Information communication and technology (ICT) projects are different from other projects, such as construction, and require a new perspective to determine their true nature. The lacklustre state of ICT projects has plagued researchers and practitioners for decades as they are yet to understand why ICT projects do not perform. Literature places significant emphasis on success criteria and success factors for determining project success, but this is a unilateral view as the level of complexity involved is underestimated. ICT projects, however, are multifaceted as there are a number of dimensions that influence the management and outcome of a project.
This article aimed to illuminate how the dimensions are interdependent and interconnected through the construction of a conceptual model of ICT project complexity.
Content analysis was used to identify and understand the various dimensions and facilitated construction of the model.
The article identified five dimensions that affect ICT projects, viz. project success, project lifecycle, project complexity, project types and project methods. Each dimension was analysed to understand the key constructs and elements that need to be considered. The dimensions were mapped in a multidimensional model.
The multidimensional model of ICT project complexity can be used by ICT project managers to more effectively manage projects as they are provided with a greater understanding of ICT project influences.
Information communication and technology (ICT) projects require a new perspective to determine their true nature. This is particularly important considering that ICT projects are used to realise organisational strategies (Chari, Devaraj & David
Literature places significant emphasis on success criteria and success factors for determining project success, but this is a unilateral view as the level of complexity involved is underestimated (Bosch-Rekveldt et al.
The article is structured as follows. The first section details the research methodology used to construct the conceptual model. The second section analyses the five dimensions and discusses the various constructs and elements that constitute each dimension. The design and construction of the conceptual model are presented in the third section. The final section summarises and concludes with an outlook for future research.
A systematic literature review in the form of content analysis was used as it facilitates the analysis of textual material (Flick
Content analysis search criteria.
Concept | Keywords | Databases | Initial results |
---|---|---|---|
Project success | Project success Project management success |
ScienceDirect Emerald Insight SpringerLink Scopus Taylor & Francis Online ACM Digital Library |
Baccarini Bannerman Shenhar et al. 2001 |
Project lifecycle | Project lifecycle Project management lifecycle Project process Project management process |
ScienceDirect Emerald Insight SpringerLink Scopus Taylor & Francis Online ACM Digital Library |
Pinto & Winch Varajão, Colomo-Palacios & Silva Ward & Chapman Wideman |
Project complexity | Project complexity Project management complexity Complex project management |
ScienceDirect Emerald Insight SpringerLink Scopus Taylor & Francis Online ACM Digital Library |
Baccarini Bakhshi, Ireland & Gorod Bosch-Rekveldt et al. Dunović, Radujković & Škreb 2014 Floricel, Michela & Piperca Geraldi et al. Remington & Pollack Senescu, Aranda-Mena & Haymaker Vidal & Marle Williams |
Project types | Project types Project classification Types of project Classification of projects |
ScienceDirect Emerald Insight SpringerLink Scopus Taylor & Francis Online ACM Digital Library |
Pinto & Covin Shenhar 2001 Shenhar & Dvir Shenhar et al. |
Project methods | Project methods Project management methods software development methods Agile methods Devops Lean project management |
ScienceDirect Emerald Insight SpringerLink Scopus Taylor & Francis Online ACM Digital Library |
Ballard & Howell Dingsøyr et al. 2012 Fitzgerald & Stol Misra, Kumar & Kumar Reusch & Reusch Van Waardenburg & Van Vliet 2013 |
Schön, Thomaschewski and Escalona (
Project success is a misnomer in literature as multiple definitions and interpretations exist. Project success was initially determined based on the triple constraint of time, cost and quality (Ika
Mapping of project success based on various project management standards and methodologies.
Project success criteria | Ohara ( |
Office of Government Commerce ( |
Association for Project Management ( |
International Organization for Standardization ( |
Project Management Institute ( |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Quality | - | - | - | - | X |
Timeliness | - | - | - | - | X |
Budget compliance | - | - | - | - | X |
Customer satisfaction | - | - | X | X | X |
Objectives | - | X | - | X | - |
Achieve requirements | - | - | - | X | - |
Manage risks | - | - | - | X | - |
Support and commitment | - | - | - | X | - |
Novelty | X | - | - | - | - |
Differentiation | X | - | - | - | - |
Innovation | X | - | - | - | - |
Researchers have embarked on expelling ambiguity around project success by empirically investigating what constitutes project success. Two distinct concepts encapsulate project success, viz. project management success and project product success (Baccarini
Project management success emphasises the project management process itself and how it was executed (Baccarini time, cost and quality quality of project management process stakeholder satisfaction regarding expectations during the project lifecycle.
