MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1506329604

A Survey of Information Systems Development Project Performance

2011· article· en· W1506329604 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Keith Wright, Charles J. Capps

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Information and Management Sciences journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicInformation Technology Governance and Strategy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRevenuePublic sectorBusinessInformation technologyEconomicsOperations managementFinanceComputer scienceEconomy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.014
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Information and Management Sciences journalSame topicInformation Technology Governance and StrategyFrench-language works237,207