Information Technology Project Management Research: Recent Developments and Opportunities
David J. Williamson Capella University
December 8, 2006
Abstract
Project management, and IT project management in particular, is complex and difficult. Literature and practice show IT projects are often late, over budget, unsuccessful, or canceled. One possible explanation for this poor track record is inadequate or ineffective project estimation. Another possi-ble explanation is the complexity inherent in IT projects themselves. Several key sources for recent developments in IT project management were assessed, including the Project Management Institute, the Software Engineering Institute, the Standish Group, and leading academic journals. While recent work on project management maturity models holds out the hope for increased project rationality and predictability, other recent research into IT project failure and agile project management sug-gests greater flexibility is required. The emerging field of chaos theory and complex adaptive systems provides models and theories which may be adapted to IT project management, in particular ad-dressing project organization, methodologies, and training and education.
roject management, and Information Technology (IT) project management in particular, is complex and difficult.
Literature and practical experience show IT projects are often late, over budget, unsuc-cessful, or canceled (Brooks, 1975; DeMarco & Lister, 1987; Glass, 1998; Iacovou, 1999; Johnson, 2006; Kappelman, McKeeman, & Zhang, 2006; Matta & Ashkenas, 2003; McDonald, 2001; Project Management Institute - Information Systems Specific Interest Group, 2002; Pyster & Thayer, 2005; Standish Group, 1994, 1999, 2001; Yourdon, 1997).
One possible explanation for this poor track record is inadequate or ineffective project estimation (McConnell, 1996, 2006; McDonald, 2001; Raghavan, 2003; Williamson, 2006). Another possible explana-tion is the complexity inherent in IT projects themselves (Churchman, 1967; Fitzgerald &
Bardyn, 2006; Hassan & Holt, 2003; Royce, 2005).
Key Sources on Current Thinking and New Developments
Evaluating sources of current thinking and new developments in IT project man-agement takes into consideration factors such as international geographic scope, IT and project management subject scope, research methods including the degree of peer review, and the research agenda focus on new devel-opments. Several sources and recent articles are reviewed below.
Project Management Institute
The U.S.-based Project Management In-stitute (PMI) is a leading international propo-nent of project management practice and re-search. It currently serves over 200,000 mem-bers in 125 countries, with over 200 chapters
P
IT Project Management Research Developments and Opportunities 2
and several specific interest groups and col-leges focusing on project management topics (Project Management Institute, 2005a).
While PMI’s scope covers project man-agement across many industries, IT project management is a significant part of its do-main. The Information Systems Specific In-terest Group (ISSIG) is the largest of PMI’s more than 30 SIGs. Its membership represents IT in many industries (PMI Information Systems Specific Interest Group, 2006).
Both PMI and the PMI-ISSIG sponsor project management research. Recent research projects undertaken by ISSIG included a compilation of qualitative IT project man-agement lessons learned from submissions by SIG members (Project Management Institute - Information Systems Specific Interest Group, 2002), and a sponsored university study of the quantitative effectiveness of IT outsourcing (Ko, Xia, & Lee, 2006).
Although neither study was formally peer-reviewed, ISSIG research has relevance for both scholars and practitioners. As an organi-zation representing current practitioners, IS-SIG facilitates the exchange of knowledge and best practices, and provides a cooperative community for both qualitative and quantita-tive research on IT project management.
The PMI research agenda is necessarily broader than that of the ISSIG, covering the field of project management as a whole:
The PMI Research Program encourages the continued exploration, discovery and defini-tion of project management knowledge. More-over, it seeks to identify venues in which this knowledge can be shared with all practition-ers so that it may be reduced to practice and enhance the specific skills of all who practice the profession (Project Management Institute, 2006b). Current sponsored research topics include
the interaction of personality type and project type, the effectiveness of post-project reviews, HR management in the project environment, the role of the executive sponsor, and under-standing the value of project management.
One project currently underway entitled Map-ping the Field of Complexity Theory, and Using One Concept of Complexity as an Interpretive Framework in Studying Projects and Project Management Practice addresses the impact of complexity theory on project success and failure, and project team dynamics (Project Management Institute, 2006a).
