The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Attention Shaping and Software Risk—A Categorical Analysis of Four Classical Risk Management Approaches
Abstract
This paper examines software risk management in a novel way, emphasizing the ways in which managers address software risks through sequential attention shaping and intervention. Software risks are interpreted as incongruent states within a socio-technical model of organizational change that includes task, structure, technology, and actors. Such incongruence can lead to failures in developing or implementing the system and thus to major losses. Based on this model we synthesize a set of software risk factors and risk resolution techniques, which cover the socio-technical components and their interactions. We use the model to analyze how four classical risk management approaches—McFarlan's portfolio approach, Davis' contingency approach, Boehm's software risk approach, and Alter's and Ginzberg's implementation approach—shape managerial attention. This analysis shows that the four approaches differ significantly in their view of the manager's role and possible actions. We advise managers to be aware of the limitations of each approach and to combine them to orchestrate comprehensive risk management practices in a context. Overall, the paper provides a new interpretation of software risk management which goes beyond a narrow system rationalism by suggesting a contingent, contextual, and multivariate view of software development.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Weber, R. (1990) · doi:10.4135/9781412983488 · Cited by 7,750
An introduction to cybernetics
Ashby, W. R. (1956) · doi:10.5962/bhl.title.5851 · Cited by 7,578
Cited by
A taxonomy of players and activities across the ERP project life cycle
Somers, T. M., & Nelson, K. G. (2004) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/s0378-7206(03)00023-5 · Cited by 694
Looking for Clues to Failures in Large-Scale, Public Sector Projects: A Case Study
Purao, S., & Desouza, K. (2011) · 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences · doi:10.1109/hicss.2011.289 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Lyytinen, K., Mathiassen, L., & Ropponen, J.
- Venue
- Information Systems Research
- Published
- 1998-09
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 233-255
- ISSN
- 1047-7047 (ISSN-L)
- 1526-5536
- OpenAlex
- W1998672825
- Cited by
- 354
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 13.79
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Attention Shaping and Software Risk—A Categorical Analysis of Four Classical Risk Management Approaches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1287/isre.9.3.233
- The paper
- Lyytinen, K., Mathiassen, L., & Ropponen, J. (1998). Attention Shaping and Software Risk—A Categorical Analysis of Four Classical Risk Management Approaches. Information Systems Research. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.9.3.233
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.