag. J. 50, 25–32 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Engelbrecht, J., Johnston, K.A., Hooper, V.: The influence of business managers’ IT competence on IT project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35, p994–p1005 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Eveleens, J.L., Verhoef, C.: The rise and fall of the chaos report figures. IEEE Softw. 27(1), 30–36 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Eveleens, L.: The rise and fall of the CHAOS report figures, pp. 1–23 (2009). http://www.cs.vu.nl/equity/
  29. Ewusi-Mensah, K.: Critical issues in abandoned information systems development projects. Commun. ACM 40(9), 74–80 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fitsilis, P., Damasiotis, V.: Software project’s complexity measurement: a case study. J. Softw. Eng. Appl. 8, 549–556 (2015).  https://doi.org/10.4236/jsea.2015.810052CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Flynn, B.B., Schroeder, R.G., Sakakibara, S.: A framework for quality management research and an associated measurement instrument. J. Oper. Manag. 11, 339–366 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Glaser, B.G.: Remodeling grounded theory. forum: qualitative social research. 5(2), Art. 4 (2004). http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:0114-fqs040245
  33. Grenny, J., Maxfield, D., Shimberg, A.: How project leaders can overcome the crisis of silence. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 48(4), 46–52 (2007)Google Scholar
  34. Hass, K.B.: The blending of traditional and agile project management. PM World Today 9(5), 1–8 (2007)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  35. Hawryszkiewycz, I.T.: Introduction to Systems Analysis and Design, 5th edn. Prentice Hall, Frenchs Forest (2001)Google Scholar
  36. Heath, H., Cowley, S.: Developing a grounded theory approach: a comparison of glaser and strauss. Int. J. Nurs. Stud. 41, 141–150 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hidding, G.J., Nicholas, J.M.: A new way of thinking about IT project management practices: early empirical results. J. Organ. Comput. Electron. Commer. 27(1), 81–95 (2017)Google Scholar
  38. Hoffer, J.A., Valacich, J.S., George, J.F.: Modern Systems Analysis and Design, 2nd edn. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass (1998)Google Scholar
  39. Hughes, D.L., Dwivedi, Y.K., Rana, N.P., Simintiras, A.C.: Information systems project failure – analysis of causal links using interpretive structural modelling. Prod. Plan. Control 27(16), 1313–1333 (2016a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hughes, D.L., Dwivedi, Y.K., Simintiras, A.C., Rana, N.P.: Success and Failure of IS/IT Projects. Springer Briefs in Information Systems. Springer, Cham (2016b).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23000-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Hughes, D.L., Rana, N.P., Simintiras, A.C.: The changing landscape of IS project failure: an examination of the key factors. J. Enterp. Inf. Manag. 30(1), 142–165 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Humphrey, W.S.: Why big software project fail: the 12 questions. CrossTalk, J. Defense Softw. Eng. 18(3), 25–29 (2005)Google Scholar
  43. IFIP WPG 8.6: International Federation for Information Professionals, Technical Committee 8, Working Group 6. http://ifipwg86.wikidot.com. Accessed 01 Jan 2018
  44. Ionescu, V.: The competencies of the CIO, a 2016 analysis of the United States of America Federal CIO Council Members Background. J. Defense Resour. Manag. 8(1) (2017)Google Scholar
  45. Jones, C.: Software project management practices: failure versus success. J. Defense Softw. Eng. 17, 5–9 (2004)Google Scholar
  46. Keil, M.: Pulling the Plug: software project management and the problem of Project escalation. MIS Q. 19, 421–447 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kimberlim, C.L., Winterstein, A.G.: Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. Am. J. Health-Syst. Pharm. 65, 2276–2284 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kozak-Holland, M.: The History of Project Management. Multi-Media Publications, Ontario (2011)Google Scholar
  49. Kremer, W.: Does Confidence Really Breed Success?. BBC World Service (2013). http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20756247. Accessed 01 Jan 2018
  50. Kruger, J., Dunning, D.: Unskilled and Unaware of It: how difficulties in recognising one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 77(6), 1121–1134 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lauden, K.C., Lauden, J.P.: Information Systems and the Internet: A Problem-Solving Approach, 4th edn. The Dryden Press, Orlando (1998)Google Scholar
  52. Lucas, H.C.: Implementation: The Key to Successful Information Systems. Columbia University Press, New York (1981)Google Scholar
  53. Maddison, R.N., Baker, G.J., Bhabuta, L., Fitzgerald, G., Hindle, K., Song, J.H.T.: Information System Methodologies. Wiley Heyden on behalf of British Computer Society (1983)Google Scholar
  54. Manning, P.K.: Goffman on organisations. Organ. Stud. 29, 677–699 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Marchand, D.A., Peppard, J.: Designed to fail: why it projects underachieve and what to do about it. Research Paper, vol. 11, pp. 1–28 (2008)Google Scholar
