Task completion competency and project management
performance: The influence of control and user contribution
Julie Yu-Chih Liu
a,*, Henry Houn-Gee Chen
b, James J. Jiang
a,b, Gary Klein
c aDepartment of Information Management, Yuan Ze University, Chung-Li 32003, TaiwanbDepartment and Graduate Institute of Business Administration, National Taiwan University, Taiwan c
College of Business and Administration, University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, United States Received 29 December 2008; received in revised form 5 May 2009; accepted 7 May 2009
Abstract
Recent research examines the relationship between competency and success in the information systems project environment. The links, however, are not well established and the antecedents of competency not well explored. We model the link between general task completion competency and performance of development teams with two crucial antecedents built by other stakeholders, the contribu-tion of users and controls established by management. A sample of informacontribu-tion systems professionals confirms the model and places a focus on the competencies of the professionals involved in a development. Management must be aware of team level controls and the competencies within a team and not focus on the individual members of a system development team.
Ó2009 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Information systems development; Project management; Competency; User participation; Management controls
1. Introduction
Organizations frequently adopt project teams for infor-mation systems (IS) implementation in order to accomplish the necessary tasks. Still, organizations are just beginning to understand the complexity of factors that influence pro-ject management performance (Subramanian et al., 2007). Aladwani (2002)proposed an integrated model for IS pro-ject management performance by synthesizing the litera-ture on software project management. He argues that certain project environmental attributes (e.g., support tech-nologies, project-team size, clear goals, expertise of staff, and management advocacy) are necessary factors for prob-lem solving ability, which in turn represent necessary con-ditions to secure a more successful implementation. The
focus of the model is on the mediator variable of task com-pletion competency – which is associated with process characteristics of the project team. The implication is that management and researchers should focus on the anteced-ent variables to facilitate process so that outcomes are improved.
One likely facilitator frequently mentioned in the IS lit-erature is user contribution (Nelson and Cooprider, 1996; Barki and Hartwick, 1994; Alter, 1979; Wang et al., 2006; Subramanian et al., 2007). From another research perspective, the project management literature views man-agement controls to be crucial to success (Henderson and Lee, 1992; Lee et al., 1995b). Each of these factors from the different literatures has ample theory backing their importance, but the empirical results linking them directly to success is mixed (Leung, 2001; Beath and Orlikowski, 1994; Andres and Zmud, 2002; Ives and Olson, 1984; Kirsch and Beath, 1996). Using the model of Aladwani (2002), a mediating variable that is a good predictor of suc-cess might better serve to explain the relationship between the factor variables and eventual project success.
0263-7863/$36.00Ó2009 Elsevier Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.05.006
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +886 3 463 8800x2610; fax: +886 3 435 2077.
E-mail addresses:[email protected](J.Y.-C. Liu),hgchen@
ntu.edu.tw (H.H.-G. Chen),[email protected](J.J. Jiang), gklein@
uccs.edu (G. Klein).
International Journal of Project Management 28 (2010) 220–227
One process factor believed to promote success is a team’s innate ability to complete tasks (Aladwani, 2002). For example, a key success factor for software develop-ment projects is not the tools or techniques traditionally emphasized in project management and software engineer-ing, but the cumulative competences of the software devel-opment team (Rose et al., 2007). Learning and control theories lead one to expect that the task completion process will be enhanced by management controls over processes and the contributions to learning made by the users ( Nel-son and Cooprider, 1996; HenderNel-son and Lee, 1992).
The purpose of this study is, therefore, to empirically examine the relationships among management control, user contributions, project team task completion compe-tency, and the project team’s performance. We argue that management control behaviors and user contribution that have direct impacts on project team’s task completion com-petency, which, in turn, impact project management per-formance and outcomes. By adding to our understanding of the process factors that lead to success of a development project, we build on the ability of organizations to address factors and process jointly in order to achieve eventual pro-ject success.
2. Background of hypotheses
The complex nature of teamwork is a multifaceted, higher-order concept that includes both task related activ-ities and social interaction within teams (Ho¨gl and Gemu¨n-den, 2001). A high level of general teamwork quality leads to a high level of team performance (Ho¨gl and Parboteeah, 2006; Ho¨gl et al., 2004). More specifically, an IS develop-ment team with a high level of teamwork quality is associ-ated with a higher effective use of technology (Easley et al., 2003). There is a great deal of interaction among teamwork quality and organizational conditions such as procedural and interactional justice, team autonomy, and external influence (Ho¨gl and Parboteeah, 2006; Dayan and Di Benedetto, 2008; Molleman, 2009). Team task completion competence is an another factor believed to promote pro-ject performance, except it is rooted in the abilities of the team rather than the social interaction components (Aladwani, 2002; Rose et al., 2007). The cumulative com-petences of the software development team are deemed more important than the tools, techniques, processes and interactions employed by the team. As such, competency should be a more direct predictor of the outcomes of per-formance than the activities and social interaction aspects. Additionally, high performing development teams are those in which managers retain control over assigning specific work assignments to team members and develop-ing task procedures (Lee et al., 1995b). Henderson and Lee (1992) indicated that the total level of management control behaviors is positively correlated with IS project team’s final performance. Yet another critical external factor is learning (Shepherd et al., 2006; Neufeld and
Haggerty, 2001). Learning is often perceived as a positive predictor of project team outcomes and member satisfac-tion (Argote et al., 2003; Gold et al., 2001). In fact, the learning between users and IS project teams has been widely examined in the IS literature (Grover and Davenport, 2001; Beck et al., 2006). It is believed that user contribution is a necessary ingredient for successful learning for IS development teams (Christiaanse and Venkatraman, 2002; Jiang et al., 2006).
However, the extent of impact might differ across mea-sures of success. Aladwani (2002) argues that studies should consider a project level measure of success in addition to the more traditional measures of user satis-faction or product effectiveness. IS project effectiveness (e.g., usage, user satisfaction, product quality) is primar-ily a consideration of the individual or product but pro-ject management performance (e.g. meeting obpro-jectives of cost, quality, scope) is indicative of the overall project. Given the difference between these two performance mea-sures,Aladwani (2002)argues that an integrated research model for IS project management performance is needed in research efforts on IS project management perfor-mance. The specific model proposes that organizational characteristics (i.e., management advocacy), people char-acteristics (i.e., staff expertise), task charchar-acteristics (i.e., clear goals), technology characteristics (i.e., support tech-nologies), and project characteristics (i.e., project-team size), directly influence the project team’s general prob-lem solving and task completion competency and, in turn, affects the project team’s performance. The project team’s general task completion competency was empha-sized as a mediator.
However, empirical findings do not reveal a positive relationship between organizational characteristics (i.e., management advocacy) and the project team’s task com-pletion competency. To consider why, this study considers learning theory and control theory as an addition to Aladwani’s proposed framework (Aladwani, 2002) to explain the link between organizational factors and task completion competency. The research model in this study is shown inFig. 1. In general, we propose that user contri-bution and management control have positive impacts on the IS project team’s task completion competency which, in turn, leads to positive project management performance.
H2 User Contribution Team’s Task Completion Competency Management Controls Project Management Performance H3 H1
Furthermore, the impacts of both user contribution and management control on final project management perfor-mance will be fully mediated by the IS project team’s task completion competency.
User Contribution: User contribution is defined as the
extent to which prospective IS users provide input and feedback to the IS project team during the development (Barki and Hartwick, 1994). User contribution is associ-ated with user involvement and user participation.
Management Controls: According to Flamholtz et al.
(1985), management control is defined as the attempt to increase the probability that employees will behave in ways that lead to the attainment of organizational goals. Manage-ment control is associated with managers’ understanding and controlling the project scope, changes of requirements, and standards against which to measure project progress (Ouchi, 1977; Ouchi and Maguire, 1975). The control rela-tionship between project manager and the team members is recognized as being central to effective performance in both IS project performance and for effective team processes in general (Mantei, 1981; Henderson and Lee, 1992).
Project Team’s Task Completion Competencyis defined
as the extent of the overall task completion ability which project team members possess to facilitate the favorable outcomes of the project efforts (Aladwani, 2002). The task of system development projects is a collaborative effort. Such projects usually require project team members to work effectively with various stakeholders (e.g., users, peers, consultants, and managers). Moreover, skills such as an ability to work with uncertain objectives and carry out tasks efficiently also help direct team efforts to other important issues. The sooner the project team conceptual-izes the project requirements and project scope, the more likely the team mobilizes all required effort to develop and refine the solutions. Researchers adopting the social interactionist view argue that the levels of project team members’ competency play a critical role on project man-agement performance and, thus, the final outcomes (Robey et al., 1993; Aladwani, 2002).
Project management performance: Oldham and
Hack-man (1980) suggest that the overall effectiveness of a pro-ject team depends on the extent to which the team’s output meets the standards of the stakeholders who benefit from that output and the efficiency of the process of carry-ing out the work. In this study, based upon the IS litera-ture, project management performance is defined as the levels of efficiency of team operation, the amount of work produced, adherence to schedules and budget, the quality of the work, meeting the project goals, and effective inter-actions with people outside of the team (Aladwani, 2002; Henderson and Lee, 1992; Robey et al., 1993).
2.1. Hypotheses
Management control theory highlights the critical role of management on IS project management performance. A control can be viewed as a process of creating and
mon-itoring rules through hierarchical authority (Henderson and Lee, 1992). Management control refers to both man-agement monitoring team outcomes and promoting behav-iors that assist in achieving the objectives. In the context of an IS project, control-oriented activities by IS management could include defining and controlling project scope and requirement changes, establishing performance guidelines through task feedback, comparing actual performance to performance standards, and establishing clear goals and standards (Katz and Lerman, 1985). In other words, man-agers monitor project progress against schedules and bud-gets to assist teams in the execution of project design and implementation (Keider, 1984; Jiang et al., 2006). Manage-ment control emphasizes both behavior and outcome feed-backs in order to attain team goals.
Feedback is a critical learning component for enhancing one’s competency. Therefore, these management control behaviors will enhance the level of a team’s general task completion competency. Furthermore, management con-trol theory suggests that there is a positive relationship between control and organization performance. In the IS literature,Henderson and Lee’s (1992)study found a posi-tive relationship between the levels of management control and project management performance. However, Aladw-ani (2002) proposed that team’s general task completion competency is a full mediator. Following his model, we propose the following hypothesis:
H1. There is a positive relationship between the level of management control and project team’s general task completion competency.
IS users may be supportive, passive, or hostile, to an information system project depending on their attitudes. Thus, when the users’ overall attitude towards a new sys-tem is unfavorable, it is likely that they will not cooperate during a development effort, leading to an increased chance of project failure. Based upon learning theory, to increase the chance of success, user feedback and input are required for development teams to learn the requirements of a sys-tem. In fact, one of the prime causes of schedule slippages and cost overruns on their projects was users who did not meet obligations of contribution (Newman and Robey, 1992). When it comes time for users to meet their obliga-tions, they are often lax in doing so (Ives and Olson, 1984; Jiang et al., 2006). Though the relationship between users and IS developers can be problematic, it critically affects the team’s task completion capability (Robey and Newman, 1996). Based upon the learning theory and the empirical findings in the IS literature, we propose the fol-lowing hypothesis:
H2. There is a significant relationship between the levels of user contribution and project team’s general task completion competency.
A project team’s general task completion competency has several implications for the work of IS projects. An IS project that gathers high skills among the team members
can convert available resources in ways that facilitate the favorable outcomes of the effort (Lee et al., 1995a; Ross et al., 1996). IS task completion is a collaborative effort – requiring effective coordination among team members, users, and managers - as do many other innovative team efforts (Ho¨gl and Gemu¨nden, 2001). To complete IS tasks, project teams often must work with undefined elements and uncertain objectives, work effectively in a team, and understand the human implications of a new information system. Numerous studies have shown a relationship between the proficiency level of IS personnel’s general skills and project performance (Reich and Kaarst-Brown, 1999; Byrd and Turner, 2001). We, therefore, propose the follow-ing hypothesis:
H3. There is a positive relationship between the levels of project team’s general task completion competency and project team’s performance.
3. Research method
3.1. Sample
Questionnaires were mailed to 500 IS managers and IS professionals who were members of the Project Manage-ment Institute’s SIG on Information Systems. Postage-paid envelopes for each questionnaire were enclosed. All respon-dents were assured that their responses would be kept con-fidential. Subjects were directed to consider their most recently completed project when responding to the ques-tions. Of the 500 initial surveys mailed, 35 were returned undelivered. From the remaining 465 surveys mailed, a total of 169 responses were received. In order to increase the sample size, a second mailing was sent to the non-respondents. We assessed the non-response bias by com-paring early to late respondents through the test of chi-square goodness-of-fit (Sivo et al., 2006). No significant dif-ference was found; therefore, the two rounds of respon-dents were combined for further analysis. The response from the sample totaled 205, for an overall response rate of about 40.5%. (Table 1) is a summary of the demographic characteristics of the sample.
