skip to main content
research-article
Free access

Balancing four factors in system development projects

Published: 01 October 2009 Publication History

Abstract

Introduction
The success of system development is most often gauged by three primary indicators: the number of days of deviation from scheduled delivery date, the percentage of deviation from the proposed budget, and meeting the needs of the client users. Tools and techniques to help perform well along these dimensions abound in practice and research. However, the project view of systems development should be broader than any particular development tool or methodology.
Any given development philosophy or approach can be inserted into a systems development project to best fit the conditions, product, talent, and goals of the markets and organization. In order to best satisfy the three criteria, system development project managers must focus on the process of task completion and look to apply controls that ensure success, promote learning within the team and organization, and end up with a software product that not only meets the requirements of the client but operates efficiently and is flexible enough to be modified to meet changing needs of the organization. In this fashion, the project view must examine both process and product.
Often, tasks required for project completion seem contradictory to organizational goals. Within the process, managerial controls are applied in order to retain alignment of the product to the initial, and changing, requirements of the organization. However, freedom from tight controls promotes learning. The product also has contradictions among desired outcomes. Designers must consider tradeoffs between product efficiency and flexibility, with the trend in processing power leading us ever more toward the flexibility side. Still, we rage between conflicting criteria, with the advocates of a waterfall system development lifecycle (SDLC) usually pushing more for control aspects and efficient operations while agile proponents seek more of a learning process and flexible product.
Regardless of the development methodology followed, project managers must strive to deliver the system on time, within budget, and to meet the requirements of the user. Thus, both product and process are crucial in the determination of success. To compound the difficulties, those in control of choosing an appropriate methodology view success criteria from a different perspective than other stakeholders. Understanding how different stakeholders perceive these factors impacting eventual project success can be valuable in adjusting appropriate methodologies. Our study looks at these relationships using well established instruments in a survey of IS development professionals to better clarify the importance of these variables in system project success and any perceived differences among different players in IS development (see the sidebar on "How the Study Was Conducted").

References

[1]
Armour, P. G. The business of software: To plan, two plans. Comm. ACM 48, 9 (Sept. 2005), 15--19.
[2]
Augustine, S., Payne, B., Sencindiver, F., and Woodcock, S. Agile project management: steering from the edges. Comm. ACM 48,12 (Dec. 2005), 85--89.
[3]
Boehm, B. Get ready for agile methods, with care. Computer (Jan. 2002), 64--69.
[4]
Hardgrave, B. C. and Armstrong, D. J. Software process improvement: it's a journey, not a destination. Comm. ACM 48, 11 (Nov. 2005), 93--96
[5]
Kirsch, L. Deploying common systems globally: The dynamics of control. Information Systems Research 48, 4 (2004), 484--498.
[6]
Klein, G., Jiang, J., and Sobol, M. Consonance in information systems, in Strategies and Organizations in Transition, C. S. Galbraith, ed., Elsevier Science, Ltd., (2001), 191--210.
[7]
Larson, E. Partnering on construction projects: a study of the relationship between partnering activities and project success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 44, (1997), 188--195.
[8]
Nerur, S, Mahapatra, R and Mangalaraj, G. Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies. Comm. ACM 48, 5 (May 2005), 72--78.
[9]
Nonaka, I. and Takeuchi, H. The Knowledge-Creating Company, Oxford University Press, NY, 1995.
[10]
Procaccino, D. Verner, J. and Lorenzer, S. J. Defining and contributing to software development success. Comm. ACM 49, 8, (Aug. 2006), 79--83.
[11]
Tiwana, A. and Keil, M. The one-minute risk assessment tool. Comm. ACM 47, 11, (Nov. 2004), 73--77.

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Information Technology Project Management Research: A Review of Works by Influential PioneersProject Management Journal10.1177/8756972823117105654:4(366-391)Online publication date: 29-May-2023
  • (2019)Building a hierarchical structure model of enablers that affect the software process improvement in Software SMEs- a mixed method approachComputer Standards & Interfaces10.1016/j.csi.2019.04.009Online publication date: Apr-2019
  • (2017)Situational Requirement Engineering in Global Software DevelopmentRecent Trends in Information and Communication Technology10.1007/978-3-319-59427-9_89(863-874)Online publication date: 27-May-2017
  • Show More Cited By

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Communications of the ACM
Communications of the ACM  Volume 52, Issue 10
A View of Parallel Computing
October 2009
134 pages
ISSN:0001-0782
EISSN:1557-7317
DOI:10.1145/1562764
Issue’s Table of Contents
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 October 2009
Published in CACM Volume 52, Issue 10

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Popular
  • Refereed

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)218
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)19
Reflects downloads up to 28 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2023)Information Technology Project Management Research: A Review of Works by Influential PioneersProject Management Journal10.1177/8756972823117105654:4(366-391)Online publication date: 29-May-2023
  • (2019)Building a hierarchical structure model of enablers that affect the software process improvement in Software SMEs- a mixed method approachComputer Standards & Interfaces10.1016/j.csi.2019.04.009Online publication date: Apr-2019
  • (2017)Situational Requirement Engineering in Global Software DevelopmentRecent Trends in Information and Communication Technology10.1007/978-3-319-59427-9_89(863-874)Online publication date: 27-May-2017
  • (2016)An Examination of Determinants of Software Testing and Project Management EffortJournal of Computer Information Systems10.1080/08874417.2016.118342857:2(123-129)Online publication date: 22-Jul-2016
  • (2015)Changing Situational Contexts Present a Constant Challenge to Software DevelopersSystems, Software and Services Process Improvement10.1007/978-3-319-24647-5_9(100-111)Online publication date: 22-Sep-2015
  • (2014)Situational requirement engineering framework for Global Software Development2014 International Conference on Computer, Communications, and Control Technology (I4CT)10.1109/I4CT.2014.6914179(224-229)Online publication date: Sep-2014
  • (2014)Agile Project Management in Product Development ProjectsProcedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.034119(295-304)Online publication date: Mar-2014
  • (2013)Situational factors affecting Requirement Engineering process in Global Software Development2013 IEEE Conference on Open Systems (ICOS)10.1109/ICOS.2013.6735059(118-122)Online publication date: Dec-2013
  • (2012)The situational factors that affect the software development processInformation and Software Technology10.1016/j.infsof.2011.12.00354:5(433-447)Online publication date: 1-May-2012
  • (2010)Airborne data processing and analysis software packageEarth Science Informatics10.1007/s12145-010-0061-44:1(29-44)Online publication date: 8-Sep-2010
  • Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Magazine Site

View this article on the magazine site (external)

Magazine Site

Login options

Full Access

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media