Project product success places emphasis on the final output of a project and consists of 3 key criteria (Baccarini realising project goal realising project purpose stakeholder satisfaction regarding the final project output.
While project management success may be differentiated from project product success, they are inseparable. Pinkerton (
Shenhar et al. ( Project efficiency: The constraints of time and cost are the focus of this dimension. There is a direct relationship between project success and project efficiency as the latter contributes considerably to the former (Serrador & Turner Impact on the customer: This dimension focuses on the importance of meeting customer requirements and needs (Shenhar Business success: Projects are a tool to realise organisational strategies and subsequently business success (Chih & Zwikael Preparing for the future: A successful project should facilitate future developments for the organisation such as creating new markets, creating new products and/or services, as well as development of new technology (Shenhar
This article sought to provide a comprehensive interpretation of project success and thus includes an expanded five-dimensional view to provide more insight.
Bannerman ( Process success: Emphasis is placed on the project management lifecycle specifically (Bannerman Project management success: This dimension is comparable to Baccarini ( Product success: Meeting the needs of the various stakeholders is at the core of product success (Bannerman Business success: Similar to the view of Shenhar et al. ( Strategic success: Alignment between project and organisational strategy is paramount given that projects play a pivotal role in strategic success (Young & Grant
Mapping project success dimensions.
Project success was initially defined by two dimensions but later progressed to include more dimensions to address ambiguity around the concept.
The ultimate goal of project management is to deliver an output whether a product, service or both. A project’s output is delivered via the execution of project management processes (Burke
The PMBOK® Guide modelled project management processes around five systematic processes (Project Management Institute
PRINCE2 was designed specifically for ICT projects (White
The literature analysis revealed a limited view regarding ICT project’s lifecycle and processes. The content analysis was subsequently expanded to include industry-related project management methodologies to further enlighten ICT project lifecycles and processes.
Major ICT organisations took it upon themselves to develop project management methodologies, from practice and experience, for ICT projects. The three most widely used methods are: Accelerated SAP (ASAP), Oracle Unified Method (OUM) and Microsoft Sure Step.
SAP designed ASAP to facilitate the implementation of various SAP solutions and modelled it around PMBOK® (Jain Project preparation: Understanding project expectations and business needs, as well as initial planning, is the core of this process. Project preparation is analogous to the initiation and starting up process of PMBOK® and PRINCE2, respectively. Business blueprint: The main focus is on gathering business requirements and developing detailed documentation. This process is analogous to the planning process of PMBOK® and initiating process of PRINCE2. Realisation: This process has two sub-processes, viz. baseline configuration and final configuration. Baseline configuration ensures primary scope requirements are met while final configuration deals with scope exceptions not previously dealt with. Realisation is analogous to executing and monitoring and controlling process of PMBOK®, as well as controlling and managing product delivery of PRINCE2. Final preparation: Activities included in this process are technical testing, end-user training and system management and cutover activities. Final preparation is analogous to the monitoring and controlling process of PMBOK® and then closing a project process of PRINCE2. Go-live support: This process is analogous to the closing process of PMBOK® and PRINCE2 as the main concern is to move the solution from a controlled project environment to operational environment. Operate: This process expands on the processes within PMBOK® and PRINCE2 as continuous support is emphasised. Focus is on refining lifecycle standards, processes and procedures while ensuring they align with the organisation’s ICT and business strategy.
Similar to SAP, Oracle designed OUM to deploy Oracle solutions. OUM applies an iterative approach to managing ICT projects and is based on Unified Software Development Process (Oracle Inception: Establishing project goals and objectives amongst the various stakeholders is the aim of this process. Inception is analogous to the initiating process of PMBOK®, starting up process of PRINCE2 and project preparation process of ASAP. Elaboration: Initial scope and requirements are expanded during the elaboration process as more details are emphasised. These serve as the project benchmark. Elaboration is analogous to the planning process of PMBOK®, initiating process of PRINCE2 and business blueprint process of ASAP. Construction: Developing and testing the solution are important during this process. Construction performs the same purpose as the executing and monitoring and controlling process of PMBOK®, directing, controlling, managing product delivery and managing a stage boundary of PRINCE2 and realisation process of ASAP. Transition: During the transition process, the solution is either operationalised as a new system or replaces an older system. This process aligns to the monitoring and controlling as well as the closing process of PMBOK®, directing, controlling, managing product delivery and managing a stage boundary of PRINCE2 and final preparation process of ASAP. Production: This process focuses on providing continuous support by monitoring the system and addressing any inherent issues not previously identified. Support, error and feature requests are continuously evaluated and prioritised for future release.
Microsoft Sure Step was designed to implement Microsoft Dynamics solutions (Microsoft Diagnostic: Gap analysis is performed as this facilitates the development of a business case for the proposed solution. Diagnostic is analogous to the initiating process of PMBOK®, starting up process of PRINCE2, project preparation process of ASAP and inception process of OUM. Analysis and design: The analysis process is considered the official start of the project while the design process focuses on formulating a complete solution design. Although these are two separate processes, they do overlap. Both processes include the following activities, viz. developing a detailed project plan, functional requirements, communication and training plans, quality and testing standards, change control plan, technical design, core team training, prototyping and data migration design. Both processes are analogous to the planning process of PMBOK®, initiating process of PRINCE2, business blueprint of ASAP and elaboration process of OUM. Development: Building, configuring and testing the functions and data underpin the development process. This process is analogous to the executing and monitoring and controlling process of PMBOK®, directing, controlling, managing product delivery and managing a stage boundary of PRINCE2, realisation process of ASAP and construction process of OUM. Deployment: Focus is on transitioning to the new solution through user acceptance testing and training prior to final sign off. Deployment serves the same purpose as monitoring and controlling as well as closing process of PMBOK®, directing, controlling, managing product delivery and managing a stage boundary of PRINCE2, final preparation process of ASAP and transition process of OUM. Operation: The final process performs the exact function as the operate process of ASAP and production process of OUM. The notion is to provide post-implementation support while addressing any inherent issues.
Traditional project management standards differ from industry project management methodologies as the latter include an operation or production process. This suggests that ICT projects should include a post-implementation process which focuses on ongoing support. ICT projects are considered more complex than other projects as there are multiple intangible elements which are difficult to assess. This influences the overall quality of ICT projects and could possibly be why they are often considered challenged or failures. The quality of an ICT project has a direct impact on expected organisational benefits (Gichoya
Mapping the various project management processes.
Projects are directly influenced by the increased level of complexity experienced today, especially ICT projects. The next section discusses the concept of project complexity and its inherent constructs.
Project complexity has been debated extensively in extant literature (Baccarini
There are multiple views regarding what constitutes project complexity. Two decades of literature culminates in the identification of five project complexity constructs (Baccarini
Mapping project complexity constructs and literature sources.
Literature source | Organisational complexity | Technical complexity | Environmental complexity | Uncertainty | Dynamics |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Baccarini ( |
X | X | - | - | - |
Williams ( |
X | - | - | X | - |
Remington and Pollack ( |
X | X | X | X | X |
Vidal and Marle ( |
X | X | X | - | - |
Bosch-Rekveldt et al. ( |
X | X | X | - | - |
Geraldi et al. ( |
X | X | X | X | X |
Senescu et al. ( |
X | X | X | - | - |
Dunović et al. ( |
X | - | X | X | - |
Bakhshi et al. ( |
X | X | X | X | - |
Floricel et al. ( |
X | X | X | - | - |
Complexity surrounding the organisation itself is often underestimated (Baccarini Vertical differentiation: This element assesses the number of levels in the organisational hierarchical structure, viz. structure depth (Baccarini Horizontal differentiation: Organisational units and task structure are observed within this element (Baccarini Size: Many features are included in this element. Emphasis is placed on project duration, variety of project management methods and tools, capital expenditure, work hours, project team, site area and number of locations (Bakhshi et al. Resources: Projects cannot be performed without organisational resources. This element pays attention to project drive (time, cost and quality), resource and skills availability, experience with involved parties, Health, safety, security and environment (HSSE) awareness, interfaces between different disciplines, number of financial resources and contract types (Bosch-Rekveldt et al. Project team: A fundamental component of projects is the project team. Various considerations around the project team include the number of different nationalities, number of different languages, cooperation with joint-venture partners and overlapping office hours (Baccarini Trust: Trust is a fundamental social construct required in project management that is based on trust in project team and trust in contractor (Bosch-Rekveldt et al. Risk: Organisational risk influences project complexity, and risk management must be in place to mitigate risk (Bosch-Rekveldt et al. Interdependencies: Various interdependencies exist in organisational complexity, viz. environmental dependencies, resource sharing, schedule dependencies, interconnectivity and feedback loops in task and project networks, dependencies between actors, information system dependencies, objective dependencies, process interdependencies, stakeholder relations and team cooperation and communication (Brady & Davies
