Advertisement

Escalation of Commitment: A Longitudinal Case Study of Daily Meetings

  • Viktoria Gulliksen Stray
  • Nils Brede Moe
  • Tore Dybå
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 111)

Abstract

Escalating commitment is a common and costly phenomenon in software projects in which decision-makers continue to invest resources to a failing course of action. We conducted a longitudinal case study exploring the effect of daily meetings on escalating commitment. This was done in an agile project building software for the oil and gas industry. By analyzing data collected over a period of four years, and drawing on concepts from self-justification theory we found that daily meetings contributed to maintain a situation of escalating commitment. This especially occurs if the meeting becomes a place for reporting and defending decisions with team members feeling that they have to justify their choices towards the project management or fellow team members. Early signs of escalation such as rationalizing continuation of a chosen course of action must therefore be taken seriously.

Keywords

Escalating commitment daily meetings stand-up Scrum self-justification theory agile software development 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Staw, B.: Knee-Deep in the Big Muddy: A Study of Escalating Commitment to a Chosen Course of Action. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 16(1), 27–44 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Robey, D., Keil, M.: Blowing the Whistle on Troubled Software Projects. Communications of the ACM 44(4), 87–93 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keil, M., Mann, J., Rai, A.: Why Software Projects Escalate: An Empirical Analysis and Test of Four Theoretical Models. MIS Quarterly 24(4), 631–664 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Keil, M.: Pulling the Plug: Software Project Management and the Problem of Project Escalation. MIS Quarterly 19(4), 421–447 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keil, M., Montealegre, R.: Cutting Your Losses: Extricating Your Organization When a Big Project Goes Awry. Sloan Management Review 41(3), 55–68 (2000)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moe, N.B., Aurum, A., Dybå, T.: Challenges of Shared Decision-Making: A Multiple Case Study of Agile Software Development. Information and Software Technology, 1–38 (in press, 2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moe, N.B., Dingsøyr, T., Dybå, T.: Overcoming Barriers to Self-Management in Software Teams. IEEE Software 26(6), 20–26 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Staw, B.M., Fox, F.V.: Escalation: The Determinants of Commitment to a Chosen Course of Action. Human Relations 30(5), 431–450 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bazerman, M.H., Giuliano, T., Appelman, A.: Escalation of Commitment in Individual and Group Decision Making. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 33(2), 141–152 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Whyte, G.: Escalating Commitment in Individual and Group Decision Making: A Prospect Theory Approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 54(3), 430–455 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J.: The Scrum Guide. Scrum Allience (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aurum, A., Wohlin, C., Porter, A.: Aligning Software Project Decisions: A Case Study. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 16(6), 795–818 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Simon, H.A.: A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 69(1), 99–118 (1955)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Morgan, G.: Images of Organizations. SAGE Publications, Thousand Oaks (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dybå, T.: Improvisation in Small Software Organizations. IEEE Software 17(5), 82–87 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lipshitz, R., Klein, G., Orasanu, J., Salas, E.: Taking Stock of Naturalistic Decision Making. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 14(5), 331–352 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fjellman, S.M.: Natural and Unnatural Decision-Making. Ethos 4(1), 73–94 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klein, G.: Naturalistic Decision Making. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 50(3), 456–460 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lunenburg, F.C.: Escalation of Commitment: Patterns of Retrospective Rationality. International Journal of Management, Business, and Administration 13(1), 1–5 (2010)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Keil, M., Rai, A., Cheney Mann, J., Zhang, G.: Why Software Projects Escalate: The Importance of Project Management Constructs. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 50(3), 251–261 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mähring, M., Keil, M.: Information Technology Project Escalation: A Process Model*. Decision Sciences 39(2), 239–272 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pan, G., Pan, S., Flynn, D.: De-Escalation of Commitment to Information Systems Projects: A Process Perspective. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems 13(3), 247–270 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pan, G., Pan, S., Newman, M., Flynn, D.: Escalation and De-Escalation of Commitment to Information Technology Projects: A Commitment Transformation Analysis of an E-Government Project. Information Systems Journal 16, 3–21 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brockner, J.: The Escalation of Commitment to a Failing Course of Action: Toward Theoretical Progress. Academy of Management Review 17(1), 39–61 (1992)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Montealegre, R., Keil, M.: De-Escalating Information Technology Projects: Lessons from the Denver International Airport. MIS Quarterly 24(3), 417–447 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mayur, S., Desai, D.V.C.: Escalation of Commitment in Mis Projects: A Meta-Analysis. International Journal of Management & Information Systems 13(2), 29–38 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Newman, M., Sabherwal, R.: Determinants of Commitment to Information Systems Development: A Longitudinal Investigation. MIS Quarterly 20(1), 23–54 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yin, R.K.: Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Sage, Thousand Oaks (2008)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dickinson, T.L., McIntyre, R.M.: A Conceptual Framework of Teamwork Measurement. In: Brannick, M.T., Salas, E., Prince, C. (eds.) Team Performance Assessment and Measurement: Theory, Methods, and Applications, pp. 19–43. Psychology Press, NJ (1997)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Moe, N.B., Dingsøyr, T., Dybå, T.: A Teamwork Model for Understanding an Agile Team: A Case Study of a Scrum Project. Information and Software Technology 52(5), 480–491 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jorgensen, D.L.: Participant Observation: A Methodology for Human Studies. Sage publications, Thousands Oak (1989)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bowen, M.G.: The Escalation Phenomenon Reconsidered: Decision Dilemmas or Decision Errors? Academy of Management Review 12(1), 52–66 (1987)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Heng, C.S., Tan, B.C.Y., Wei, K.K.: De-Escalation of Commitment in Software Projects: Who Matters? What Matters? Information & Management 41(1), 99–110 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Keil, M., Mähring, M.: Is Your Project Turning into a Black Hole? California Management Review 53(1), 6–31 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Viktoria Gulliksen Stray
    • 1
  • Nils Brede Moe
    • 2
  • Tore Dybå
    • 2
    • 1
  1. 1.University of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.SINTEFTrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations