1
Critical Thinking in Information Technology Project Management
By
Dr. V. Scott Burch
2
Abstract
The success of (Information Technology) IT projects is illusive at best. With the
majority of projects failing to meet both time and budget projections, major IT initiatives end up
failing more than 50% of the time (Fichman, Keil, & Tiwana, 2005). With that disappointing
record, project managers are faced with the arduous task of deciding how to "stack the deck" in
their favor. What are the methods and tools from recent research that can be leveraged by project
managers? This paper reviews research on Project Management (PM) from the last several years
and attempts to summarize the latest methods that can be leveraged to help project managers
ensure project success. In conclusion, broader areas that are typically not included in the
traditional project management realm are examined and offered as new tools for the project
manager to exploit. These theories cover the areas of risk management, leadership, strategic
alignment, and organizational structure and are on the leading edge or project management
research.
Keywords: Project Management, Information Technology, Methods
3
Based on a recent study performed using co-word analysis, which attempted to
characterize the areas of research occurring in the Project Management (PM) field (Bredillet,
2005), the level of interest in PM on a whole is climbing. The Engineering Management Journal
recently dedicated an entire issue that included ten articles representing the latest research in
Information Technology (IT) PM (Thamhain, 2004a). The topics facing PM researchers today
range anywhere from applying financial theories to PM to basing general organizational
management on PM models. Ray (2007) argues that “executing the work” (p. 152) using PM
methods should be an important item on the “IT leadership agenda for the next several years” (p.
147).
In a study funded by the Project Management Institute, Tesch et al. (2003) reviews the
PM literature from 1999 to 2001 and extracts the cumulative information in the form of lessons
learned using an expert panel of project managers to review the research results. The results of
the study indicate that most of the academic research had more emphasis on rigor than practical
relevance. Practitioners need to have access to relevant, practical research they can use to
directly apply to the delivery of their current projects.
The success of IT projects is illusive at best. With the majority of projects failing to meet
both time and budget projections, major IT initiatives end up failing more than 50% of the time
(Fichman, et al., 2005). With that disappointing record, project managers are faced with the
arduous task of deciding how to "stack the deck" in their favor. This article attempts to review
the latest thinking by researchers in the area of project success factors and summarize a
collection of the methods and models that can be applied to IT projects to help ensure success.
4
Current Thinking in IT Project Management
Project Management as a profession and discipline has been around for many years. Only
until recently, because of the high rate of IT project failures, has the focus increased on it as a
means for ensuring IT project delivery success. Several specific methods to fine-tune IT project
management have emerged in the literature in recent years, in order to provide project managers
with more tools for fighting project failures and ensuring success. This section looks at the more
traditional thinking in IT PM based on a literature review of relevant research.
To get a view of what is happening in the practitioners world, Harman and Ashrafi (2002)
interviewed 36 project stakeholders / owners and consultants on 12 different projects to
determine what practices are important to the IT industry in successfully accomplishing projects.
The specific research questions considered were:

Do they use proven PM practices?

Do they measure what they consider important for project success?