3.2. Constructs
Management Control describes the extent of
manage-ment controls implemanage-mented during the system develop-ment. The instrument used in this study was originally developed byAlter (1979). Each item shown inTable 1 is scored using a five-point scale ranging from not at all (1) to a great extent (5). All items were presented such that the greater the score, the greater the extent of the particular item presented during the system developments.
User Contribution: The user contribution measure is a
subset of items identified by Barki and Hartwick (1994). For this measure, the questionnaire asked respondents to identify the levels of support through user participation,
involvement, and inputs/feedbacks encountered in their most recently completed IS project. The specific items are also shown in Table 1. They are designed to measure the IS respondent’s perception of user contribution. Each item was scored using a five-point scale ranging from disagree (1) to agree (5). All items were presented such that the greater the score, the greater the lack of the user support.
Project Team’s Task Completion Competency describes
the general ability of IS project team’s during system devel-opments. The construct used in this study was originally developed by Barki et al. (1993). Table 1 shows the five items. All items were presented such that the greater the score, the greater the extent of the particular item presented.
Project management performance: Most authors argue
three dimensions of project performance: meeting budget, meeting schedule, and meeting user requirements ( McFar-lan, 1981; Wateridge, 1995). Other researchers suggest fur-ther dimensions of project performance: amount of work produced, the quality of work produced and ability to meet project goals (Deephouse et al., 1995; Henderson and Lee, 1992). The project management literature often includes meeting project goals, budget, schedule, and operational efficiency consideration (Lewis, 1995). The items used in this study were adopted from Henderson and Lee (1992).
Table 1 Demographic information. Variables Categories # % Gender Male 182 10.7 Female 22 88.8 Missing 1 0.5 Position IS manager 54 26.3 Project leader 68 33.2 IS professional 72 35.1 Missing 11 5.4
Industry type Service 105 51.2
Manufacturing 76 37.1 Education 11 5.4 Missing 13 6.3 Number of IS employee 610 43 21.0 11–50 57 27.8 51–100 25 12.2 101–500 29 14.1 >500 49 23.9 Missing 2 1.0
Average team size 67 110 53.7
8–15 67 32.7
16–25 12 5.9
P26 11 5.4
Missing 5 2.4
Average project duration <1 year 82 40.0
1–2 years 72 35.1
2–3 years 22 10.7
3-5 years 11 5.4
>5 years 12 5.9
Missing 6 2.9
These items were also used by Robey et al. (1993). The questionnaire asked attainment of the project management performance that is typical for their organizations when developing information systems. The specific items are listed in Table 1. Each item was scored using a five-point scale ranging from never (1) to always (5). All items were presented such that the greater the score, the greater the achievement of the particular item.
3.3. Partial least squares
The constructs used in this study were examined using a partial least squares (PLS) technique. PLS is superior to traditional statistical methods in path models (Chin, 1998). The loadings of indicators on constructs can be read in a manner very similar to regression and LISREL, that is, the standardized coefficients indicate the relative strength of the statistical relationships. It places minimal demands on sample size and residual distribution (Lo¨hmoller, 1989). Moreover, PLS supports formative structures and is appropriate for testing models in the early stages of development (Chin, 1998).
The reliability and validity of the constructs can be dem-onstrated through measures of internal reliability, conver-gent, and discriminant validities (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Each of the constructs adopted in this study employed multiple items, so convergent validity was assessed by examining the loading of each item on the cor-responding factors. (Table 2) shows the item loadings.
Each of the items was significantly loaded into its corre-sponding factors so the convergent validity criteria are met. Evidence of internal reliability of the examined con-structs was obtained by estimating composite reliability. A composite reliability of 0.7 or greater is acceptable for social science research (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Results are shown inTable 2, and can be seen to exceed the recom-mended level of reliability measures (Nunnally, 1978).
Discriminant validity refers to when different scales used to measure different constructs have limited correlation among the different scales. To evaluate discriminant valid-ity, the correlations between any two constructs should not exceed .70 and have an average variance extracted (AVE) of at least 0.5 (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). (Table 3) indi-cates appropriate discriminant validity under these require-ments. Bias related to demographic features is tested and controlled. An ANOVA analysis for each categorical demographic variable indicated that none are related to the dependent variable. Regression analyses found that only project duration of the continuous demographic vari-ables is related to project management performance and is retained in future analyses as a control variable.
