Involve users or fail: An IT project case study from east ...usir.salford.ac.uk/31785/4/proctor_article_IJITPM_4(4).pdf · Sam Takavarasha Jr., Department of Computer Science, Faculty

Involve users or fail: An IT project case study from east Africa

Procter, CT and Businge, M

http://dx.doi.org/10.4018/ijitpm.2013100103

Title Involve users or fail: An IT project case study from east Africa

Authors Procter, CT and Businge, M

Type Article

URL This version is available at: http://usir.salford.ac.uk/31785/

Published Date 2013

USIR is a digital collection of the research output of the University of Salford. Where copyright permits, full text material held in the repository is made freely available online and can be read, downloaded and copied for noncommercial private study or research purposes. Please check the manuscript for any further copyright restrictions.

For more information, including our policy and submission procedure, pleasecontact the Repository Team at: [email protected].

mailto:[email protected]

October-December 2013, Vol. 4, No. 4

Special Issue on the Socio-Psychological and CulturalAspects of InformationTechnologyProjectManagement

GuestEditorialPreface

iv Terry T. Kidd, College of Business, University of Houston-Downtown, Houston, TX, USA Carolyn Ashe, College of Business, University of Houston-Downtown, Houston, TX, USA

ResearchArticles1 AJourney through theWilderness:AnAutoethnographicStudyof theERPSystemImplementationProcessAs

CreatedbyITProjectManagersandTeamMembers TerryT.Kidd,CollegeofBusiness,UniversityofHouston-Downtown,Houston,TX,USA CarolynAshe,CollegeofBusiness,UniversityofHouston-Downtown,Houston,TX,USA NatashaCarroll,UniversityofHouston-Downtown,Houston,TX,USA

35 PositivePsychologyinInformationTechnologyProjectManagement:TheCaseofBadNewsReporting JosephNatovich,SchoolofBusinessAdministration,CollegeofManagement-AcademicStudies,RishonLetzion,Israel ZeevDerzy,SchoolofBusinessAdministration,CollegeofManagement-AcademicStudies,RishonLetzion,Israel RachelNatovich,KreitmanSchoolforAdvancedGraduateStudies,BenGurionUniversity,Israel

51 InvolveUsersorFail:AnITProjectCaseStudyfromEastAfrica ChrisProcter,SalfordBusinessSchool,UniversityofSalford,Manchester,UK MollyBusinge,SalfordBusinessSchool,UniversityofSalford,Manchester,UK

66 AnITProjectManagementFrameworkforAssessingtheDynamismofCultureunderGlobalization: EvidencefromZimbabwe SamTakavarashaJr.,DepartmentofComputerScience,FacultyofScience,UniversityofZimbabwe,Harare,Zimbabwe GilfordHapanyengwi,DepartmentofComputerScience,UniversityofZimbabwe,Harare,Zimbabwe DonaldChimanikire,InstituteofDevelopmentStudies,DepartmentofSocialStudies,FacultyofSocialStudies,Universityof Zimbabwe,Harare,Zimbabwe GabrielKabanda,ZimbabweOpenUniversity,Harare,Zimbabwe

82 ExploringtheImpactofTeambasedRewardonProjectPerformanceinOutsourcedSystemDevelopment NeerajParolia,Departmentofe-BusinessandTechnologyManagement,TowsonUniversity,Towson,MD,USA GaryKlein,CollegeofBusinessandAdministration,UniversityofColorado,ColoradoSprings,CO,USA JamesJ.Jiang,CollegeofManagement,NationalTaiwanUniversity,Taipei,Taiwan

93 TheEffectsofProjectManagementCertificationontheTripleConstraint JosephT.Catanio,DepartmentofManagementInformationSystems,JohnL.GroveCollegeofBusiness,ShippensburgUniversity, Shippensburg,PA,USA GaryArmstrong,DepartmentofManagementInformationSystems,JohnL.GroveCollegeofBusiness,ShippensburgUniversity, Shippensburg,PA,USA JoanneTucker,DepartmentofSupplyChainManagement,JohnL.GroveCollegeofBusiness,ShippensburgUniversity,Shippensburg, PA,USA

BookReview112 ComparingHighTechnologyFirmsinDevelopedandDevelopingCountries:ClusterGrowthInitiatives AdedejiBadiru,AirForceInstituteofTechnology,Dayton,OH,USA

InternatIonal Journal of InformatIon technology

ProJect management

Table of Contents

CopyrightTheInternational Journal of Information Technology Project Management (ISSN1938-0232;eISSN1938-0240).Copyright©2013IGIGlobal.Allrights,includingtranslationintootherlanguagesreservedbythepublisher.Nopartofthisjournalmaybereproducedorusedinanyformorbyanymeanswithoutwrittenpermissionfromthepublisher,exceptfornoncommercial,educationaluseincludingclassroomteachingpurposes.Productorcompanynamesusedinthisjournalareforidentificationpurposesonly.InclusionofthenamesoftheproductsorcompaniesdoesnotindicateaclaimofownershipbyIGIGlobalofthetrademarkorregisteredtrademark.TheviewsexpressedinthisjournalarethoseoftheauthorsbutnotnecessarilyofIGIGlobal.

The International Journal of Information Technology Project Management is currently listedor indexed in:ACMDigitalLibrary;Bacon’sMediaDirectory;DBLP;GoogleScholar;INSPEC;JournalTOCs;Library&InformationScienceAbstracts(LISA);MediaFinder;TheStandardPeriodicalDirectory;Ulrich’sPeriodicalsDirectory

International Journal of Information Technology Project Management, 4(4), 51-65, October-December 2013 51

Copyright©2013,IGIGlobal.CopyingordistributinginprintorelectronicformswithoutwrittenpermissionofIGIGlobalisprohibited.

ABSTRACTRepeated surveys, and most notably those by the Standish Group, suggest that a substantial proportion of Information Technology (IT) projects fail. The literature suggests that this is in part due to a lack of user in-volvement in the project. The authors’ research describes the case study of a major IT system implementation project in East Africa. The paper reports on the results of both an online questionnaire and interviews with key participants. The authors’ findings suggest that the subsequent failure of this project was in large part attributable to a lack of user involvement in the definition of requirements and implementation of the system. There did not appear to be an organisational culture that recognised the significance of such participation in the project. Although there are issues of definition raised, such as the definition of success and failure, this work supports previous findings that user involvement is a key factor in IT project success and failure.

Involve Users or Fail:An IT Project Case Study from East Africa

Chris Procter, Salford Business School, University of Salford, Manchester, UK

Molly Businge, Salford Business School, University of Salford, Manchester, UK

Keywords: Information Technology (IT), IT Project Management in East Africa, Project Failure, Project Success, User Participation

INTRODUCTION

ThispaperexaminestheimplementationofanewITsystemintoabankinEastAfrica.Overtheyearsthebankhadautomatedseveralopera-tionsbasedonindividualuserordepartmentalinformation.Thesystemsthatwerebeingusedwere on several platforms that needed to bemerged.The bank required an IT system tostreamline its operations and also to reducefraudthatwasrisingasaresultofincreasingmarketactivity.Theprojectwasmanagedbyaprojectteamincludingtheprojectmanager,whowasalsotheheadofITinthebank,membersfromtheboardofdirectors,andsomeoftheheadsofdepartment.Theprojectinvolvedthe

implementationofaManagementInformationSystem(MIS)thatwastoconsolidate,stream-lineandautomateallprocessesintheinvestmentbank.Thebudgetedcostoftheprojectwasabout$4,000,000andthiswasforbothhardwareandsoftware,exclusiveofrecurrentlicenses.Dur-ingthecourseoftheproject,costsincreasedtoanestimated$5,350,000partlyduetothe20%yearlylicensefeelateragreedwiththesupplier.

Theprojectwasestimatedtotakeaperiodofsixmonths to implement.Howeverat thetime itwas stopped, ithadbeen running foraboutoneyear.Allbudgetaryallocationshadbeenstoppedbymanagement.Thehardwarecomponent of the project was about 85%implementedbutthesoftwarecomponent,thegreaterpartofthewholeproject,waslargelynotimplemented.

DOI:10.4018/ijitpm.2013100103


52 International Journal of Information Technology Project Management, 4(4), 51-65, October-December 2013

The author worked as an ICT systemsadministrator representing the branch of herbank during the project.The researcherwasparticularly interested, from her experience,in the human factors that contributed to thefailureoftheprojectandthusapproachedkeystakeholders with a view to participating inresearchwhichsoughttoestablishthelevelofuserinvolvementintheproject,andtherela-tionshipbetweenthisandtheprojectoutcome.Thispersonalinvolvement,andthesignificantroleplayedbyafewkeystakeholderssuggestedqualitative research (discussed further in thesection onmethodology). Creswell’s widelycitedworkonqualitativeresearchdesign(2007)suggeststhecasestudyasoneofthefivevalidapproachesfordesigningqualitativeresearch.Thus the research examines the project as acase study inwhichweaim toanswer threeresearchquestions:

1. WhatisthelinkbetweenuserinvolvementandITprojectsuccess?

2. Howdidtheusersdescribetheirinvolve-mentintheproject?

3. Whatissueswerevoicedorsharedrelat-ingtohowuserinvolvementinfluencesaproject?

Thepaperthuscommenceswithadiscus-sionon thedefinitionofprojectsuccessandfailure,which isakeyconcept in thispaperandacontestedfield.ItthendiscussestheroleofusersanduserinvolvementinITprojects.It goes on to examine literature concerningthe significance of users in IT projects, thebenefits and costs of user involvement andmore detailed issues such as how andwhentoinvolveusers.Thepaperdescribesthecasestudyandtheorganisationofaquestionnaireandinterviewstoelicittheviewsofthosewhotookpartintheproject.Thepaperpresentsthefindingsfromthisresearchanddiscussesthefindingswithconclusionsincludingsuggestionsforfuturework.

LITERATURE

IT Project Success/Failure

ThefailurerateofITprojectshasbeenanareaofgreatconcernfromtheearliestdaysofsoftwareengineeringandhas resulted in a significantbodyofresearchinvestigatingthereasonsforfailure (Agarwal & Rathod, 2006; StandishChaosreport,2009).The2009StandishGroupChaosreport,forexample,showedadeclineinthenumberofsuccessfulITprojectsto32%withthosethatwere“challenged”at44%whilsttheremaining24%wereconsideredasfailedprojects. This report explained that in 2009compared to the previous years therewas adeclineinsuccessrates.Infactthereportstatedthattheresultsin2009indicatedthe“highestfailurerates”inalongtime(StandishChaosreport,2009).

User involvement has been ranked asoneof the top factors thatdetermineprojectsuccess or failure: for example in the 1995report, user involvementwas rankedhighestasthemostsignificantcontributorofprojectsuccessorfailure.The2000,2001and2009reports indicateduser involvementasoneofthekeyexplanationsastowhyprojectsfailorsucceed.“Lackofuserinvolvementhasbeenthenumberonecontributortoprojectfailure.Evenwhendeliveredontimeandonbudgetaprojectcanfailifitdoesnotmeetuserneedsorexpectations”(StandishChaosreport,2001).Defining ITProjectSuccessSuch reportsofcourse presuppose an agreed definition ofprojectsuccess.However,thereisnocommondefinitionforsuccessandfailure(Thomas&Fernandez, 2008).Wang and Huang (2005)suggesttherearedifferentmeaningsattachedtoprojectsuccess.Forexample,Thonget al(1996),defineITprojectsuccessasthedegreetowhichaparticularprojectenablesanorganisa-tiontomeetitsstatedgoals.HeandKing(2008)termITprojectsuccessasthewaythesystemworksingeneralinlinewithhowefficientandusefulitis,whileDeWit(1988)arguedthataprojectisgenerallyasuccesswhenalltechnicalspecificationshavebeenmetandthedifferent



stakeholderexpectationshavebeensatisfied.Itisclearthatthewayonepersonlooksanddefineswhatasuccessfulprojectisvariesfromanotherperson’sview(Shenharet al.,2001).It iswhat thedifferentstakeholdersperceiveassuccessthatisofgreatsignificance(Bakeret al.,1983).

Whilst this position has greatmerit, forthepurposesofthispaperitissafetorelyuponthetraditionalandwidelyaccepteddefinitiongiven by Powers andDickson (1973).Theydefine ITproject successasaproject that isdeliveredontime,withinbudgetandmeetsuserrequirements.Thisisreferredtoasthe“Goldentriangle”(Kerzner,1994)orthe“Irontriangle”(Bryde&Robinson,2005)

User Involvement

Thetermuserisdeployeddifferentlyde-pendingonthecontextitisusedin.Damodaran(1996)statesthatusersarepeoplethatwillintheendownthesystemthatisbeingimplementedwhile the PMBOK (2004) categorises usersasstakeholderswhowillutilisethe“project’sproductsorservices”.Severaldifferentuserscanberecognized:

• Seniormanagementthatuseinformationfromthesystemtomakestrategicdecisions

• Middle management who observe andcontrolanyworkthatwillandisperformedbythesystem

• Employees who perform tasks on thesystemdaily(Cavaye,1995).

Thetermuserinvolvementhasbeenusedinterchangeably with terms such as “userparticipation” (Wu&Marakas, 2006), “userengagement”(Chan&Pan,2008)and“repre-sentingtheuser”(Iivari,2006)amongothers.Folstad,et al(2004),defineuserinvolvementas “the activities in the information systemsdevelopmentprocesswhereinformationaboutusersiscollected,orusersareactivelyinvolvedintherequirementsengineering,constructionordevelopmentphaseoftheproject”(p.25).Userinvolvementisalsodefinedastheactualinteractionwithusersduringsystemdesignand

implementation(Kujala,2003)andwhereusersgettoparticipateintheprocessesandactivitiesduringthedevelopmentofanewsystem.Thisdefinitionsummarises theuseof the terminthispaper.

TheideaofuserinvolvementinthedesignofthesystemstheywoulduseisnotparticularornewlycreatedbyIT.AlvinTofflerfamouslypredictedinhisbook‘TheThirdWave’(Toffler1980)theadventofthe‘prosumer’–i.e.pro-activeconsumerswhowouldhelpdesignthegoodsandservicestheywouldlateruse.InWebdevelopmentuserparticipation in thedesignanduseofsystemshasbecomewidelyacceptedwithadoptionofthetermWeb2.0coinedbyO’Reilly(2007).

The Significance of User Involvement In IT Projects

The Information Systems literature agreesthat user involvement is a really importantissue.ResearchinITprojectmanagementandsoftware development demonstrate the needfor user involvement and suggests that thegreaterendusers’participationinthedevelop-ment process, the easier the implementationof the project (Harris &Weistroffer, 2009).AccordingtoDamodaran(1996),lackoruserinvolvementorinsufficientuserinvolvementinITprojects,especiallywhenitcomestothedesignprocesshasbeensaidtobeoneofthetopmostreasonsastowhyprojectsfailtomeetthedesiredoutcomes.Hasan(1999)discussesthesignificanceoftheimpactoforganisationalcultureintheadoptionofIT,andthisismorefullyreviewedbyLeidnerandKayworth(2006).Heeks(2002)discussesthesignificanceofor-ganisationalcultureinrelationtoprojectsuccessandfailureinInformationSystemsprojectsindevelopingcountries,buttheliteratureinthisfieldisverylimited.Thebenefitsofinvolvinguserscaninclude:

• Improvedsystemquality• Increased system acceptance and

satisfaction• Clearerdefinitionofuserrequirements



How to Involve Users in IT Projects

Thereisconsiderablediscussiononhowuserscanbeinvolvedininformationsystemdevel-opment and IT projects. They can be givenresponsibilitiesaspartoftheprojectteamorjustconsultedincasespecificinformationisneeded (Kujala, 2008). In order to get usersinvolvedinITprojectsorinformationsystemdevelopmentprocesses,arangeoftechniqueshavebeensuggestedbydifferentauthors.Hart-wickandBarki(1994),forexample,recognizedthreewaysusers couldparticipate in systemdevelopmentandtheseare:

• Overall Responsibility:Whereusershavecertain tasks and obligations that showliabilityfortheproject

• User Information System Relationship:Looks at the power users have duringphasesinthedevelopmentprocess,show-inghowtheycancommunicatetheirviewssuchasbeingkeptinformedoftheprogressofthesystemandauthorisingworkdonebythedevelopmentteam

• Hands on Activity:Which looks at theworkusersactuallydo,suchasidentifyingwhatthesystemshouldlooklike,writingproceduresandreports

Damodaran’sresearchsuggestsanimpor-tant difference between involving users andallowing them thepower tomake importantdecisionsthatmayhaveanimpactonthesystem(Damodaran,1996).SherepresentedthewaysuserscanbeinvolvedinITprojectonascaleshowingthreeformsbeginningwith:

• The Informative Form:Allowsuserstogetinvolvedasinformationproviders

• Consultative Form:Usersget involvedgivingtheirviewsonwhathasbeenpre-sented to themwith regards to the newsystem

• The Participative Form: Where usershaveasayonthedecisionsthatcanaffectthesystemasawhole

ThisisdevelopedfurtherbyPalanisamyandSushil(2002)whodiscussedwaysofinvolv-ingusersfromtheplanningpointofviewandsuggestedthathavingusersactasconsultants,orselectingspecificpeopletorepresenttheusergrouponaprojectteamorsteeringcommitteecanbewaysof involvingusers.This idea isestablished in many methods. For example,traditionalanalysisanddesignmethodssuchastheStructuredSystemAnalysisandDesignMethod(SSADM)specifiedtheinvolvementofusersinsystemsdevelopment.Moreimpor-tantly,ProjectManagementmethodssuchasPRINCE2,whichoriginatedintheITProjectManagement method PROMPT, require theinvolvementofusersattheProjectBoardlevel.ThisthinkinghasbeenadvancedsignificantlywiththeestablishmentofAgileProjectManage-mentmethodsandexplicitintegrationofuserdefinedqualityintothesuccesscriteriaofSixSigmaandotherapproaches.

When to Involve Users

DifferentauthorshavesuggestedthevariousstagesatwhichusersshouldgetinvolvedinITprojects(Noyeset al.,1996;Wu&Marakas,2006).Manyofthemhavefoundthatuserin-volvementismorefruitfulintheearlystagesofthesystemdevelopmentprocess.Forexample,Cavaye (1995)explains thatusers shouldbeinvolved in initial stagesof systemdevelop-ment,where the reasonsas towhyasystemshould be implemented are being discussedandrequirementsdiscovered.Thiswillfosterbetter understanding of system requirementsanditisalsolessexpensivetomakechangesearlier on in the process than in later stages(Noyeset al.,1996).

Involvingusersearlieronintheanalysisstagehasgreaterimpactallowingthemtoeas-ilyacceptandusethesystem(Wu&Marakas,2006).

They add that the analysis and designstagesofthesystemdevelopmentprocessarethemostvitalstageswhereusersneed tobeinvolvedfortheprocesstobesuccessful.Choe(1998)suggeststhathavinguserstakepartinthe



designandimplementationphasescouldleadtoenhancedagreementamongallmembersintheorganisation.Theplanningstagehasalsobeenthoughttobethebeststagetoinvolveus-ersbecauseitwillleadto“strategicsuccess”,andthatwhenuserstakepartintheplanningstage,theyaremorelikelytotakepartinthelater stages of requirements definition andsystemdesign (Palanisamy&Sushil, 2002).KimandLee(1986)learntthatwhenitcomestotheimplementationstage,userinvolvementisusefulwiththehelpandsupportofmanagementaswellasapositiveuserattitudetowardsthewholeconceptofparticipation.Cavaye(1995)suggeststhatthelaterstageswherethesystemisbeingtestedandinstalledarealsovital.

Unlikeauthorsthatarespecificaboutthestagesusersshouldbeinvolvedinthesystemdevelopmentprocess,Majidet al(2010)andNoyeset al(1996)arguethatusersshouldbeinvolved in all the different stages from theinitialtothefinalphasesoftheprocess.Majidet al’s (2010) research, where a survey onuserinvolvementwascarriedoutinthewholesoftwaredevelopmentlifecycle,concludedthatinvolvingusersinallthephasesofdevelopmentisofsignificantimportanceandcaninturnleadtoasuccessfulsystem.

Costs of User Involvement

There are, however costs involved in userinvolvement.Forexample:

• Userinvolvementinsystemdevelopmentnecessitatesa lotof timetobesetasideforbothusersanddevelopersandcanleadtoprojectdelays(Wu&Marakas,2006).

• Userinvolvementcanbeachallengewhenitcomestoboththeusersanddevelopersofthesystemexchangingideasandpassingoninformation.Usersneedtobeadequatelyinformedaboutwhatsystemdesignentailsandmayneedtrainingtohavefullunder-standingof theprocesses(Wilsonet al.,1997).SSADM,forexample,includedawholehandbookforusers tounderstandthemethodandterminology.

• Involving users causes an escalation inthe financial resources since additionalpeoplearetakingpartintheproject(Ca-vaye,1995).

MarkusandMao(2004)argue that,dueto the expense and time involved of havingusersinvolvedinITprojectdevelopmenttheirinvolvementshouldonlybetakenupinsitua-tionswhereitisreallyrequired,suchasinbigprojectsandthosewithdifficulttasks(Mckeen&Guimaraes,1997).

Literature Summary

ItisestablishedthatusingthedefinitionofthewidelyestablishedIronTriangle,therecontin-uestobeasubstantialproportionofITprojectsthatfail.Theliteratureisagreedthatthereisaclearcorrelationbetweenuserinvolvementandprojectsuccess.Therearedifferentapproachestouserinvolvementrangingfromspecificstagesofdevelopment,toamethodologicalapproachrequiringuserinvolvementintheprojectfrominceptiontoreview.Greaterinvolvementcanbecloselyrelatedtogreatersuccessbutalsogreatercost.

METHOD

Between2009and2010theleadauthorwasinvolved in a major systems developmentproject whose objective was to consolidate,streamlineandautomateallprocesses in theinvestmentbank.Despiteconsiderableexpen-dituretheprojecthadtobeabandonedafteritsexpectedcompletiondate,withthebulkoftherequirementsnotbeingmet.Theextentofuserinvolvementappearedtobeverycloselyrelatedtotheprojectoutcome.Theauthorturnedfromactortoresearcherinordertointerpretthestoryoftheprojectasacasestudy.AccordingtoYin(2003),“acasestudyisanempiricalinquirythatinvestigatesacontemporaryphenomenonwithinitsreal-lifecontextespeciallywhentheboundariesbetweenthephenomenonandthecontextarenotevident”(p.23).



The method of investigation involveda questionnaire and interviews with key re-spondents.Thequestionnaireallowedfortheefficientcollectionofdatafromasignificantnumberofprojectparticipants(Saundersetal.,2003).ItwassentusingSurveyMonkeyto30individualemailaccounts.SurveyMonkeyisafreeonlinesurveytoolthatallowsausertocreatehis/herownquestionnaireseasilyandwhichalsohelpstoanalysethedata.Judgementalsampling(Saundersetal.,2003)wasusedtoselectthe30 individualsbecause theywere in thebestpositiontoprovidetheinformationthatwouldenabletheauthoranswertheresearchquestions.

The structure of the questionnaire wasdesignedinsuchawayastobeansweredbytwomaintypesofusers;thosethatexistedintheorganisationwhentheprojecttookplacebutwerenotactivelyinvolved,andthoseusersthatwereactivelyinvolvedandhadaresponsibilityintheproject.Itcomprised10questionsonuserinvolvementandprojectsuccessincludingbothopenandclosedquestions.The10questionswereasfollowsinTable1.

Prior to sending the questionnaires, aninformedconsentformwassenttoallthere-spondentsaskingfortheirapprovaltotakepartintheresearchwithanexplanationoftheaimoftheresearchincludingalinktothequestionnaire24respondentscompletedthequestionnaire.

This was followed by interviews. Sixrespondentswereinterviewed:theseincludedonesystemdeveloper,oneuserfromoperationsdepartment,threestafffromtheITdepartmentsandonefromcustomerservices.Intervieweeswerebriefedbyemailsastothedurationandlocationoftheirinterviews.

RESULTS

Data Analysis

SurveyMonkeywasusedtogeneratetheresultsfromthequestionnaireandthisdatawasanal-ysedthematicallyandmatchedtothemesarisingfrominterviews.Giventhequalitativenatureoftheresearchandtheroleoftheresearcherintheproject,theauthorwasespeciallyinterested

inestablishingandappreciatingthedifferentviewstheusersfromthevariousdepartmentshadonuserinvolvementintheproject,andtounderstandthisthroughtheeyesoftheusers(Saundersetal.,2003).

Datarelevanttothisthemearegivenfromtheanalysisof thequestionnaires.Foropen-endedresponsesandinterviews,directquotesareusedtoillustratewhattheparticipantssaid.

Questionnaire Analysis

Respondents that took part in the question-nairewerefromtheIT,Operations,CustomerServicesandAccountsdepartments.Theywereaskediftheytookpartintheprojectdevelop-mentprocess.22outof24peoplethatreturnedtheirquestionnairesrespondedtothisquestionwith11peopleindicatingthattheytookpartinthedevelopmentoftheproject,and11oth-ers indicating that they did not. Subsequentanswers(seebelow)suggestthatsomehadapartialinvolvement.

Those that had takenpart in theprojectdevelopmentwerefurtheraskedtospecifytherolestheyplayed.Sevenrespondentsstatedthattheyhadbeenpartoftheprojectteam,fivehadtakentheroleofusersandonespecifiedaroleofinfrastructureadministrator.Inadditiontotherolestheyplayed,participantswereaskedatwhatstagetheywereinvolvedintheproject.

Sixindicatedtheyhadbeeninvolvedintheplanningstage,threeinthedesignstage,eightinimplementationandsixintesting.Threeofthewholegrouphadtakenpartinall4stages.Allrespondentswereaskedif theyhadbeenconsultedonsystemrequirements.Atotalof19 people answered this question. 11 of the19indicatedthat theywerenotconsultedonsystem requirements, while 8 said they hadbeenconsulted.Respondentswereadditionallyaskediftheprojectteamkepttheminformedabouttheprojectanditsprogress.

Againatotalof19peopleansweredthisquestionbutinthiscase,9peoplesaidtheyhadbeeninformedontheprogressand10answeredthattheyhadnot.Duringtheprojectdevelop-mentmanyoftheusersdidnotknowwhatwas



happeningatthevariousstagesoftheproject.Participantswerealsoaskediftheythoughttheyshouldhavebeeninvolvedinthedevelopmentprocess.16peopleansweredthisquestion,with15agreeingthattheyshouldhavebeeninvolvedin theproject,and1personstating that theyshouldnothavebeeninvolved.

Theywerefurtheraskedtoexplainwhythey thought theyshouldorshouldnothavebeeninvolvedintheproject.Fivegavereasonsrelatingtotheirroleasendusersandtheirbeingaffectedbythenewsystem:

Table 1. Ten questions on user involvement and project success

No. Question Issue to address

1 Whichdepartmentdoyouworkin? Thisquestionlookedattheexamplesofend-usersinthisorganisationandhelpedfindoutwhichusersweremostlyinvolvedintheproject.

2 DidyoutakepartintheITproject? ThisquestionmeanttofindoutiftheuserswereinvolvedintheITproject.Responsesgivenprovidedaninsightofwhetherusersactuallytookpartintheproject

3 If yes,whatwas your role? If no, proceed toquestion5

This question sought to find out how the users wereinvolved and how they contributed in the projectimplementation. In other words what responsibilitiesweretheygiven?

4 Atwhatstagewhereyouinvolvedintheproject? Thisquestionintendedtofindoutwhenintheprojecttheuserswereinvolvediftheywereinvolved.Theinformationpresentedtheresearcherwithanunderstandingofwhichstagestheorganisationthoughtusersneededtobeinvolvedintheproject.

5 Didtheprojectteamconsultyouonrequirements? AccordingtoKujalaetal(2005),usersaregoodatwhattheydothatisthetaskstheyperform.Theyknowwhattheywantthesystemtodo.Thisquestionthereforesoughtoutiftheprojectteamtookthetimetoaskuserswhattheywanted the system todo inorder to improveonproductivityandefficiencyastheyperformtheirtasks.

6 Didtheprojectteamkeepyouinformedabouttheprojectanditsprogress?

For the users that were not directly involved in theproject, did theproject teamat least involve thembycontinuouslyupdatingthemonwhathadbeendoneandwhatwaslefttobedone?

7 DoyouthinkyoushouldhavebeeninvolvedintheITproject?

Inthiscase,thisquestionsearchedforusers’opinionongettinginvolvedintheITproject.Whethertheythoughtitiswasnecessaryornotandiftheyactuallywantedtoparticipate

8 Inyouropinion,whatwouldyousaytheoutcomeof the IT projectwas?Give reasons for youranswer.

Thisquestionexaminedtheunderstandingofusers’viewonprojectsuccessandfailureandwhatcriteriadifferentpeopleusetomeasuresuccess/failure.

9 In your own opinion how much do youagree/d isagree wi th th is s ta tement?“ThelevelofuserinvolvementintheITprojectcontributedtoitssuccess/failure”

ThisquestioninvestigatedtowhatextentuserinvolvementdeterminedtheoutcomeoftheITprojectandwhatusersthoughtof“userinvolvement”asacriteriaforprojectsuccess/failure

10 Do you have any views considering userinvolvementinITprojectsingeneral?

ThisgaveanopportunityfortheuserstoexpresstheirviewsregardinguserinvolvementinanyITprojectsfromtheexperiencetheyhavehad.



As an end user, I will be the one to use the sys-tem in the long run and so by getting involved I will be able to have a better understanding of the system ....

Fourparticipantsgavereasonsstatingthattheyshouldhavebeeninvolvedintheprojectmainlybecausetheirinvolvementwouldhelpthem better understand the systemwhich inturnwouldenablethemtoperformtheirtasksmore efficiently.Someusers expressed theiropinionsinthefollowingway:

…I needed the skills to be able to serve clients better

If I am going to use the system, I should be able to know how the system will help me do my work

Sixrespondentssuggestedthattheyshouldhavebeeninvolvedinthedevelopmentoftheprojectbecausetheirrequirementsneededtobeconsideredand they felt itwasnecessaryforthesystemtomeetandidentifywiththeirneeds.Oneoftherespondentswrote:

...For such a project the main goal is to meet the user needs and therefore user involvement is mandatory. User involvement is the key concept in the development of useful and usable systems and has positive effects on system success and user satisfaction.

Anotherstatedthat:

As a user I would be the most reliable person to identify system needs for the tasks to be performed.

Reasons for Success/ Failure

Respondents were then asked to give theiropiniononwhattheyconsideredtheoutcomeof the project was and why they thought itwasasuccess/failure.Ofthe24thatreturnedtheirquestionnaires,23participantsgavetheir

opinionsandfromtheresponses,17believedtheprojectwasafailurewhilst6saidtheproj-ectwasasuccess.Theresponsesgivenweregroupedinto2toincludereasonsforsuccessandreasonsforfailureoftheproject.

Indiscussingthereasonsforsuccess/failureonerespondentexplainedthattherolesthattheyhadtoperformweretakenintoconsideration.Anothersaidtheprojectwasasuccessbecausethetechnicalsideofitwasasuccess.Hewrote:

The project was both infrastructure upgrade and system upgrade. The infrastructure was successfully upgraded... So the technical implementation of the project was a success ....

Forthemajoritywhoclassedtheprojectasafailure,thereasonsgivenshowthatmostoftherespondentsattributedtheprojectfailuretolackofuserinvolvement(seven)andthefactthatthesystemwasneverimplemented(six).The seven citing user involvement includedcommentssuchas:

End users had no idea of what was going on

Lack of user involvement proved fatal for the project. Without user involvement nobody in the organisation felt committed to the sys-tem...senior management and users needed to get involved from the start and continuously throughout the development...

Whilstamongstthesixwhoreferredtothenon-implementationofthesystemcommentsincluded:

The project never took off. It was a total failure

...the operational and other systems within the project were not completed due to the board’s decision to stop implementation...

We did not get to use it



Other respondents attributed the projectfailuretoissuessuchaspoorcommunicationfrommanagement and theproject team.Forexampleonerespondentwrote:

After all the time, effort and money invested, the system was never used and reasons for this were never communicated

Another respondent said the project didnotmeetorganisationalrequirements.Otherswrotethatitwasduetopoorplanningincludingthefailuretotakeintoaccounttheincreaseinprojectcosts.

From the project outcome, participantswerethenaskedtostatehowmuchtheyagreedwiththestatement“Thelevelofuserinvolve-mentintheprojectcontributedtoitssuccess/failure”. From 23 responses 12 respondentsstronglyagreedwiththestatement,4agreed,4wereneutral(neitheragreednordisagreed),1disagreedwiththestatement,and2stronglydisagreedwiththestatement

Finally, respondentswere asked to givetheirviewsonuserinvolvementinITprojectsingeneral,withnospecificreferencetothebank’sproject.Atotalof14outofthe24respondentsgavetheirviews.Fromtheresponsescollected,5saidthatitwasimportantforallusersinanorganisationtobeinvolvedatallstagesofasystem development cycle. One respondentwrotethat:

Users should never be left out of project de-velopments and should generally be involved at all stages to better understand and share requirements”

Anotherthat:

…all people that need to be involved in the IT project should be consulted throughout the development of the project

Asidefrominvolvingallusersatallstages,2respondentsdiscussedviewsrelatedtoinvolv-ingusersasameansofhelpingthemunderstand

andacceptthenewsystemhencereducingthechancesofresistance.3highlightedviewsonuserinvolvementasbeingimportantwhenitcomestohelpingusersandsystemdevelopersdeterminesystemrequirements,2wrote thatuserinvolvementleadstoITprojectsuccessandanother2suggestedthatinvolvinguserswillimproveworkefficiencyamongotherreasons.

Interview Analysis

Interviews were carried out to get a morein-depth understanding of the project. Semistructured questions were asked under thetopics; project funding, senior managementinvolvement/interference, the stage in theprojectthatproblemswerenoticed,whatcouldhavebeendonedifferentlyintheprojectandwhethertherehassincebeenanimprovementinthedevelopmentofotherprojectsinthesameorganisation.

Project Funding

Whenaskedaboutprojectfunding,5interview-eessaidtheprojectfailedtomeettheallocatedbudgetduetoacontinuousincreaseincosts.Themanagementof theorganisationdidnotputasidemoneytocoverunexpectedcostsandtherewaspoorplanningintermsoftheprojectcost.Forexample,theannuallicencefeeforthesoftwarewasnotconsideredinthebudget:

The organisation had money put aside for the project but this money was not sustainable since other costs on requirements kept coming in.

…During the project implementation, there was a slump in the business (Financial invest-ment) and no money to continue financing it. The company decided to cut costs and thought the project would not be necessary after all…

Senior Management Involvement/Interference

Another important issue that was discussedduringtheinterviewsconcernedtheimpactof



seniormanagement involvement/interferencein theprojecton theoutcomeof theproject.Twomainargumentswereraised;inadequatesupportfromseniormanagementandlimitedmanagementinvolvement.2intervieweessug-gestedthatseniormanagementbackedoutoftheprojectleavingittofail,and3saidthatseniormanagement did not put in enough effort tosupporttheprojectfromthestart:

The senior management interference was not up to the required level during all the phases of the project, which then led to the problems in the project at the later stages of the project.

...the project ended up failing because in the middle of it, management backed out and be-came negative especially after the cost implica-tion and hence we couldn’t progress

Yes it did have an impact because the manage-ment decided to withdraw funding for the project thereby ‘killing’ the project altogether

The Stage At Which Issues In The Project Were Noticed

Intervieweeswereaskedatwhatstageoftheprojecttheythoughtmanagementandtheprojectteamrealisedtheprojectwastakingawrongturn.Threepeoplementionedthatproblemsintheprojectwerenoticedattheimplementationstagewhiletwomentionedthetestingstage.Forthetestingstage,onepersonspecificallytalkedaboutalaterUserAcceptanceTest(UAT)whentheproject teamrealised thesystemwasnotcustomisedtosuittheorganisation’srequire-ments.Thisiswhathesaid:

During the later UAT phase of the project, the project team realised that the project without customisation will not suit the customer’s requirements but then it was too late to make any great effort to avoid failure of the project. However efforts were made both from the project team and management to work around areas of conflict.

Oneotherintervieweedidnotspecifyanyparticularstagebutsaidtheprojectproblemswerenoticedfromtheverystartofthedevelop-mentprocess.Hesaid:

Some of the things were noticed from the start for me, the project was doomed from the be-ginning…

Intervieweeswerethenaskedwhatcouldhave been done differently in the project.Fourofthempointedtouserinvolvementinthiscontext.Theysaidthatallusersfromalldepartments, including senior management,shouldhavebeeninvolvedfromthebeginningoftheprojecttotheend,whilethreesaidthattheprojectneededbetterrequirementsanalysis.Oneintervieweetalkedaboutprojectphasingandoneothersaidthattheprojectneededpropermanagementandbudgetingtosucceed.Thususerinvolvementwasineffective.Thisiswhatoneoftheintervieweeshadtosay:

…during the meetings a lot of time was wasted with consultants. Users were trying to agree on what needed to be included in the system but instead policy issues were discussed with consultants. I only attended one meeting and decided that it was not worth attending other meetings as these were not project implementa-tion meetings

Another intervieweesuggested thatuserinvolvementwasnottakenseriously;

I was the one in charge of infrastructure at the time yet I was giving the project a cold shoulder. No one asked for my views.

During the discussions on requirementsanalysis,oneoftheintervieweesexplainedthatthesystemrequirementswereneverproperlyanalysedwhichshouldnothavebeenthecase.Hesaidthat;

During the project proposal stage the gaps between the scope of the project and the cus-tomer requirements had not been identified in



an effective way…effective gap identification should have been in place much earlier in the project…

DISCUSSION

ThemainaimofthisresearchwastoexploretheeffectofuserinvolvementonITprojectimple-mentationandsuccess.Inordertoachievethis,thestudysetouttoanswertwomainquestions:

• WhatisthelinkbetweenuserinvolvementandITprojectsuccess?

• Howdidtheusersdescribetheirinvolve-mentintheproject?

• Whatissueswerevoicedorsharedrelat-ing to how user involvement influencesaproject?

Thediscussionthatfollowsseekstoprovidetheanswerstothequestions.

User Involvement

Halfoftheuserswhoparticipatedintheresearchwereinvolvedatsomestageofthedevelopmentandimplementationofthenewsystem.Somerespondentswereinvolvedinallstagesoftheprojectwhileotherswereinvolvedinspecificstagesonly.Someexpressedtheirwishtohavebeenmoreinvolved.

OneofthebenefitsofinvolvingusersinITprojectsisthatusersareabletoidentifyandprovide information on system requirementsthatwillenablethedevelopmentofanefficientsystemandimprovedsystemquality(Kujala2003,2008).Consultingusersonrequirementshas alsobeen said to beoneof thewaysofinvolving users in the development processandbestdoneatthebeginningoftheprojectdevelopmentsoastogetthebiggerpictureoftherequirements(Damodaran,1996).Howeverlookingattheresultsfromthequestionnaire,most of the users in this case were neverconsultedontheirrequirements.Thedevelop-mentprocessbeganwithlittleornorequire-mentsanalysisfromtheusersandmostofthe

respondentsfromthesurveywerenotinformedoftheproject’sprogresseither.HartwickandBarki(1994)suggestedthatoneofthewaysus-erscanparticipateinITprojectsisthroughthe“user-informationsystemrelationship”whereuserscancommunicatetheirviewsaswellasgetfeedbackontheprojectprogressatallstages.

Mostrespondentsfeltthattheirinvolve-ment in the development of the new systemcould have improved their work efficiencyandensured that the systemfittedwith theirrequirements.Theywereclearlyawareofthebenefitstheycouldhaveattainedfrombeingpart of the project’s development process.Thesereasonsareconsistentwiththefindingsby authors likeDamodaran (1996);Wu andMarakas(2006)whoexplainedthebenefitsofuserinvolvementinITprojectsintheirresearch.Damodaran(1996)furtherexplainsthatusersintheendaretheonesthatwillstaywithandusethesystem.

Success and Failure

Whenparticipantswereaskedwhattheoutcomeoftheprojectwas,somestateditwasasuccesswhileothersafailure.Thisshowsthatthediffer-entparticipantsallhadtheirownconclusions.Evidencefromthisandfrompreviousresearchshows that determiningwhether a project isa failureorasuccessdependson thepersonevaluatingtheproject,asexplainedbyShen-haretal(2001);WangandHuang(2005).Theparticipantsfurtherexplainedthereasonsastowhytheysaidtheprojectwaseitherasuccessorfailure.Thesereasonsprovidedthediffer-entcriteriarespondentsusedtodeterminetheprojectoutcome.Fromtheliteraturereviewed,differentcriteriaareused tomeasureprojectsuccess/failure and these change dependingontheproject.

