Information systems project team members: factors for high performance

Abstract

PurposeThe main aim of this study is to contribute to the discussion on the factors that can influence the high performance of information systems (IS) project team members, from the individual perspective. This study also allows both IS project team members and their managers to have a thorough picture of high-performing project teams, helping them improve team design, management and performance in today's demanding business environment.Design/methodology/approachTo address the research questions, the authors carried out an exploratory case study of a small-sized holding company and a qualitative analysis of the data.FindingsResults show a set of perceived factors that can influence (facilitate/hinder) the high performance of IS project team members. “Proper reward systems” was the most mentioned facilitating factor. “Negative affectivity” and “Lack of competence” were the two most referred as hindering factors. Most of the perceived factors are classified in the literature as non-technical.Originality/valueBesides being among the very few empirical studies consolidating knowledge on the high performance of IS project team members, this paper extends the authors' previous research (done at the team level) to the individual team member level (as opposed to the team or organizational levels). In spite of IS being a highly technical industry, this study came across mostly human-centered factors transversal to different professionals (IS and non-IS) involved in project teams.

Enhancing project quality through effective team management

“…Discussing solutions, rather than errors, can improve motivation and future results. This confirms studies that highlight the role of transparency [33], openness, cooperation [20], and attitude [21].…”

“…What is lacking, however, is a clear link between activities aimed at creating and managing project teams and the effects in the form of the project quality and the quality of its results [10], [18], [19]. Studies show that the sources of project failures should not be sought in technological problems, but they are primarily sociological, related to mistakes made at various stages of project team management [20], [21]. One of the most common excuses for omitting quality-related activities in a project is time pressure, and such an approach has a disastrous effect on the quality of the design, process, and results [22, p. 17].…”

Product Creativity as an Identity Issue: Through the Eyes of New Product Development Team Members

“…Ozer ( 2000 ) emphasized the role of the NPD team and its members as the key actors who learn, communicate, and implement technology to achieve innovation in multiple levels from individual creativity to the bottom line of a firm. The ubiquitous influences of IT NPD were summarized in several domains, such as speed (Darawong, 2021 ), productivity (Sicotte et al, 2019 ), collaboration (Su et al, 2021 ), communication and coordination (Moura et al, 2021 ), versatility, knowledge management, decision quality, and product quality (Ozer, 2000 ). It is not surprising that there are many recent studies attempting to connect IT and human resources management given the human aspect of NPD (e.g., Ogbeibu et al, 2020 ; Danabalan, 2021 ), which is also reflected in the creativity literature of the virtual team (Janine Viol et al, 2019 ).…”

Linking Knowledge Heterogeneity with Project Performance in Digital Project Teams: The Role of Digital Capability and Knowledge Conversion

“…To achieve this, the teams need a mix of employees with different digital expertise. Teams rely on the division of labor to integrate cross-disciplinary individual knowledge into team knowledge, ultimately achieving project development and innovation (Guinan et al, 2019;Moura et al, 2021). However, within a short period of time, a large amount of heterogeneous knowledge intersects in teams, intensifying the heterogeneous knowledge conflict in teams and making the knowledge management process more complicated, which brings negative consequences to team development.…”