Developing and implementing IS: a case study analysis in social services

A Perspective-Based Understanding of Project Success

“…Given that a project has a range of stakeholder groups, each with a particular viewpoint (Baccarini, 1999), individuals or groups are likely to differ in their assessments of the extent to which a project is successful. Taken to an extreme, a success for one group may be perceived as a failure by others (de Wit, 1988;Riley & Smith, 1997). In an IS project, the stakeholders may include senior management, organizational project management office staff, the project manager, the project governance group, the project sponsor, the project owner, project team members, developers, and various user stakeholder groups.…”

“…Each stakeholder group will have its own view of project success, judging it according to different criteria (Agarwal & Rathod, 2006;Baccarini, 1999;Riley & Smith, 1997;Wateridge, 1998). For example, in an IS project, the project manager and project governance team may focus on the success of the project process, while users are likely to concentrate on the operation and implementation of a project product, considering success in relation to the impact of the IS on their work and organizational roles.…”

“…Project sponsors may be concerned with the survival of their project (Wilson & Howcroft, 2002) or the activity it was intended to support, while senior management may be interested in the achievement of business objectives and the strategic benefits delivered by the project (Bannerman, 2008;Wateridge, 1998). Technical staff such as developers on the project may view success in terms of product quality and functionality or the opportunities for new skill acquisition and learning that can be carried forward to future projects (Agarwal & Rathod, 2006;Linberg, 1999;Riley & Smith, 1997). External contractors may be concerned with containing project costs and duration (Bryde & Robinson, 2005), and securing further work.…”

“…Rather than being discrete, objective outcomes, success and failure are constructed as contested subjective interpretations that may be modified in response to political maneuvering, persuasion, or changes in the organizational and technological context (Bartis & Mitev, 2008;Fincham, 2002;Mitev, 2000;Wilson & Howcroft, 2002). Any apparent definitional closure surrounding a particular project outcome does not necessarily represent consensus or shared interests and values, as not all interpretations or viewpoints may be afforded equal status (Bartis & Mitev, 2008;Riley & Smith, 1997;Walsham, 1993;Wilson & Howcroft, 2002). While some expectations (e.g., client or user expectations) are expressed as project goals and requirements, other expectations may remain unarticulated or only vaguely expressed.…”

Social services, social work, and information management: Some european perspectives

“…Our definition of information management is thus nor limited to the narrow technical questions of information technology implementation, but covers the broad combination of technology and methodology (computer-based or otherwise) to support the collection, storage, processing, retrieval, disrriburion, and management of information (Gould 1996). For most agencies this will encompass management information systems, client information systems, resource directories, and financial and planning information systems (Riley and Smith 1997).…”