لطفا منتظر باشید ...
Abandonment Factors
We have seen in earlier chapters that abandonment of software development projects is caused by a multiplicity of cofactors. The studies by the Standish Group (1995, 1998), Johnson (1995), Ewusi-Mensah (1997), OASIG (1996), KPMG (Cole 1995), and Ewusi-Mensah and Przasnyski (1994, 1991) confirm that fact. The data compiled through surveys of canceled projects (mainly in the United States and United Kingdom) in the studies cited above provide the list of factors briefly described in this section. We defer detailed analysis and discussion of the factors and their relevance to the different stages of the development process of the conventional life cycle to the next section, in which we develop a framework to aid in the analysis.
Unrealistic Project Goals and Objectives
This factor deals with the "lack of general agreement on a well-articulated set of project goals and objectives" as a major issue (Ewusi-Mensah 1997, 75). The KPMG study (Cole 1995) describes this factor as the failure to fully specify the project's objectives, and it was the most significant of the factors that study uncovered. The Standish Group lists "incomplete requirements" as the culprit with regard to this factor as well as "unrealistic expectations," presumably stemming from overly ambitious and perhaps ambiguous project objectives.
Inappropriate Project-Team Composition
The critical issue here is concern regarding the depth and diversity of talent from all the stakeholder groups on the team charged with the responsibility for developing the project. "A weak or problematic project team" is a concern raised by Ewusi-Mensah (1997, 75). The KPMG study lists "insufficient senior staff on the team" as an important factor, in addition to "inappropriate project staffing" (Cole 1995, 4). The roles and responsibilities of the team members are issues of major significance to the overall project outcome.
Project Management and Control Problems
The main concern here is the "lack of a measurement system to measure progress and identify potential risks in time to mitigate them." The lack of experienced and knowledgeable project "leadership responsible for making critical decisions at different phases of the project," as indicated by Ewusi-Mensah (1997, 75), provides an additional source of uneasiness. The KPMG study (Cole 1995, 4) also confirms this factor and describes it as "inadequate or no project management methodology," while the Standish Group simply calls it a "lack of IT management."
Inadequate Technical Know-How
Here the concern is with the "level of expertise and experience together with the relevant application domain knowledge" of the project team; lack of adequate expertise in quantity and quality will have a potentially fatal impact on the project (Ewusi-Mensah 1997, 75). The Standish Group (1995) lists "technology illiteracy" as being a major issue, while the KPMG study (Cole 1995, 4) expresses concern about the "poor performance by suppliers of hardware and software" as a possible contributory factor. In the KPMG study, the concern is presumably about the work of the suppliers of technology to the project, hence its inclusion here.
Changing Requirements
This factor deals with unstable requirements and the functional specifications emanating from them. The Standish Group (1995) presumably lists this as a concern because of its potential impact on the design and other phases of the project development. Changing requirements have the tendency to increase project costs, delay schedules, and frustrate the work of the project team as continuous revisions have to be made to previously completed work. The ripple effects of changing requirements may at times cause even the project goals and objectives to be revised, especially if the original objectives were based on an incorrect and/or incomplete understanding of the software program. This development is extreme, because such revisions will likely have a drastic effect on the project's outcome. Thus changing requirements can introduce a whole new level of complexity in the design of the project, generally complicating the development process.
Problematic Technology Base/Infrastructure
This factor speaks to the adequacy of the technology infrastructure available in the organization and whether it is satisfactory to support the project development work (Ewusi-Mensah 1997). An unsatisfactory technology base is always problematic, because the accompanying level of technological illiteracy that may exist in the organization will most likely be incompatible with a satisfactory project outcome. Alternatively, if the technology is "new to the organization," the learning curve of the project team will add another layer of uncertainty to the project's schedule and outcome (Cole 1995, 4).
Lack of Executive Support and Commitment
The lack of active participation of corporate management in monitoring progress on the project and in making decisions at critical junctures is a major concern (Ewusi-Mensah 1997). The Standish Group (1995) also confirms this factor as a major contributor, because of the varied negative influences "lack of executive support" may have on the overall project outcome. The KPMG study (Cole 1995, 4) lists this factor as "insufficient senior staff on the team," which can be broadly interpreted to include lack of executive commitment to monitor progress on the project and to stay engaged to handle the various decisions that must be made over time.
Insufficient User Involvement and Commitment
The Standish Group (1995) lists this factor separately as "lack of user involvement" in the project development. The significance of this factor is well documented in the literature on software development within specific application domains or contexts, as is generally the case in organizational information systems projects (see, for example, Ewusi-Mensah 1998; Newman and Noble 1990). Inadequate and/or unsatisfactory user commitment and involvement are bound to seriously hamper the project team's ability to come up with requirements that are complete, consistent, and capable of satisfactorily meeting the expectations of the users.
Cost Overruns and Schedule Delays
This factor is generally symptomatic of the occurrence of any combination of the factors discussed above, because those factors have the potential to add to the cost of the project and push the delivery date further back. For example, the constant changing of requirements will cause designs to be revised each time, and this will affect all subsequent work based on the earlier designs. In most instances, this adds to the cost of the project and delays the schedule as well. Over time, the project may be faced with a critical shortage of resources, as the Standish Group (1995) revealed. The KPMG study (Cole 1995, 4) found a major contributor to this factor to be "bad planning and estimating," which renders the original cost and schedule estimates inaccurate and thus presents a false impression of project cost escalation and/or schedule delays.The factors cited above are not intended to be exhaustive or mutually exclusive. Future studies may find other factors that should be added to the list. In addition, the colinearity of the factors conveys the essential next section we examine which of the factors are critical in which stage of the systems development process. We are interested in developing a framework of abandonment factors that will aid in discussions of particularly vulnerable issues in the different phases of the systems development process.