Respondentsconcludedtheprojectwasafailureforreasonsincludingthelackofuserinvolvement,poorcommunication,thefactthatsystemwasneverimplemented,poorplanning,requirements were never met and increasedcostsamongothers.Lackofuserinvolvementwasthemainreasonrespondentsgaveforthe



project failure supporting literature cited inthesecondsection(Chaosreport,2001,2009;Palanisamy&Sushil,2002).

Mostof theparticipantsstronglyagreedwiththisstatement“thelevelofuserinvolve-mentintheprojectcontributedtoitssuccess/failure”.Previousresearchfindingsalsocon-cluded that user involvement in IT projectscandeterminetheirsuccessorfailure(Damo-daran, 1996). These findings also concludethat theproject in thisorganisationwas toagreaterextentafailureduetoinadequateuserinvolvement.

Project Funding, Senior Management Involvement/Interference

Researchhasshownthatitisveryimportantforseniormanagementtoget involvedinITprojectssincetheymakestrategicdecisionsonfundingandotherresourcesthatcouldimpactontheproject.Seniormanagementsupportalsoencouragesuserstogetinvolvedinthesystemdevelopmentprocess(Cavaye,1995).

Itwasnotedthattheimplementationcostsof the project continually increased and theestimated budget was not met. Furthermoretherewasnomoneysetasideforcontingenciesduringtheplanningprocessandthiswasthemain reason for some respondents to definetheprojectasafailure.Asidefromtheincreasein theprojectcosts, intervieweesagreedthatmanagement did not play a sufficient part,andthisalsocontributedtothefailureofthisproject.Seniormanagementwithdrewfromtheprojectandcutoffitsfundingexacerbatingitsfailure.Management decided to cut costs inthecompanyduringthetimetheprojectwasbeing implemented even though almost halftheprojectworkwascompleted.

CONCLUSION

Interviews and questionnaires were used tocollectrespondents’opinionsonuserinvolve-ment and itwasdiscovered that participantsfeltthattheirinvolvementwouldhavemadeadifferenceintheproject.Thefindingsalsoshow

thatparticipantswereoftheviewthatifusersaretobeinvolvedinITprojects,theyshouldbeinvolvedatallthestagesfromplanningtoimplementation.Itwasclearthatthemajorityviewwas that theproject failed,and lackofuserinvolvementcontributedsubstantiallytothis failure. Users were not effectively con-sultedontheirrequirementsandwerenotgivenfeedbackontheproject’sprogress.ThisstudyconcludesthatuserinvolvementinITprojectsisveryimportantandcanindeeddeterminetheproject’soutcome;thatiswhetheritturnsouttobeasuccessorfailure.UserinvolvementstillremainsoneofthemostsignificantfactorsthatcanleadtoITprojectsuccess/failure.

Usersmaynotbedirectlyinvolvedinthedevelopmentprocessbutatleasttheyshouldbeconsultedontheirrequirementsandgivendailyfeedbackontheprojectprogress(Damodaran,1996).It isbetterforuserstobeinvolvedatallstagesofthedevelopmentprocessasnotedbyMajidet al(2010)andNoyeset al(1996)forbetterprojectresults.Theinvolvementofusersinthedevelopmentprocessshouldhaveanimpact;usersshouldbeabletoinfluencethedecisionsbeingmadeandnotinvolvedforthesakeofit(Damodaran,1996).Userparticipa-tionisbecomingthenorminrelationtointernetdevelopmentwithwidespread acceptance ofWeb2.0(O’Reilly2007).Howeverourresearchsuggeststhatthiscultureisnotprevalentinlargescale ‘stand alone’ projects, where Toffler’s‘prosumers’ (Toffler 1980) have yet to havetheirday.ThisisinaccordancewithresearchreviewedbyLeidnerandKayworth(2006).

Differentpeoplewilldefinesuccess/failuredifferentlybutwhatisimportantistohaveallusersandstakeholdersthathaveaninterestinthesystemorprojectthatisbeingundertakentocometogetherandunderstand/agreeonwhatfactorswillbeusedtomeasurethesuccessofaproject.Thegoldentriangleisagoodmeasuretodetermineifaprojectisasuccess/failurebutthisshouldnotbeusedalone.Otherfactorsneedtobeconsideredlikethelevelofuserinvolve-ment,goodprojectmanagementandplanningasnotedinthisproject.Althoughuserinvolvementwasthemainconcerninthisresearch,itwasalsodiscoveredthattherewereotherissuesthat



contributedtothefailureoftheprojectsuchaspoorplanning,seniormanagementwithdrawalfromtheproject,andincreasingcosts.

Since this study is aimed at assessingtheimpactofuserinvolvementonITprojectimplementationandsuccess,theresultsobtainedshouldbeviewedintheperspectiveofthegivenresearch setting. The research is concernedwith just one IT project in EastAfricawitha relatively smallgroupof respondents.Thefindings cannot therefore be generalised butthey are valuable in supportingkeywork inthefieldofuserinvolvementandprojectsuc-cessandfailure in ITprojects.Furtherworktoestablishwhyuser involvement isnot thedefiningcultureinthedesignoflargeITprojectswouldbevaluableandmighthelptoincreasetheproportionofprojectsthatsucceedinfuture.Theresearchdidnotinvestigatewhethertherewasanycorrelationbetweentheprojectfailure,lackofuserinvolvementandthegeographicallocationoftheprojectinEastAfricaandwenotethatthereisadearthofliteraturediscussingITProjectManagementanduserparticipationindevelopingcountries.

REFERENCES

Agarwal,N.,&Rathod,U.(2006).Defining‘suc-cess’forsoftwareprojects:Anexploratoryrevela-tion.International Journal of Project Management,24(4),358–370.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.009

Baker,B.N.,Murphy,D.C.,&Fisher,D.(1983).Factorsaffectingprojectsuccess.InD.I.Cleland,&W.R.King(Eds.),Project Management Handbook.NewYork,NY:VanNostrandReinhold.

Bryde,D.J.,&Robinson,L.(2005).Clientversuscontract perspectives on project success criteria.International Journal of Project Management,23(8),622–629.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.05.003

Cavaye,A.L.M.(1995).Userparticipationinsystemdevelopmentrevisited.Information & Management,28,311–323.doi:10.1016/0378-7206(94)00053-L

Chan,C.M.L.,&Pan,S.L.(2008).Userengagementine-governmentsystemsimplementation:Acom-parativecasestudyoftwoSingaporeaninitiatives.The Journal of Strategic Information Systems,17(2),124–139.doi:10.1016/j.jsis.2007.12.003

Choe,J.(1998).Theeffectsofuserparticipationonthedesignofaccountinginformationsystems.Infor-mation & Management,34,185–198.doi:10.1016/S0378-7206(98)00055-X

Cresswell,J.W.,Hanson,W.E.,ClarkPlano,V.L.,&Morales,A.(2007).Qualitativeresearchdesigns:Selectionandimplementation.The Counseling Psy-chologist,35,236.doi:10.1177/0011000006287390

Damodaran, L. (1996). User involvement in thesystems design process- a practical guide for us-ers.Behaviour & Information Technology,15(6),363–377.doi:10.1080/014492996120049

DeWit,A.(1988).Measurementofprojectsuccess.International Journal of Project Management,6(3),164–170.doi:10.1016/0263-7863(88)90043-9

Folstad,A.,Jorgensen,H.D.,&Krogstie,J.(2004).Userinvolvementine-governmentdevelopmentproj-ects.InProceedings of the third Nordic conference on Human computer interaction,Tampere,Finland.