In addition to sponsoring research grants, PMI publishes the Project Management Journal, a peer-reviewed journal of project management research. Its mission is “to advance the state of the art of the knowledge of project, pro-gram and portfolio management” and to “achieve an editorial balance among philoso-phy, technique, theory, practice and commen-tary” (Project Management Journal, 2006). Furthermore:
Authors are expected to describe the epis-temological position(s) underlying their re-search approach(es) and theoretical concepts that give meaning to data, and to demonstrate how they are relevant to organizations. Papers that speculate beyond current thinking are more desirable than papers that use tried-and-true methods to study routine problems, or papers motivated strictly by data collection and analysis (Project Management Journal, 2006). Clearly, this description indicates a pre-ference for forward-thinking research that advances the state of the art of project man-agement theory and practice. The editorial policy also describes the peer review process in detail.
Recent issues of the PMJ have contained articles on project success and failure, align-ment with strategy, project control, project performance management, rewards, and change management. Only a few recent ar-ticles have appeared to address emerging project management theory such as critical research into project management (Cicmil, 2006; Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006) and complex systems (Ivory & Alderman, 2005).
PMI also sponsors and publishes the pro-ceedings of an annual Research Conference, and hosts a Project Management Research Community.
IT Project Management Research Developments and Opportunities 3
In summary, PMI is a leading international proponent of practitioner-focused and peer-reviewed research advancing project manage-ment. Information systems and information technology constitute its largest specific inter-est group.
International Project Management Association
The International Project Management Association (IPMA), a Swiss-registered organ-ization based in the Netherlands, is smaller than PMI but has a significant international presence nonetheless with 40,000 members in 40 countries.
IPMA does not target specific industries, but rather supports the profession as a whole. The IPMA vision statement specifically states its objective to position itself at the “forefront of the profession it serves and supports” (International Project Management Association, 2006b), a goal which it seeks to accomplish by attracting the “great minds” of project management and becoming the “lead-er in the evolution of the profession and the maturity of its practice” (International Project Management Association, 2006b).
The IPMA Research Management Board (RMB) offers support for project manage-ment research and development, advocating a central resource for PM researchers and pro-viding publishing outlets ranging from the practitioner-oriented Project Management Practice to the peer-reviewed International Journal of Project Management (IJPM) (International Project Management Association, 2006a).
Despite a smaller parent organization, IJPM appears to advance the state of project management research more often than PMI’s Project Management Journal. The Capella li-brary holds IJPM from 2001 to present. A recent issue targeted at the future of project management research addressed uncertainty, process, scope management, research direc-tions, practitioner development, and the role of formal bodies of knowledge in defining a profession. An earlier issue addressed the role
of intuition and improvisation (Leybourne & Sadler-Smith, 2006).
Though a smaller organization overall, IPMA is more research-focused than PMI and has a reputation for drawing more leading-edge thinkers. It also advances a more interna-tional approach and readership.
Standish Group
The Standish Group is a private research institute focused on IT value, risk, and cost. Its geographic scope is limited to the United States. It is most recognized for its series of reports on IT project failure (Johnson, 2006; Standish Group, 1994, 1999, 2001; Standish Group International Inc., 2001). The typical Chaos Report cites IT project failure rates ap-proaching 70% and typical schedule overruns of 150% to more than 200% (Standish Group, 1994).
Standish’s research is widely read and fre-quently quoted, but it is not peer-reviewed. Its practitioner focus helps advance the cause of IT process improvement and sell consulting services. Its most effect contribution is to raise awareness of the ubiquity of project management problems in information tech-nology and provide both incentive and justifi-cation for process improvement.
Software Engineering Institute
The Software Engineering Institute (SEI) is a U.S. government funded research and de-velopment institute associated with Carnegie Mellon University. It advances an academic and practitioner-driven research agenda through primary research, solution and stan-dards development, pilot programs, and li-censing and distribution.
SEI’s Software Engineering Process Man-agement Program (SEPM) is the research group that produces the internationally recog-nized Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) framework for software and IT process assessment and improvement. Its published purpose is “to help organizations such as yours to improve their software engi-
IT Project Management Research Developments and Opportunities 4
neering capabilities and to develop or acquire the right software, defect free, within budget and on time, every time” (Software Engineering Institute, 2006a).