What are the project drivers?
During their literature review, Harman and Ashrafi (2002) found the most commonly
reported causes of IT project failures were misunderstood requirements, optimistic schedules and
budgets, inadequate risk assessment, inconsistent standards and lack of training, failure to
manage resources properly, unclear project charter, and overall lack of communications. They
hypothesize that these are actually the symptoms and not the cause of the problem. They begin
by defining exactly what are considered critical success factors (CSF) of projects:
1. Stakeholders are kept informed and up to date on project status
2. Stakeholders are consulted at each stage of development and implementation
5
3. Proper communication channels are established and open
4. Project mission is clear
5. Top management supports need for resources
6. Project achieves its business purpose
7. Detailed project plan and budget
8. Appropriate technology and expertise are available
9. Change management is formalized
10. Scope changes are minimized and mutually agreed upon
This CSF list was used as input to develop a survey instrument that attempted to capture
more specific data on these specific areas. The instrument was divided into three sections:
project manager demographics, 33 potential CSFs to be ranked in order of importance, and a list
of 20 potential project metrics to be ranked in order of importance.
Their analysis concluded that the value of metrics as a predictive tool was not fully
exploited by team members. In most cases, the metrics used to measure the CSF could not be
agreed upon and therefore was measured poorly or not measured at all. As a result, it was
difficult for respondents to determine the actual success of the project.
To summarize, they found that:
1. The importance of a particular success factor did not change based on or between
project phases
2. The most important CSFs identified by respondents were project mission,
consultation with the project owner, good communication, and availability of
resources
3. Metric definition for success factors was poor
6
4. Metrics were poorly utilized overall
5. Project owners agreed that meeting the end users' needs was critical
6. Responsibility breakdown structure, work breakdown structures, and CSFs were not
well utilized
7. Project owners did use separate monitoring and feedback systems
8. Time taken to align stakeholders with importance of project issues would help
communication, reduce work, and enhance the probability of success
9. The alignment of project metrics and project success factors and priorities appears to
need improvement in the entire industry
Some would suggest that IT PM is inherently more difficult than other types of PM.
Developing software can be likened to building a house with respect to requirements, costs, and
schedule which are estimated and adjusted based on customer feedback, after which the detailed
architecture, project plan and work begins. One difference suggested by McDonald (2001) is that
the tools available to the building architect are more tangible and understandable by the customer
than are tools available to the software architect and therefore providing the customer with a
model that accurately reflects all of their requirements is difficult at best.
Tesch et al. (2003) distilled several lessons learned from a literature review and
subsequent analysis by industry experts:
1. Virtual teams should not replace the occasional face-to-face meeting
2. Virtual teams can actually facilitate requirements negotiation
3. IT project managers require technical and business skills in addition to PM
experience
7
4. Differences in the perception of the importance of communication and interpersonal
skills can affect end user satisfaction and job performance, respectively
5. The software risk assessment model (SRAM) published by the IEEE is effective in
predicting software project outcomes
6. The top three IS project risk factors are lack of top management commitment, failure
to obtain user commitment, and misunderstanding of commitment
7. IT academic research should be examined frequently for new and existing models that
are relevant to PM issues
Continuing on this theme, Du et al. (2004) looks at the current state of PM education in
Information System graduate programs. It finds that while the programs are emphasizing the
hard skills as defined by the Project Management Institute’s “Project Management Body of
Knowledge” the soft skills such as human resources and project communication management.
Procurement management, project chartering, and vendor management were also found to be
lacking. In a similar study, Reif and Miltri (2005) also examine the current state of PM in IT
degree programs and found that although project management was addressed as a secondary
topic in most institutions, there was a general lack of dedicated project management curriculum.
New Developments in IT Project Management
With the current state of PM in mind, there is a need to identify tools and techniques that
project managers can utilize to increase their opportunity for success. As a result, in the last few
years there has been an increasing occurrence of more cutting edge research focused on
improving IT PM successes which leverages such unconventional areas as financial
management, leadership and organization theories. This section examines the latest in PM
8
research and summarizes its findings to provide the project manager with practical, timely, and
relevant tools and techniques for increasing project success.
Gillard (2004) looks at the inherent problems with PM in a traditional organizational
structure considering most employees are being managed in a decentralized matrix environment.
He reviews the resulting tri-dimensional organization environment that project managers must
work in to be effective. This tri-dimensional organizational structure consists of the project team,
the intra-organization (parent organization, user community and contractors) and the interorganization (external stakeholders). When all three dimensions are viewed as a model of
concentric rings, the interaction within each group moves from more tactical issues and concerns
within the inner project team ring, to more strategic and political within the inter-organizational
in the outer ring. This model provides the project manager with a clearer, realistic picture of
whom he interacts with and is responsible for keeping informed and being responsive to their
needs.
Risk Management. Uncertainty and risk are ever present factors in the typical IT project,
however, most project managers fail to properly provide for an effective plan for reducing the
impact of risk and uncertainty when they come to fruition. The more common approach is to
maintain a defensive posture in which risk and uncertainty are dealt with as they arise in a
reactive manner. Perhaps taking a more aggressive offensive approach would provide more
flexibility and reduce uncertainty.
“Options thinking”, common in financial management, is tool that can be added to the
project manager’s bag of tricks for managing project risk and delivery. Real options refers to
“the right to acquire some real world asset without the obligation to exercise that right”
(Fichman, et al., 2005). By providing the IT project management team with the right to move
9
forward with a project at the end of each phase but without the obligation to, it creates a large
amount of flexibility for dealing with the uncertainty of success.
For example, a project may include a pilot phase which allows for the evaluation of the
viability and potential value of the project before moving into the full development phase.
However, unlike most pilot phases which end up being more than an initial roll-out of full
capability, “options thinking” considers the pilot to be much more a proof of concept and
rigorous evaluation of the viability of the project while providing the option to cancel the project
based on the outcome. In this case, the present value of the pilot is what’s at risk rather than the
entire future value (positive and negative) of the completed project. It’s really nothing more than
a preplanned exit strategy at predetermined points in the project lifecycle that would “cut your
losses” by cancelling continued development. Too often, project teams feel there is no turning
back once the development lifecycle has begun and this simply does not have to be.
Consequently, “a project with an embedded option is more valuable than one without” (Fichman,
et al., 2005).
This type of philosophy requires a change in the way project management is performed in
most organizations by allowing for flexibility in the development process and deliverables. In
addition, risk and potential exits must be discussed candidly and early and allow for complete
“amnesty” for those exercising the options.
Leadership Style. Turner and Muller (2005) were commissioned by the PM Institute to
determine whether a project manager's leadership style was a factor in project success. They
specifically look at two questions:
1. Is the competence, including personality and leadership style, of the project manager
a success factor for projects?
10
2. Are different competence profiles appropriate for different project types?
Their review of the current literature found little coverage of PM style and competence
and its effects on project success. While traditional management style and its effects on business
operations is typically explored and evaluated in most research work, very little exists in the area
of project manager’s style as a project success factor. The current literature covers a general
manager's style and finds it is clearly identified as a success factor in business performance.
Curiously, the literature is quite deficient in covering the role of the project manager's leadership
style even though the relationship between manager and team is similar.
In conclusion, Turner and Muller (2005) distill these down into the four most critical
factors:

Link your project to corporate business strategy

Align major stakeholders on key issues

Simplify project controls and metrics

Ensure effective communication and expectation management is maintained
Sumner et al (2006) also departs from expounding on the normal characteristics of
successful and failed projects and argues there is a relationship between project manager
leadership style and the success of a project. Based on the Leadership Practice Inventory (LPI),
developed by Kouzes and Posner (2002), it focuses on whether different management behaviors
can ultimately lead to increased project success. A total of 57 project managers were randomly
surveyed from the roles of the Project Management Institute membership. Data was collected
from a self-assessment survey, an observer (supervisors, subordinates, and peers) assessment,
and a background questionnaire. While the self-assessment did not lead to any significant
findings regarding leadership behaviors and project success, the observer assessments completed
11
by participants who could observe the project managers behavior did. Based on this, the authors
conclude that project managers of successful projects do exhibit strong leadership behaviors as
measured by the LPI. The fact that the observer assessment led to a significant result is expected
and in line with the concept that leadership inherently involves influencing those around you
regardless of your own perceptions.
Kendra and Taplin (2004) suggest that acting as an agent of change is the leadership
competency that project manager’s need in addition to PM methodologies and basic leadership
skills. Based on their review of the literature, they develop six competencies that project
managers should have, among them are teamwork and leadership which also appears to support
Sumner’s (2006) findings.
Thamhain (2004b) examines team leadership effectiveness in managing IT projects by
surveying 80 technology-intensive project teams in 27 companies. The results of the research
found the most significant factors that influence project team performance were:
1. Professionally stimulating and challenging work environments
2. Opportunity for accomplishments and recognition
3. The ability to resolve conflict and problems
4. Clearly defined organizational objectives relevant to the project
5. Job skills and expertise of the team members appropriate for the project work
Recruiting and assigning project managers are skilled in the areas of leadership and team
building can help them to ensure that these particular needs are met.
Strategic Alignment. The purpose and requirements behind an IT project can have just
as much impact on project success as the methodology and the leadership used to manage the
project. Prior research has shown that user and management buy-in are critical to the success of
12
an IT project (Jiang, Klein, & Discenza, 2002). By approaching project approval and
requirements based on business strategies for success, user and management acceptance can be
increased and therefore the likelihood project success increases as well.
Shenhar (2004) describes a new approach to PM called Strategic Project Management
which focuses on projects that create competitive advantage and that all projects should be
initiated for business reasons. The results of this study are based on comprehensive research
done on over 600 projects over course of 10 years and over 200 documented case studies. The
author presents a framework for project planning that extends the current thinking about what
should be considered during the planning phase by raising the level of abstraction at which it
begins. Rather than starting with scope and requirements which leads to a process and project
plan, Shenhar presents a 5- point model that includes strategy, spirit, organization, process, and
tools. These are defined below:
1. Strategy – this is the missing link between business strategy and the project plan.
While most projects start with a project plan, this requires a more direct link between
the business strategy that is driving the project requirements and the project itself by
considering an intermediate step of “project strategy”. Shenhar (2004) defines project
strategy as the “project perspective, vision, and guidelines on what to do and how to
do it…”
2. Spirit – the energy, excitement, and enthusiasm of the project team all translate into
project spirit and are the responsibility of the project manager to nurture through
leadership skills. The ability for a leader to define and communicate vision is an
important leadership trait that Chritenson and Walker (2004) also confirm.
13
3. Organization – choosing the right structure for the project team will help to ensure
project success. “The proper structure must be adept to the strategy and spirit and to
the project type” whether that be function, pure project, matrix or a combination
(Shenhar, 2004).
4. Process – this amounts to adhering to validated, proven, and sanctioned project
management methods such as those defined in the Project Management Institute’s
Body of Knowledge.
5. Tools – these are the tools that relate to project planning, scheduling, budgeting,
organizing, etc. “Tool should be chosen to server the higher elements and help plan,
execute, and control the project” (Shenhar, 2004).
With these five framework components for project planning in mind, Shenhar (2004)
presents the seven principals of “Strategic Project Leadership” designed to “help organizations
implement the strategic approach” (p.573) which in turn should ensure greater project success by
ensuring the linkage between projects and business strategy. These principals are:
1. Leadership – turn project managers into leaders responsible for business results.
2. Strategic Project Portfolio Management – grouping projects by strategic impact.
3. Project Strategy – defines the competitive advantage of the project deliverable.
4. Project Spirit – project member culture and motivation towards delivering the project
results.
5. Adaptation – be flexible in adopting a project management style by selecting the one
that reflects the characteristics of the environment.
6. Integration – use the five point model presented above to guide the project plan.
7. Learning – include lessons learned and encourage a learning environment.
14
Shenhar (2004) concludes by suggesting that the Strategic Project Leadership represents
the “future development of project management” (p. 578). As stated previously, prior research
has shown that strategic alignment of project requirements and outcomes can increase user
satisfaction and management support which in turn leads to project success.
Organizational Structure. Morrison and Brown (2004) review the existing literature on
organizational effectiveness and project success to develop a theoretic construct on PM
effectiveness. The authors specifically differentiate between project success and PM
effectiveness and use the following criteria for establishing the difference:

PM ends when the product is delivered to the customer

project success is measured over the life of the project deliverables

successful project management does not necessarily lead to project success and weak
PM does not necessarily lead to a weak product
The authors stressed the importance of this delineation because their study includes the
activities of project planning, execution and assessment of PM objectives compliance.
Morrison and Brown (2004) contend that the basic definition of organization is virtually
the same as the definition for PM and therefore can be used as the basis for their PM construct.
They summarized their findings on organizational effectiveness by providing five principals to
consider when developing an effectiveness model:

The existence of different levels of goals which may include short term operational
and long term goals

The contribution of intermediate process and resource factors

The open-systems nature and interdependency of an organization with its
environment
15

