A Survey of Information Systems Development Project Performance
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
CURRENT INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) ISSUES The rate of information systems development project failure in the 1980s and 1990s was routinely documented to be above 50%, the larger the development; the more likely it was unsuccessful (SIMPL & NZIER, 2000). A 1994 study of IS development projects in the British public sector estimated that 20% of expenditures were wasted, and further 30% to 40% did not produce perceivable benefits (Wilcocks, 1994). Also in 1994, the U.S. General Accounting Office reported that spending of more than US$200 billion in the previous twelve years had led to few meaningful returns. A 1995 study of over 8,000 IS projects by Johnson revealed that only 16% were completed on time and within budget (Johnson, 1995). The U.S. Internal Revenue Service, with an annual computer budget of US$8 billion, managed a string of project failures that have cost taxpayers $50 billion year [mainly defined as revenue forgone]--roughly as much as the yearly net profit of the entire computer industry (James, 1997). Collins and Bicknell (1997) estimated that public sector failures in the United Kingdom cost 5 billion [pounds sterling]. The Wessex Health Authority's Regional Information Systems Plan was cancelled after more than 43 million [pounds sterling] had already been spent, with little achieved (Collins et al., 1997). The New Zealand Police abandoned an IS development in 1999, at cost of more than NZ$100 million, after years of development provided little more than an e-mail system and number of terminals run by 1970s-era mainframe. A study by SIMPL & NZIER (2000) found that the success rate was only 55% for projects under US$750,000; however, for those with budgets over US$10 million, no projects were successful. A 2001 U.S. Standish Group survey of IS projects found success rates were as follows: 59% in the retail sector, 32% in the financial sector, 27% in manufacturing, and 18% in government. Overall, the average success rate was 26%. In all, 46% of the projects had problems, including being over budget, behind schedule, or delivered incomplete. Another 28% failed altogether or were cancelled, and cost overruns averaged nearly 200% (SIMPL & NZIER, 2000). The beginning of the 21st century showed little improvement in IS development project performance. In 2002, the United Kingdom's National Health Service initiated the largest-ever public sector project at an estimated cost of 11 billion [pounds sterling]. This led to the introduction of new information systems in almost every hospital, but it was still considered failure (Rainer & Turban, 2009). A benefit payment scheme involving the British Post Office, the Department of Social Security, and the computer company ICL was abandoned after three years and cost of 300 million [pounds sterling] (The Economist, 2002). An already obsolete air-traffic support system opened at Swanson in the United Kingdom, in 2002, six years late and 180 million [pounds sterling] over budget (The Economist, 2002). The Canadian Firearms Program increased from initial estimates of C$113 million to more than C$1 billion, an overrun of almost 900% (Auditor, 2002). Georgiadou (2003) found five out of six corporate projects are considered unsuccessful, with one-third cancelled. Of the two-thirds that were not cancelled, price and completion times were almost twice what had originally been planned. Dalcher and Genus (2003) reported US$150 billion was wasted per annum on information and communications technology failures in the public and private sectors in the United States and US$140 billion in the European Union. A 2004 Standish Group report estimated success rate of 29%, with 53% of the projects having problems, and failure rate of 18%. The Royal Academy of Engineering and the British Computer Society (2004) found that 84% of public sector projects resulted in failure. Vast sums of money, mostly provided by aid agencies, have been spent on health and other information systems in South Africa, on donor-funded IS projects in China, and on World Bank funded projects in Africa. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,014 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».