SEI’s vision and mission for software process optimization represents the applica-tion of standardization and rationalization: “The SEI advances software engineering and related disciplines to ensure the development and operation of systems with predictable and improved cost, schedule, and quality” (Software Engineering Institute, 2006b).
Recent Articles and Leading Journals
Kloppenborg and Opfer (2002) evaluated the state of project management research pub-lished in English from 1960 to 1999 with the help of 92 people investing over 6,000 hours. They began with the admirable and ambitious objective of first defining project management research. After then identifying sources of data, they categorized and evaluated to extract trends and identify candidates to be recog-nized as best articles. Applying these criteria, they then suggested and predicted future di-rections for PM research.
Findings included the observation that 60% of the research cites the 1990s, 29% was from the 1980s, and only 8% cited the 1960s and 1970s. Project management research is clearly a young field.
Construction and information systems were tied at 21% as the most frequently cited industries. Interestingly, this could contribute to the present dichotomy of best methods in project management where some researchers and practitioners advocate structured, rational methods (Kerzner, 2006; Paulk, Curtis, Chrisis, & Weber, 1993) while others maintain complexity must be addressed with more agile and flexible approaches (Ceschi, Sillitti, Succi, & De Panfilis, 2005; Lindstrom & Jeffries, 2004; Thomsett, 2002).
The most frequently addressed knowledge area was cost management (28%), followed closely by time and schedule management (24%). The least frequently addressed topics
were human resources and procurement (both 4%). These proportions suggest, not surpri-singly, that the greatest attention in project management research has been paid to time and money at the unfortunate expense of re-search focus on project human resources—the people doing the work. This is contrasted with recent findings that the project team it-self is the single most important factor in project success (DeMarco & Lister, 1987; Frame, 1994; Mintzberg, 2004).
Perhaps highlighting a gap between scho-lars and practitioners, only 1% of project management research between 1960 and 1999 was focused on project execution. The other 99% addressed planning, control, leadership, and process improvement, which are all of significant importance to practitioners, but the imbalance illustrates a possible difference in priorities between academics and practitioners (Bossidy & Charan, 2002).
Disappointingly, the authors’ predictions of the future of project management ad-dressed developments in project management practice, but not in project management re-search. Instead of identifying possible para-digm changes or significant contributions to project management research, their recom-mendations and predictions largely amounted to more of the same.
On the other hand, Jugdev (2004) ad-dressed the current state of theory develop-ment in project management. She pointed out the relative youth of project management as a discipline, even though it has a long history of practice. As a discipline, it still lacks a sound theoretical basis, which she addresses by ap-plying the Resource-Based View (Collis & Montgomery, 1995; Eisenhardt & Schoenhauer, 1996; Lieberman & Montgomery, 1998; Rivard, Raymond, & Verreault, 2006; Wernerfelt, 1984).
Jugdev criticized the Project Management Journal for a lack of rigor, citing Meredith’s (2002) observations that 63% of the Project Management Journal articles between 1995 and 2001 were of low methodological rigor and only 3% were of high rigor. She suggested
IT Project Management Research Developments and Opportunities 5
that a stronger emphasis on theory generation could advance the field from primarily practi-tioner-driven normative and prescriptive ap-proaches based on anecdotal evidence to a more structured body of knowledge based on literature, frameworks, and evolving theory (Jugdev, 2004).
Extending the call for a sounder theoreti-cal basis, Cicmil (Cicmil, 2006; Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006) applied critical methods to project management research. Criticizing the field for its “functional, instrumental view of projects” (p. 111), Cicmil suggested even prac-titioners see the limitations of such a mecha-nistic view. Accordingly, she called for in-creased attention to the non-mainstream so-cial and human aspects of project manage-ment.