Technical complexity was initially classified as technological complexity by Baccarini ( Differentiation: Projects follow processes which require various inputs and outputs during their lifecycle. This element specifically considers the number and diversity of inputs and/or outputs (Baccarini Goals: Multiple goals are pursued when performing a project. This element takes an expanded view of goals and considers the number of goals, goal alignment and clarity of goals (Baccarini Scope: Various technical features influence the scope of a project, viz. scale of scope and quality requirements (Bosch-Rekveldt et al. Tasks: Project tasks can be more technical in nature as the number of tasks, variety of tasks and conflicting norms and standards influence project complexity (Bosch-Rekveldt et al. Experience: Project teams are particularly influenced by this element as experience is essential when performing projects. Newness of technology and experience with technology are two experience features which must be consider (Baccarini Risk: Risks associated with technology is at the core of this element (De Bakker, Boonstra & Wortmann
Organisations operate in environments which can be considered more volatile in recent years (Heaslip Stakeholders: There are a number of stakeholder features which influence project complexity, viz. number of stakeholders, variety of stakeholder perspectives, political influence, internal support and required local content (Baccarini Location: It is paramount to understand the location dynamic of a project and the following should be considered, viz. interference with existing site, weather conditions, remoteness of location and experience in country (Bosch-Rekveldt et al. Market conditions: Market conditions play internal and external influencing roles in projects. Specific attention should be paid to internal strategic pressure, stability of project environment and level of competition (Bosch-Rekveldt et al. Risk: Environmental risks which are either manmade or natural must be considered within any project type (Bosch-Rekveldt et al.
The concept of uncertainty was originally observed in general management and subsequently propagated to project complexity (Geraldi et al. Triple constraint: This element assesses uncertainty by focusing on the features of time, scope and cost (Bosch-Rekveldt et al. Activity: Regardless how well a project is planned, there is always a level of uncertainty regarding activities to be performed. Activity uncertainty focuses on uncertainty in methods as well as task uncertainty (Bosch-Rekveldt et al. Goals: This element focuses on one feature, viz. uncertainty of goals and objectives (Dunović et al. Technology: Technology changes and evolves at a rapid rate. Technological maturity and novelty are two key features which contribute to technology uncertainty within a project (Dunović et al. Stakeholders: Stakeholders uncertainty is driven by undisclosed participants and stakeholder competency (Geraldi Information: Projects thrive on information and the more complete and accurate the information, the greater the chance of delivering the expected benefits (Geraldi et al.
The project complexity construct of dynamics encapsulates complexity around project change management (Geraldi et al.
Literature argues that technology is the key driving factor determining project type (Müller & Turner
The evolution of project management brought about the notion that all projects are the same. In reality, there are stark differences between projects. Pinto and Covin ( the prevailing tendency among the majority of academics has been to characterize all projects as fundamentally similar…the implicit view of many academics could be represented by the axiom ‘a project is a project is a project. (p. 49)
Shenhar and Dvir ( Low tech projects: These projects employ existing and familiar technologies which can be reused (Shenhar Medium tech projects: Medium tech projects are similar to low tech projects as they use existing technology but adapt them accordingly (Shenhar High tech projects: High tech projects implement a number of new technologies for the first time (Shenhar Super high tech projects: Super high tech projects use untested technologies to achieve project goals (Shenhar
ICT projects make use of various project management methods or approaches. Software development projects, in particular, have catalysed the development of new methods. This section aims to illuminate four prevalent methods adopted for ICT projects, viz. software development lifecycle (SDLC), agile, DevOps and Lean:
SDLC primarily relied on the waterfall model as it provided a systematic procedure for developing software solutions. The waterfall model is implemented in a sequential manner, and each phase is completed before moving onto the next (Sommerville Agile methods were introduced to address weaknesses of waterfall. Extreme programming (XP) and Scrum are the two most prevailing methods (Dingsøyr et al. DevOps was developed to address the disjoint between development and deployment (De Bayser, Azevedo & Cerqueira The philosophy of lean is embodied by five principles (Browaeys & Fisser
The content analysis revealed that achieving project success is more difficult than initially perceived as there are many dimensions to ICT projects. A multidimensional view should be considered to illuminate and understand the complex nature of ICT projects. A multidimensional model of ICT project complexity is depicted in
Multidimensional model of information communication and technology project complexity.