4. Results
Table 4 shows the results of the structural equation model. Hypotheses H1, H2, and H3 were all supported with respective path coefficients of .19, .42, and .41. The
t-statistics for these three hypotheses all exceeded
Table 2
Measurement model – confirmatory factor analysis results.
Construct indicators Loadings T-value
Management control: (composite reliability = 0.88, ave. = 0.66)
1 To what extent do software development first-line managers sing off on their schedules and cost estimates 0.81 32.88 2 To what extent is a mechanism used for controlling changes to software requirements? 0.81 25.56 3 To what extent is a mechanism used for controlling changes to the code? (who can make changes and under what
conditions?)
0.82 34.19 4 To what extent doe senior management have a mechanism for the regular review of the status of software development
projects?
0.80 24.52 User contribution (reverse score): (composite reliability = 0.89, ave. = 0.61)
1 Users are unavailable to answer development teams’ questions 0.78 18.35 2 Users are unaware of the importance of their role in successfully completing projects 0.82 29.89
3 Users are not an integral part of the development task 0.77 23.33
4 Users do not respond quickly to development team requests (e.g., information or approvals) 0.83 32.52 5 Users have constraints in fulfilling their development responsibilities 0.70 19.20 Team’s general task completion competence (reverse score): (composite reliability = 0.91, ave. = 0.61)
1 An inability to work with undefined elements and uncertain objectives 0.76 13.23
2 An inability to work effectively in a team 0.72 16.97
3 An inability to successfully complete a task 0.84 35.87
4 An inability to understand the human implications of a new information systems 0.81 28.71
5 An inability to carry out tasks quickly 0.72 19.04
Project management performance: (composite reliability = 0.92 ave. = 0.66)
1 Ability to met project goals 0.82 34.29
2 Expected amount of work completed 0.81 33.74
3 High quality of work completed 0.84 39.02
4 Adherence to schedule 0.83 31.46
5 Adherence to budget 0.78 24.33
significance at the .05 level indicating these relationships hold statistical significance. Project management perfor-mance and the team’s task completion competency have
R2values of .42 and .23, respectively, which are considered reasonably high. This high R2 value shows that the inde-pendent variables included in this model are important in explaining performance.
A variable functions as mediator when it meets the fol-lowing conditions: (1) there is a significant relationship between independent variable (i.e., management control and user contribution) and the mediator variable (i.e., task completion competence), (2) there is a significant relation-ship between mediator and dependent variable (i.e., task completion competence and project management perfor-mance), and (3) when condition (1) and (2) are controlled, a previous relation between the independent variable (i.e., management control and user contribution) and dependent variable (i.e., project management performance) becomes smaller (Baron and Kenny, 1986). In the strongest demon-stration of mediation, when the relationship between inde-pendent variable and deinde-pendent variable is no longer significant, there is a dominant mediator. From a theoret-ical perspective, a dominant mediator(s) present a complete reason(s) for the effects of an independent variable.
To examine the potential of a dominant mediator (i.e., project team’s task completion competence), the relation-ships between user support and management control and the mediators were released (in other words, the controlled condition (1) was removed) and the relationship between management control and user support to the dependent variable (i.e., project management performance) were added back. The results indicated a strong positive rela-tionship between management control and project
manage-ment performance (coefficient = .46, p-vlaue <.05) and a significant relationship between user contribution and pro-ject management performance (coefficient = .30, p-value <.05) – condition 1 was met. Condition 2 was also met – a significant relationship between project team task com-pletion competence and project management performance. Next, both conditions were controlled, and the results (shown in Table 4) indicate that the direct relationship between user contribution and the project management performance was no longer significant. This significant reduction demonstrates that the project team’s task com-pletion competence is indeed a dominant mediator for user contribution. On the other hand, there was still a signifi-cant direct relationship between management control and project management performance. In other words, team’s task completion competence is not a sufficient condition for an effect (management control) to explain final project management performance.
5. Conclusion and implications
The importance of project team process factors has recently received attention in the IS literature. Aladwani (2002) has examined the project team’s general problem solving capability and its impact on project performance. Another project team process factor, task completion com-petency, has also been proposed in the literature. In fact, the lack of competence on IS project teams is one of the primary reasons for the failure of IS projects. Cost over-runs are often caused by the absence of skills in the IS pro-ject teams and the presence of inexperienced IS personnel can lead to troubled project development (Charette, 1989). Unfortunately, little empirical work, with an excep-tion ofAladwani’s study (2002), has been devoted to iden-tify the external factors which lead to a project teams’ task completion competency. The purpose of this study is, therefore, to fill this gap by examining the impacts of two external factors (i.e., management control and user contri-bution) on IS project team’s task competency and through to project management performance.