For Cicmil, the irony of the projectized organization was epitomized in management’s praise of projects as flexible and versatile ap-proaches to organizational opportunities and problems, yet simultaneous emphasis on pre-dictability, repeatability, and control. As Stan-dish (1994, 1999, 2001; 2001), Glass (1998), and others have reported, applying project management processes does not eliminate project failure or guarantee project success. While many in industry and academe have asserted that project failure can be reduced by more and better process, Cicmil (2006) criti-cized this approach:
Nonetheless, the response to this crisis has so far been a yet-greater emphasis on technicist solutions, quantitative methodologies, positiv-ist methodologies, and a stronger reliance on instrumental rationality (p. 115). She and others (Bardyn & Fitzgerald, n.d.;
Larry L. Constantine, 2001; De Meyer, Loch, & Pich, 2000; Fitzgerald & Bardyn, 2006; Hassan & Holt, 2003; McBride, 2005; Singh & Singh, 2002) have suggested a new paradigm is needed for projects with high uncertainty and complexity—one that combines the criti-cal view’s emphasis on human rights and so-cial experience, with the growing recognition that complex organisms like project teams and
the organizations that house them are more emergent than rational.
In addition to the Project Management Journal and the International Journal of Project Management, other leading journals in IT project management include the Communications of the ACM, Computer Science Education, Cost Engineering, Harvard Business Review, IEEE Software, Information Systems Journal, Information Systems Management, Journal of Information Technology, Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Management Science, and MIT Sloan Management Review.
Significance of New Developments in IT Project Management
Recent developments in IT project man-agement have followed the increasingly diver-gent paths of more structure vs. less structure. The growing popularity of project manage-ment maturity models indicates a demand for greater structure, while a simultaneous trend toward more agile project management me-thods indicates certain types of IT projects may be suited for less structure. At the leading edge, some researchers are investigating the applicability of chaos theory and complex adaptive systems to IT project management.
Project Management Maturity Models
Typically taking their inspiration from the SEI Capability Maturity Model (Paulk, et al., 1993), project management maturity models have gained favor in recent years (Kerzner, 2004, 2006; Project Management Institute, 2004b). The Organizational Project Manage-ment Maturity Model (OPM3) is the Project Management Institute’s (2004b) entry to the field.
Maturity models represent a progression from unstructured chaos to structured ratio-nality. Underlying their popularity is the as-sumption that software development and project management are rational pursuits, and such a progression is desirable. A common analogy likens software projects to construc-
IT Project Management Research Developments and Opportunities 6
tion projects (Brooks, 1975), but they are in-herently much more complex. Software is in-tangible, abstract, and exempt from the laws of physics, while even the most complex building is constructed in three dimensions in the physical world (Griffin, 1996). New soft-ware development deals primarily with un-knowns and is more like research and devel-opment than is construction (Day, 2000; Harrison, 2005).
Agile Project Management
Agile project management is an approach for addressing software’s inherent complexity. Ambler (2002, 2006) was instrumental in in-troducing and propagating the approach, which uses models to capture and manage requirements, and prototypes to elicit further requirements specificity. Finalization of the delivered product is delayed to accommodate the change that is inevitable in software projects.
Other agile methods include SCRUM (Ward, Fayad, & Laitinen, 2001), the Team Software Process (DeGrace & Stahl, 1990; Yourdon, 1997), and eXtreme Programming (Lindstrom & Jeffries, 2004; Thomsett, 2002).
Chaos Theory and Complex Adaptive Systems
Chaos theory (CT) was discovered in the early 1960s through observation of meteoro-logical phenomena and their seemingly ran-dom behavior (Lorenz, 1963). The butterfly effect is a popular analogy which uses the anal-ogy that a butterfly flapping its wings in China can cause rain in Central Park through high sensitivity to initial conditions and seemingly random propagation of effects (Lorenz, 1993).
More formally, Lorenz (1993) defines chaos with reference to this sensitivity to ini-tial conditions:
Returning to chaos, we may describe it as be-havior that is deterministic, or is nearly so…but does not look deterministic…What can readily happen is…that almost, but not quite, identical states occurring on two occa-sions will appear to be just alike, while the
states that follow…will be observably differ-ent…Systems in which this is the case are said to be sensitively dependent on initial conditions. With a few more qualifications… sensitive dependence can serve as an accepta-ble definition of chaos, and it is the one that I shall choose (p. 8). Anyone who has ever worked on a project
recognizes the concept of very similar projects progressing to widely divergent outcomes. Lorenz further described such systems as dy-namical, or operating with a degree of ran-domness within certain limits or around cer-tain attractors.