The first dimension represents ICT project complexity and its inherent constructs. The second dimension addresses the four ICT project types while the third dimension focuses on the four project methods employed. The fourth dimension focuses on an ICT project’s lifecycle and its processes. As argued above, ICT projects are naturally complex which should include a post-implementation process (operating) that focuses on ongoing support. The fifth and final dimension is the mapping of project success components to the preceding four dimensions.
As this is a conceptual model, a logical mapping approach was used to map the project success components. The time, cost and quality are mapped to the methods dimension as the project methods primarily dictate how the resources of time and cost are utilised. Furthermore, quality can also be determined by the method/s adopted. For example, significant focus is placed on delivering quality solutions when agile is adopted for ICT projects. Quality of project management process is mapped to the entire project lifecycle as quality is determined by the effectiveness of each process. The notion is that each process will perform as required if they are understood and implemented correctly. Stakeholder satisfaction relating to the project management process is mapped to initiation, planning, executing and monitoring and controlling. Similar to quality of project management process, stakeholders should be satisfied that these four processes were performed correctly to realise the project goal. Stakeholder satisfaction relating to the output of the project is mapped to the lifecycle processes of closing and operating. During these processes, stakeholders have a different view of success as more emphasis is placed on the final outcome of the project. Furthermore, stakeholders begin to evaluate whether the projects’ output meets their goal and objectives as determined during the preceding processes of initiation and planning. Similarly, project purpose is mapped to the closing process as this process focuses specifically on whether stakeholders’ requirements and expectations were met and benefits were realised. Project purpose is a short-term view of project success as immediate benefits and expectations are measured. Project goal centres on meeting the strategic goals and objectives. This aligns to the operating process where refinement is pivotal to ensure alignment with the organisation’s ICT and business strategy. Project goal, therefore, has a long-term view of project success as long-term benefits and expectations are measured.
ICT projects are infamous for their lacklustre performance and thus require a new perspective to understand the various complexities facing ICT projects. Achieving ICT project success is more difficult than initially perceived as there are many dimensions to consider. This article applies content analysis to illuminate and understand the various dimensions of ICT projects. Five concepts were investigated, viz. project success, project lifecycle, project complexity, project types and project methods. The article established that each concept constitutes a dimension effecting ICT projects. A multidimensional model of ICT project complexity was developed to illustrate how the dimensions are interdependent.
A number of contributions exist in this article. Firstly, the article identifies five dimensions which affect ICT projects. Secondly, each dimension is analysed to understand the key constructs and elements which need to be considered. Thirdly, the dimensions are mapped in a multidimensional model which can be used by practitioners to more effectively manage projects as they are provided with a greater understanding of ICT project influences. Finally, the conceptual model serves as the foundation for future research to reimagine ICT project management and move away from the unilateral view which is commonly depicted.
The research article does, however, have limitations. Firstly, the qualitative nature of content analysis has inherent issues around subjectivity as the dimensions, and constructs thereof, could be interpreted and understood differently by various individuals. In-depth conceptual mapping workshops with ICT project managers could be performed to gain a more comprehensive view of the dimensions and their constructs. Secondly, the content analysis cannot be considered exhaustive as not all academic databases were searched. It could be argued that there are other literature sources relevant to the search concepts which are yet to be discovered. Future research could consult other databases to validate, expand or contest this article’s analysis. Finally, a drawback of a conceptual model is that it has not been empirically validated thus questioning its viability. Future research should test the model and update it accordingly to ensure real-world practicality.
ICT project management research has increased over the past years yet no practical improvement has been realised. This begs the question: Has ICT project management research stagnated or reached a limit? This stagnation can only be resolved by embarking on initiatives which boldly rethink and reimagine the concept of ICT project management.
The authors declare that they have no financial or personal relationship(s) that may have inappropriately influenced them in writing this article.