Surveying IS professionals, the results indicate that a team’s general task completion competency moderates the relationships from user contribution to project manage-ment performance and managemanage-ment control to project management performance. Also, the higher the levels of the team’s task completion competency, the larger the mag-nitude of impact on final project management
perfor-Table 3
Descriptive analysis and correlations.
Mean Std. M3 M4 UC MC TC PP
User contribution (UC) 3.13 0.90 0.10 0.67 0.81
Management control (MC) 3.37 1.01 0.38 0.55 0.17 0.78
Team competency (TC) 3.79 0.76 0.50 0.24 0.45 0.24 0.78
Project team managementperformance (PP) 3.53 0.74 0.52 0.23 0.31 0.49 0.51 0.81 M3, skewness; M4, kurtosis.
Table 4
Path analysis results (hypotheses testing). Team’s task completion competency Project management performance Project duration (control) 0.16* User contribution 0.41*(H2) 0.07 Management control 0.19*(H1) 0.39* Team’s task completion competency 0.41*(H3) R2 0.23 0.46 *p< 0.05.
mance. The results have several implications to IS manage-ment and researchers. First, the findings of this study provide additional insight to project management perfor-mance. Management control and user contribution factors are additional factors of organizational characteristics that influence project team’s task completion competency and, thus, project management performance. Second, the insig-nificant relationship between user contribution and project management performance implies that user contribution is fully mediated by the project team task competency vari-able on project management performance. This indicates that the major effect of user contribution is to enhance the levels of the IS project team’s task completion compe-tence. This result adds another potential explanation for the impact of user participation on IS project outcomes to those of traditional studies of user participation, such as buy-in theories (Markus and Mao, 2004).
In addition, the results of this study confirm the model proposed by Aladwani (2002) that team process factors are critical mediators to project management performance. The support of the critical role of project team’s task com-pletion competency on project management performance is echoed in the IS skill research. IS skill researchers suggest that the knowledge of the IS members working on a system project is a more important factor in the determination of system success than the tools or methodologies in use (Abdel-Hamid, 1989; Pinto and Kharbanda, 1995). Team members will not contribute productively to an IS project if they do not add to the team’s general skills, technological expertise, or application domain experience (Barki and Hartwick, 2001).
Future studies that examine the user participation effect on final system outcomes may include task completion competency in their models. On the other hand, other mediators may still exist that explain the impact of man-agement control on project manman-agement performance. One such possibility is teamwork quality (Ho¨gl and Gem-u¨nden, 2001). The social interactions of teams have been shown relevant in IS projects (Aladwani, 2002). The higher level of teamwork quality can boost the benefits of the activities conducted, either in a mediation role, or perhaps as a moderator in enhancing the effectiveness of user con-tributions or management controls in the promotion of competences.
For IS practitioners, several implications are suggested. First, IS management must pay attention to the task com-pletion competence at the team level, instead of the individ-ual level. This team task completion competence includes the ability to work with undefined elements and uncertain objectives, ability to successfully complete a task, and abil-ity to understand human implications of a new information system. Second, IS management should not overlook the contributions to be made from both the user and manage-ment sides. IS employees often perceive other stakeholders as hurdles to overcome in performing their jobs. However, getting the support from the users to answer the develop-ment questions, become part of the developdevelop-ment task,
and respond quickly to development team requests has a significant, positive impact on the team’s task completion competence. Similarly, management control on the changes of software requirements plays a significant role on the IS team’s task competency. Software development is a knowl-edge-learning intensive process. IS management must ensure software development teams understand and appre-ciate the importance of users and managers on their devel-opment tasks.
There are limitations to this study, as with any survey based study. The foremost limitation is the single respon-dent approach to collecting data, which introduces the pos-sibility of bias due to the same individuals reporting both the dependent and independent variables. Likewise, success variables are perceptions of the respondents, not based on objective measures. The sample was asked to respond to the questions considering only their most recently com-pleted project, adding the possibility of recency bias. Still, accepted procedures to collect and validate the data are faithfully followed, giving credibility to generalizations.