Complex adaptive systems (Gleick, 1988; Holland, 1992; Lewin, 1992; Stackman, Henderson, & Bloch, 2006) are the next evo-lution of systems theory (Boulding, 1956; Churchman, 1968). Applied to organizations, systems theory has historically identified three types of organizations: closed or rational sys-tems, natural systems, and open systems (Scott, 2003).
The rational systems perspective can be characterized by goal specificity and formali-zation (Scott, 2003). Goals identify desired results and provide criteria for choosing among multiple alternatives. Formalization establishes roles that are independent of the characteristics of the people who occupy them. According to PMI, this is a relatively accurate description of the desired state of a project team (Project Management Institute, 2004a).
The natural systems perspective recogniz-es that organizations have both formal and informal goals and structure. Rather than fo-cusing only on the normative, prescriptive dimensions, the natural systems perspective emphasizes organizational actions and the be-havioral structure (Scott, 2003).
The transition from the rational view to the natural view is analogous to paying more attention to the soft issues of project man-agement. It recognizes that there are people carrying out the tasks, and their performance and individual characteristics influence the performance of the project.
IT Project Management Research Developments and Opportunities 7
Both the rational systems view and the natural systems view portray organizations as closed systems, examining only the interac-tions that occur within their boundaries. The open systems view broadens this perspective and considers an organization's interaction with its environment as an essential part of its existence (Katz & Kahn, 1966; Scott, 2003). In addition, cybernetic systems are open sys-tems that have the ability to regulate their own state through feedback loops.
Applying the open systems view to a project team recognizes its potential for changing the project definition, objectives, structure, schedule, processes etc. in response to feedback from the project’s environment.
While the open systems view recognizes a degree of changeability in an organization or a project, it is still a deterministic model. Com-plex adaptive systems represent the next level of the evolution of our understanding of or-ganisms and organizations. Complex adaptive systems (CAS) are those that restructure them-selves in response to the environment (Holland, 1992). CAS theory, combined with chaos theory’s sensitivity to initial conditions and apparently non-deterministic behavior, yields a view of a project as an evolving or-ganism responding to environmental changes and allowing the order inherent in the prob-lems itself to emerge and guide the project’s direction and progress.
Implications of Chaos Theory in IT Project Management
The growing bifurcation in the application of structure and rigor to IT project manage-ment thus has a third alternative—emergent order as described in chaos theory and com-plex adaptive systems theory.
Dolan, Garcia, and Auerbach (2003) and Wheatley (1999) applied the principles of chaos theory and complex adaptive systems to organizations. Dolan, Garcia, and Auerbach described the differences between the tradi-tional approach and the complexity approach to organization and management in a factory
setting. Implications were broad and revolu-tionary. They suggested the perception of li-near cause and effect was inappropriate, even in a highly automated manufacturing envi-ronment. Systems reactions were largely un-predictable. Furthermore, trying to eliminate chaos was counterproductive. Chaos can be used instead to self-organize the system. Fi-nally, chaos theory recognizes the existence of fuzzy logic rather than binary, either-or choic-es for action (Dolan, et al., 2003). Wheatley (1999) suggested that control of an organiza-tion is an illusion, and the task of leadership is to recognize emerging order and capitalize upon it.
Doherty and Delener (2001) extended the application of chaos theory and CAS to mar-keting management. Designing a marketing model with chaos theory characteristics, they assessed its influence on organization struc-ture, innovation and diversity, rivalry and strategy within industries, and forecasting and long range planning.
Griffin (1996) applied CT and CAS to construction project management, and Singh & Singh (2002) described elements of CT and CAS in project execution.
The first apparent application of CT and CAS to IT project management was in a joint paper by two former Bell System employees (Bardyn & Fitzgerald, 1996). They described a large scale systems implementation project wherein they allowed the order inherent in the situation to emerge during the course of the project and drive the project planning, devel-opment, and deployment process. Somewhat tongue in cheek, they related the frustration of having to maintain a detailed schedule that looked nothing like what was actually happen-ing on the project.