The influence of constituencies and their different expectations of goals

The importance of a proper theoretical conceptualization of the context to be studied
The authors suggest that when taken in the context of PM these principals relate to PM
characteristics. PM concentrates on the achievement of specific project goals and objectives as
well as longer term strategic benefits, it is dependent on a systematic process and is resource
reliant, it needs to address the needs of stakeholders and users and balance these, and it runs
tightly integrated with the rest of the organization. These appear to be quite similar to those
principals of organizational effectiveness.
Their research consisted of the results of a questionnaire completed by 17 experts on the
field of PM consisting of a list of variables developed from their review of literature on PM
success. Each respondent was asked to decide whether each variable contributed to PM success
or not. Based on the responses they were able to group the resulting list of variables into four
broad domains:
1. Those related to organizational input to PM
2. Those related to how PM is executed
3. Those related to how PM objectives are achieved
4. Those related to how the rest of the organization benefits and is impacted by PM in
the longer term
16
Their analysis and conclusion led them to develop the following construct:
Figure 1. Proposed construct of project management effectiveness. Adapted from “Project
management effectiveness as a construct: A conceptual study”, by Morrison, J., & Brown, C.
2004, South African Journal of Business Management, 35(4), 73.
The construct defines the factors that lead to a successful outcome. It can be noted that
the PM process domain clearly has the largest role in project success and therefore should be the
primary focus of any PM effort to ensure project success. This does not mean that the other
domains are any less important and therefore should be ignored; it is simply realizing the
importance of the project manager in the process.
Conclusion
This article has reviewed both traditional thinking and research in the project
management field and some of the most recent theories that provide unconventional tools and
theories for increasing project management effectiveness and project success. Each of these tools
and theories provides coverage across a different aspect of the entire project management
domain in the areas of risk management, leadership, strategic alignment, and organizational
17
structure. While traditional theories have focused on the actual process of project management
for improving success rations, these newer theories provide the unconventional approach of
focusing on the bigger picture of project management and how it fits into the larger picture
within the organization. As previously mentioned, with the high rate of failure for IT projects
and at times the lack of applicable and practical research in PM, these studies provide a new set
of tools for the project manager’s bag of tricks that can help ensure project success.
18
References
Bredillet, C. N. (2005). Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going? Project
Management Journal, p. 3, from
http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&an=17533849
Christenson, D., & Walker, D. H. T. (2004). Understanding the role of "vision" in project
success. Project Management Journal, 35(3), 39-52.
Du, S. M., Johnson, R. D., & Keil, M. (2004). Project management courses in IS graduate
programs: What is being taught? Journal of Information Systems Education, 15(2), 181.
Fichman, R. G., Keil, M., & Tiwana, A. (2005). Beyond valuation: "Options thinking" in IT
project management. California Management Review, 47(2), 74.
Gillard, S. (2004). IT project management: A conceptual view. Journal of American Academy of
Business, Cambridge, 5(1/2), 381.
Hartman, F., & Ashrafi, R. A. (2002). Project management in the information systems and
information technologies industries. Project Management Journal, 33(3), 5.
Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., & Discenza, R. (2002). Pre-project partnering impact on an information
system project, project team and project manager. European Journal of Information
Systems, 11(2), 86.
Kendra, K. A., & Taplin, L. J. (2004). Change agent competencies for information technology
project managers. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice & Research, 56(1), 20-34.
Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2002). The leadership challenge (3rd ed.): Jossey-Bass.
McDonald, J. (2001). Why is software project management difficult? And what that implies for
teaching software project management. Computer Science Education, 11(1), 55.
Morrison, J., & Brown, C. (2004). Project management effectiveness as a construct: A
conceptual study. South African Journal of Business Management, 35(4), 73.
Ray, H. (2007). Information technology leadership challenges - Past, present, and future.
Information Systems Management, 24(2), 147.
Reif, H. L., & Mitri, M. (2005). How university professors teach project management for
information systems. Communications of the ACM, 48(8), 134.
Shenhar, A. J. (2004). Strategic Project Leadership® Toward a strategic approach to project
management. R&D Management, 34(5), 569-578.
Sumner, M., Bock, D., & Giamartino, G. (2006). Exploring the linkage between the
characteristics of it project leaders and project success. Information Systems
Management, 23(4), 43.
19
Tesch, D., Kloppenborg, T. J., & Stemmer, J. K. (2003). Project management learning: What the
literature has to say. Project Management Journal, 34(4), 33.
Thamhain, H. J. (2004a). Project management, information technology, and information systems.
Engineering Management Journal, 16(2), 1.
Thamhain, H. J. (2004b). Team leadership effectiveness in technology-based project
environments. Project Management Journal, 35(4), 35.
Turner, J. R., & Müller, R. (2005). The project manager's leadership style as a success factor on
projects: a literature review. Project Management Journal, 36(2), 49.