References
Abdel-Hamid, T.K., 1989. The dynamics of software project staffing: a system dynamics based simulation approach. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 15 (2), 109–119.
Aladwani, A.M., 2002. An integrated performance model of information systems projects. Journal of Management Information Systems 19 (1), 185–210.
Alter, S., 1979. Implementation risk analysis. TIMS Studies in the Management Sciences 13 (2), 103–119.
Andres, H.P., Zmud, R.W., 2002. A contingency approach to software project coordination. Journal of Management Information Systems 18 (3), 41–70.
Argote, L., McEvily, B., Reagans, R., 2003. Managing knowledge in organizations: an integrative framework and review of emerging themes. Management Sciences 49 (4), 571–582.
Barki, H., Hartwick, J., 1994. Measuring user participation, user involvement, and user attitude. MIS Quarterly 18 (1), 59–82. Barki, H., Hartwick, J., 2001. Interpersonal conflict and its management
in information systems development. MIS Quarterly 25 (2), 195–228. Barki, H., Rivard, S., Talbot, J., 1993. Toward an assessment of software
development risk. Journal of Management Information Systems 10 (2), 203–223.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51 (6), 1173–1182.
Beath, C., Orlikowski, W., 1994. The contradictory structure of systems development methodologies. Information Systems Research 5 (4), 350– 377.
Beck, P., Klein, G., Jiang, J., 2006. Prototyping mediators to project performance: learning and interaction. Journal of Systems and Software 79 (7), 1025–1035.
Byrd, T.A., Turner, D.E., 2001. An exploratory analysis of the value of the skills of IT personnel: their relationship to IS infrastructure and competitive advantage. Decision Sciences 32 (1), 21–54.
Charette, R.N., 1989. Software Engineering Risk Analysis and Manage-ment. Multiscience Press Inc., NY.
Chin, W.W., 1998. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In: Marcoulides, G.A. (Ed.), Modern Methods for Business Research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp. 295–336.
Christiaanse, E., Venkatraman, N., 2002. Beyond SABRE: an empirical test of expertise exploitation in electronic channels. MIS Quarterly 26 (1), 15–37.
Dayan, M., Di Benedetto, A., 2008. Procedural and interactional justice perceptions and teamwork quality. Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing 23 (8), 566–576.
Deephouse, C., Mukhopadhyay, T., Goldenson, D.R., Kellner, M.I., 1995. Software processes and project performance. Journal of Man-agement Information Systems 12 (3), 187–205.
Easley, R.F., Devaraj, S., Crant, J.M., 2003. Relating collaborative technology use to teamwork quality and performance: an empirical analysis. Journal of Management Information Systems 19 (4), 247– 268.
Flamholtz, E.G., Das, T.K., Tsui, A.S., 1985. Toward an interative framework of organizational control. Accounting, Organizations and Society 10 (1), 35–50.
Fornell, C., Larcker, D., 1981. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research 18 (3), 39–50.
Gold, A.H., Malhotra, A., Segars, A.H., 2001. Knowledge management: an organizational capabilities perspective. Journal of Management Information Systems 18 (1), 185–214.
Grover, V., Davenport, T.H., 2001. General perspectives on knowledge management: fostering a research agenda. Journal of Management Information Systems 18 (1), 5–21.
Henderson, J.C., Lee, S., 1992. Managing I/S design teams: a control theories perspective. Management Science 38 (6), 757–777.
Ho¨gl, M., Gemu¨nden, H.G., 2001. Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: a theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science 12 (4), 435–449.
Ho¨gl, M., Parboteeah, P., 2006. Autonomy and teamwork in innovative projects. Human Resource Management 45 (1), 67–79.
Ho¨gl, M., Weinkauf, K., Gemu¨nden, H.G., 2004. Inter-team coordina-tion, project commitment, and teamwork: a longitudinal study. Organization Science 15 (1), 38–55.
Ives, B., Olson, M.H., 1984. User involvement and MIS success: a review of research. Management Science 30 (5), 19–25.
Jiang, J., Klein, G., Chen, H.G., 2006. The effects of user partnering and user non-support on project performance. Journal of Association for Information Systems 7 (2), 68–90.
Katz, B., Lerman, N., 1985. Building a three dimensional work break-down structure. Data Base 16 (4), 14–17.
Keider, S.P., 1984. Why software development projects fail. Journal of Information Systems Management 1 (3), 33–38.