Since this groundbreaking effort, it has become increasingly apparent that while the traditional, engineering approach to project management is effective for certain industries and certain types of projects, the relatively high proportion of unknowns vs. knowns in IT project management and particularly new software development makes prescriptive,
IT Project Management Research Developments and Opportunities 8
task-focused methodologies less effective and sometimes counterproductive (Bardyn & Fitzgerald, n.d.; Churchman, 1967; Fitzgerald & Bardyn, 2006; Griffin, 1996; Hassan & Holt, 2003; Lewin, 1992; Pich, Loch, & De Meyer, 2002). Even the Project Management Institute is currently investigating the potential applications of chaos theory (Project Management Institute, 2005b).
Research Opportunities in Chaos Theory and IT Project Management
Chaos theory and the study of complex adaptive systems have the potential to yield important insights for addressing complexity in IT project management (Bardyn & Fitzgerald, 1996, n.d.; Fitzgerald & Bardyn, 2006; Holland, 1992; Lewin, 1992; Mueller, 2004; Peculis, 2005; Pich, et al., 2002; Stites, 1994; Stoltz, 2004; Werbos, 2000), especially in the areas of project organization structure, project life cycles and methodologies, and project management training and education.
Project Organization Structures
Underlying nearly every project organiza-tion chart is the presupposition of resource fungibility, or the assumption that people with similar skill sets are interchangeable on projects. This by-product of the industrial revolution runs counter to the experience of most project managers, yet it persists in project planning and staffing.
Research into the influence of individual characteristics and interactions between project team members may yield a new theory of project staffing that goes beyond role-based staffing to a more synergistic and holis-tic approach. Currently, project staffing is typ-ically performed much less intentionally than permanent staffing, yet the significance of business strategy execution through projects continues to grow (Dietrich & Lehtonen, 2005; Kinsey, 2005; Milosevic & Srivannaboon, 2006; Srivannaboon & Milosevic, 2006).
This mismatch between the importance of projects and the lackadaisicalness of project staffing offers an opportunity for developing better models. Some candidate approaches could include the Gallup Q12 measure of en-gagement (Thackray, 2001), better attention to team development (DeMarco & Lister, 1987), and the effects of project team virtualization (Davenport & Pearlson, 1998; Goncalves, 2006; Scholz, 2003).
Project Life Cycles and Methodologies
Prescriptive, normative methodologies clearly have appropriate uses on certain types of projects (Conradi, 1997; L. L. Constantine, 1993; Kerzner, 2006; Project Management Institute, 2004a), but more flexible and adap-tive methodologies appear to work better for projects with high degrees of uncertainty (Ambler, 2002; Ceschi, et al., 2005; Frame, 1994; Royce, 2005; Thomsett, 2002). Research into the specific characteristics of projects that influence the potential outcomes of various methodologies and life cycles could help acce-lerate the adoption of multiple and scalable life cycles for different types and sizes of projects.
Project Management Training and Education
Finally, if a significant portion of projects fit a chaos theory and complex adaptive sys-tems model, then our current approach to project management training and education is at least half wrong. Personal experience with training and mentoring project managers up to and including obtaining PMI’s Project Management Professional (PMP) certification has indicated there is PMI way of managing project, and a real world way of managing projects. Projects rarely, or essentially never, go according to plan. Projects with inherent change beyond the team and project manag-er’s ability to process, cope with, and plan quickly degenerate into unplanned projects.
Research into the appropriate level of project planning for projects of differing de-grees of complexity and uncertainty could
IT Project Management Research Developments and Opportunities 9
help make the planning process less futile and help set better management expectations for project success (Cook, 2005).
Conclusion
Project management is an old practice but a young discipline; IT project management is even younger. Prescriptive, normative, rational, engineering approaches to IT project management are appropriate in some cases but not in others. Projects with a high degree of uncertainty appear to be particularly suited for a different approach. Chaos theory and complex adaptive systems theory offer the most promising alternatives for a new approach to IT project management that incorporates and capitalizes on the inherent complexity and emergent order of complex projects.
Research opportunities are numerous, but organization structure, methodologies, and training and education present the greatest opportunities for leverage and change. As suggested by Cicmil (Cicmil, 2006; Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006), traditional mechanistic approaches to project management organization ignore the reality that project teams consist of people. Emerging forms of organization, more adaptive methodologies, and training and education that recognizes the chaos and complexity of project management are the best current alternatives for improving IT project performance over the next few decades.
References
IT Project Management Research Developments and Opportunities 10