  56. Martin, V.B., Gynnild, A. (eds.): Grounded Theory: The Philosophy, Method and Work of Barney Glaser. Brown Walker Press, Florida (2011)Google Scholar
  57. Munns, A.K., Bjeirmi, B.F.: The role of project management in achieving project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 14(2), 81–87 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Nasir, M.H.N., Sahibuddin, S.: Addressing a critical success factor for software projects: a multi-round Delphi study of TSP. Int. J. Phys. Sci. 65(5), 1213–1232 (2011a)Google Scholar
  59. Nasir, M.H.N., Sahibuddin, S.: Critical success factors for software projects: a comparative study. Sci. Res. Essays 6(10), 2174–2186 (2011b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nickerson, R.C.: Business and Information Systems, 2nd edn. Prentice Hall, NJ (2001)Google Scholar
  61. Prater, J., Kirytopoulis, K., Ma, T.: Optimism bias within the project management context: a systematic quantitative literature review. Int. J. Managing Proj. Bus. 10(2), 370–385 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ryvkin, D., Krajc, M., Ortmann, A.: Are the unskilled doomed to remain unaware? J. Econ. Psychol. 33, 1012–1031 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Stake, R.E.: The Art of Case Study Research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks (1995)Google Scholar
  64. Standish Group International 1994: Chaos Technical Report. www.standishgroup.com
  65. Standish Group International 1995: Chaos Technical Report. www.standishgroup.com
  66. Standish Group International 1996: Chaos Technical Report. www.standishgroup.com
  67. Standish Group International 1999: Chaos: A Recipe for Success Technical Report. www.standishgroup.com
  68. Standish Group International 2001: Extreme Chaos. Technical Report. www.standishgroup.com
  69. Standish Group International 2009: Chaos Summary 2009: 10 Laws of CHAOS. www.standishgroup.com
  70. Standish Group International 2010: Chaos Summary for 2010. Technical Report. www.standishgroup.com
  71. Standish Group International 2013: Chaos Manifesto 2013: Think Big, Act Small. www.standishgroup.com
  72. Standish Group International 2014: Chaos Technical Report. www.standishgroup.com
  73. Standish Group International 2015: Chaos. Technical Report. www.standishgroup.com
  74. Subba Rao, S., Solis, L.E., Raghunathan, T.S.: A framework for international quality management research: Development and validation of a measurement instrument. Total Qual. Manag. 10(7), 1047–1075 (1999).  https://doi.org/10.1080/0954412997226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Thibodeau, P.: Pennsylvania sues IBM over troubled $110 M IT upgrade (2017). http://www.computerworld.com/article/3180325/it-industry/pennsylvania-sues-ibm-over-troubled-110m-it-upgrade.html. Accessed 01 June 2017
  76. Thomas, J., Mengel, T.: Preparing project managers to deal with complexity – Advanced project management education. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 26, 304–315 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Thornberg, R.: Informed grounded theory. Scand. J. Educ. Res. 56(3), 243–259 (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.581686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Twenge, J.M., Campbell, W.K.: The Narcissism Epidemic: Living in the Age of Entitlement. Free Press, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  79. Twenge, J.M., Foster, J.D.: Birth cohort increases in narcissistic personality traits among American college students, 1982–2009. Soc. Psychol. Pers. Sci. 1(1), 99–106 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vaughan, D.: The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture, and Deviance at NASA; With a New Preface. University of Chicago Press, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  81. V-Tran (2014)Google Scholar

Project Documents and Witness Statements

  1. WS003_20120531_KPMG_Report_dated_31_May_2012.pdfGoogle Scholar
  2. WS004_20120531_KPMG_Report.pdfGoogle Scholar
  3. WS013_20130225-Statement-of-Craig-Vayo.pdfGoogle Scholar
  4. WS014_20130225a_SWINSON,-John-signed-statement.pdfGoogle Scholar
  5. WS017_20130227_MANDER,-Robert-signed-statement.pdfGoogle Scholar
  6. WS024_20130228-Geoffrey-WAITE.pdfGoogle Scholar
  7. WS026_20130301a_BRADLEY_Gerard_Statement_signed.pdfGoogle Scholar
  8. WS032_20130305_SALOUK_witness-statement.pdfGoogle Scholar
  9. WS039_20130307_UHLMANN,-Gary-signed-statement.pdfGoogle Scholar
  10. WS043_20130317_BLAKENEY,-Maree-signed-statement.pdfGoogle Scholar
  11. WS085_20130507_Margaret-Berenyi.pdfGoogle Scholar
  12. WS104_20130523_LUCAS-Paul.pdfGoogle Scholar
  13. WS107_20130524a-Malcolm-Grierson.pdfGoogle Scholar
  14. WS116_20130611_Kalimnios-Shea-and-Brown.pdfGoogle Scholar
  15. WS118_20130617-POLLOCK-Brendan.pdfGoogle Scholar
  16. WS120_20130624_Submission-for-Contract-IBM-Australia.pdfGoogle Scholar
  17. WS122_20130731_royal_commission_report.pdfGoogle Scholar
  18. PD010_20070528 - HR Current System Maintenance and Support - Payroll and Rostering Risk Analysis with attachments.pdfGoogle Scholar
  19. PD063_20080911_Prog_42.pdfGoogle Scholar
  20. PD103_20090422-KJ-Ross-draft-report.pdfGoogle Scholar
  21. PD108_20090501_Queensland Audit Office.pdfGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swinburne Business SchoolMelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.RMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations