Cited by 120Construction Project Management and PerformanceSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesInformation Systems Theories and Implementation

Information systems project failure – Analysis of causal links using interpretive structural modelling

Hughes, D. Laurie, Dwivedi, Yogesh K., Rana, Nripendra P., Simintiras, Antonis C.·2016·Production Planning & Control

Abstract

The analysis of the root causes of information systems project failure has been the subject of intense scrutiny for some time within industry and the academic community. Researchers have developed various models, notions of failure and categorisations to succinctly classify project failure into a set of key factors for organisations and project managers to focus on in their attempts to avoid failure. This study incorporates a technique titled: interpretive structural modelling as the methodology to formalise the relationships between the selected failure factors. This approach is positioned as a mechanism that can yield greater insights into the relationships between the factors surrounding project failure, thereby developing a better understanding of how these relationships can have a bearing on project outcomes. The findings identify key driving variables that are presented as having significant impact on the other factors within the model. A number of variables are also identified as being heavily dependent on other connected factors highlighting that a failure in one or more of these connected factors is likely to result in a failure in one or more of the dependent factors unless timely steps are taken to address these key issues. This research details a number of practical implications for senior management and project managers as well as the academic community. These considerations form an underlying thread within this study as specific practice-related implications are highlighted and discussed throughout the study.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09537287.2016.1217571

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hughes, D. L., Dwivedi, Y. K., Rana, N. P., & Simintiras, A. C.
Affiliations
  • Swansea University (GB)
  • Gulf University for Science & Technology (KW)
Corresponding author
Dwivedi, Yogesh K.
Venue
Production Planning & Control
Published
2016-08-08
Volume
27
Issue
16
Pages
1313-1333
ISSN
  • 0953-7287 (ISSN-L)
  • 1366-5871
OpenAlex
W2522601686
Cited by
120
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 9
FWCI
16.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Production Planning & Control (publishedVersion)
  • Bradford Scholars (University of Bradford) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Construction Project Management and Performance
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Software Engineering Techniques and Practices
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Information Systems Theories and Implementation
Keywords
failure causes, causal relationship, interpretive structural modeling, project management, IT project management

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review