Kirsch, L.J., Beath, C.M., 1996. The enactments and consequences of token, shared, and compliant participation in information systems development. Accounting, Management and Information Technolo-gies 6 (4), 221–254.
Lee, D.M.S., Trauth, E.M., Farwell, D., 1995a. Critical skills and knowledge requirements of IS professionals: a joint academic/industry investigation. MIS Quarterly 19 (3), 313–340.
Lee, S.M., Kim, Y.R., Lee, J., 1995b. An empirical study of the relationships among end-user information systems acceptance, train-ing, and effectiveness. Journal of Management Information Systems 12 (2), 189–202.
Leung, H., 2001. Organizational factors for successful management of software development. Journal of Computer Information Systems 42 (2), 26–37.
Lewis, J., 1995. Fundamentals of Project Management. Amacom Books, NY.
Lo¨hmoller, J., 1989. Latent Variable Path Modeling with Partial Least Squares. Heidelberg, Physical-Verlag, Germany.
Mantei, M., 1981. The effect of programming team structures on programming tasks. Communications of the ACM 24 (3), 106–113. Markus, M.L., Mao, J., 2004. Participation in development and
imple-mentation – updating an old, tired concept for today’s IS contexts. Journal of the Association for Information Systems 5 (11), 514–544. McFarlan, W.F., 1981. Portfolio approach to information systems.
Harvard Business Review 59 (5), 142–150.
Molleman, E., 2009. Attitudes toward flexibility: the role of task characteristics. Group Organization Management 34 (2), 241–268. Nelson, K.M., Cooprider, J.G., 1996. The contribution of shared
knowledge to IS group performance. MIS Quarterly 20 (4), 409–429. Neufeld, D.J., Haggerty, N., 2001. Collaborative team learning in
information systems: a pedagogy for developing team skills and high performance. Journal of Computer Information Systems 42 (1), 37–43. Newman, M., Robey, D., 1992. A social process model of user-analyst
relationships. MIS Quarterly 16 (2), 249–266.
Nunnally, J.C., 1978. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill, NY. Oldham, G.R., Hackman, J.R., 1980. Work design in the organizational
context. Research in Organizational Behavior 2, 247–278.
Ouchi, W.G., 1977. The relationship between organizational structure and organizational control. Administrative Science Quarterly 22 (1), 95– 113.
Ouchi, W.G., Maguire, M.A., 1975. Organizational control: two func-tions. Administrative Science Quarterly 20 (4), 559–569.
Pinto, J.K., Kharbanda, O.P., 1995. Successful Project Managers: Leading Your Team to Success. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York. Reich, B.H., Kaarst-Brown, M.L., 1999. Seeding the line: understanding
the transition from IT to non-IT careers. MIS Quarterly 23 (3), 337– 364.
Robey, D., Newman, M., 1996. Sequential patterns in information systems development: an application of a social process model. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 14 (1), 30–63.
Robey, D., Smith, L.A., Vijayasarathy, L.R., 1993. Perception of conflict and success in information systems development projects. Journal of Management Information Systems 10 (1), 123–139.
Rose, J., Pedersen, K., Hosbond, J.H., Kraemmergaard, P., 2007. Management competence, not tool and techniques: a grounded examination of software project management at WM-data. Informa-tion and Software Technology 49, 605–624.
Ross, J., Beath, C., Goodhue, D., 1996. Develop long-term competitive-ness through it assets. Sloan Management Review 38 (1), 31–42. Shepherd, M., Tesch, D., Hsu, J., 2006. Environmental traits that support
a learning organization: the impact on information system develop-ment projects. Comparative Technology Transfer and Society 4 (2), 196–218.
Sivo, S.A., Xitao, F.A.N., Witta, E.L., Willse, J.T., 2006. The search for ‘‘Optimal”cutoff properties: fit index criteria in structural equation modeling. Journal of Experimental Education 74 (3), 267–288. Subramanian, G., Jiang, J., Klein, G., 2007. Software quality and IS
project performance improvements from software development pro-cess maturity and IS implementation strategies. Journal of Systems and Software 80, 616–627.
Wang, E., Wei, H.L., Jiang, J., Klein, G., 2006. User diversity impact on project performance in an environment with organizational technology learning and management review processes. International Journal of Project Management 24, 405–411.
Wateridge, J., 1995. IT projects: a basis for success. International Journal of Project Management 13 (3), 169–172.