Harris,M.A.,&Weistroffer,H.R.(2009).Anewlookattherelationshipbetweenuserinvolvementinsystemsdevelopmentandsystemsuccess.Com-munications of the Association for Information Systems,24(42),738–756.

Hartwick,J.,&Barki,H.(1994).ExplainingtheroleofuserparticipationinISuse.Management Science,40(4),440–465.doi:10.1287/mnsc.40.4.440

Hasan,H.,&Ditsa,G.(1999).TheImpactofcultureontheadoptionofit:Aninterpretivestudy.Journal of Global Information Management,7(1),5–15.

He,J.,&King,W.R.(2008).Theroleofuserpar-ticipationinI.Sdevelopment:Implicationsfromameta-analysis.Journal of Management Information Systems, 25(1), 301–331. doi:10.2753/MIS0742-1222250111

Heeks,R.(2002).Informationsystemsanddevel-opingcountries:Failure,successandlocalimpro-visations. The Information Society, 18, 101–112.doi:10.1080/01972240290075039

Iivari,N.(2006).Representingthe‘user’insoftwaredevelopment–aculturalanalysisofusabilityworkin the product development context. Interacting with Computers, 18, 635–664. doi:10.1016/j.in-tcom.2005.10.002

Kerzner,H.(1994).Thegrowthofmodernprojectmanagement.Project Management Journal,25(2),6–9.



Kim,E.,&Lee,J.(1986).AnexploratorycontingencymodelofuserparticipationandMISuse.Informa-tion & Management,11,87–97.doi:10.1016/0378-7206(86)90038-8

Kujala, S. (2003). User involvement: A re-view of the benefits and challenges. Behav-iour & Information Technology, 22(1), 1–16.doi:10.1080/01449290301782

Kujala, S. (2008). Effective user involvement inproductdevelopmentbyimprovinganalysisofenduserneeds.Behaviour & Information Technology,27(6),457–473.doi:10.1080/01449290601111051

Leidner,D.E.,&Kayworth,T.(2006).Areviewofcultureininformationsystemsresearch:Towardatheoryof informationtechnologycultureconflict.Management Information Systems Quarterly,30(2),357–399.

Majid, R.A., Noor, N. L.,Adnan,W.A.W., &Mansor,S.(2010).Asurveyonuserinvolvementinsoftwaredevelopmentlifecyclefrompractitioner’sperspectives.InProceedings of the 5th International Conference on Computer Sciences and Convergence Information Technology (ICCIT)(pp.240-243).

Markus,M.L.,&Mao,J.(2004).Participationindevelopmentandimplementation-updatinganold,tired concept for today’s IS contexts. Journal of the Association for Information Systems,5(11-12),514–544.

McKeen,J.D.,&Guimaraes,T.(1997).Successfulstrategiesforuserparticipationinsystemsdevelop-ment.Journal of Management Information Systems,14(2),133–150.

Noyes, J. M., Starr, A. F., & Frankish, G. R.(1996).Userinvolvementintheearlystagesofthedevelopment of an aircraft warning system. Be-haviour & Information Technology,15(2),67–75.doi:10.1080/014492996120274PMID:11541759

O’Reilly. (2007). What is web 2.0: Design pat-terns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies, No. 1.FirstQuarter.

Palanisamy,R.,&Sushil.(2002).Userinvolvementininformationsystemsplanningleadstostrategicsuccess: An empirical study. Journal of Service Research,1(2),125–157.

Powers,R.F.,&Dickson,G.W.(1973).MISproj-ect management: Myths, opinions and realities.California Management Review, 15(3), 147–156.doi:10.2307/41164448

ProjectManagementInstitute.(2004).A guide to the project management body of knowledge(3rded.).NewtownSquare,PA:PMBOKGuide.

Report,C.(1995).The Standish group report.Re-trievedAugust, 1, 2011, fromwww.projectsmart.co.uk/docs/chaos-report.pdf

Report,C.(2001).The Standish group report.Re-trievedJuly,20,2011,fromhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/10167963/Chaos-Report-2001

Report, C. (2009). The Standish group report.RetrievedAugust,5,2011,fromwww.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/.../chaos_summary_2009_pdf

Saunders,M., Lewis, P.,&Thornhill,A. (2003).Research methods for business students (3rded.).PearsonEducationLtd.

Shenhar,A.J.,Dvir,D.,Levy,O.,&Maltz,A.C.(2001).Projectsuccess:Amultidimensionalstrategicconcept. Long Range Planning, 34(6), 699–725.doi:10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00097-8

Thomas,G.,&Ferna’ndez,W.(2008).SuccessinITprojects:Amatterofdefinition?International Journal of Project Management,26,733–742.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.06.003

Thong,J.,Yap,C.,&Raman,K.(1996).Topman-agementsupport,externalexpertiseandinformationsystemsimplementationsinsmallbusinesses.Infor-mation Systems Research,7,248–267.doi:10.1287/isre.7.2.248

Toffler,A.(1980).The third wave.BantamBooks.

Wang, X., & Huang, J. (2005). The relationshipbetweenkeystakeholders’projectperformanceandprojectsuccess:PerceptionsofChineseconstructionsupervising engineers. International Journal of Project Management,24,253–260.doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.11.006

Wilson,S.,Bekker,M.,Johnson,P.,&Johnson,H.(1997).Helpingandhinderinguserinvolvement–Ataleofeverydaydesign.InProceedings of CHI’97, Conference of Human Factors in Computing Systems(pp.178–185).ACM.

Wu,J.B.,&Marakas,G.M.(2006).Theimpactofoperationaluserparticipationonperceivedsystemimplementation success: An empirical investiga-tion. Journal of Computer Information Systems,47,127–140.

Yin,R.K.(2003).Application of case study Research(2nded.).London,UK:SagePublications.



Chris Procter is a senior lecturer in project management at the University of Salford, United Kingdom. He has extensive experience in the practice of project management alongside teaching and research in the field. He has a longstanding involvement also in pedagogical research and supervises a number of students both in the area of IT Project Management and related areas. Further information at http://business.salford.ac.uk/staff/chrisprocter

Molly Businge is a graduate from the University of Salford, Manchester where she received her MSc in Managing Information Technology. She studied her bachelor’s degree from Makerere University Uganda in Business Computing in 2009. She has worked as an ICT systems admin-istrator in Uganda and an IT network developer in the UK.

Documents

Involve users or fail: An IT project case study from east ...usir.salford.ac.uk/31785/4/proctor_article_IJITPM_4(4).pdf · Sam Takavarasha Jr., Department of Computer Science, Faculty