This research provides evidence that top management support is the most important critical success factor for project success and is not simply one of many factors. There are implications for practice because it appears that the conventional project management and technical advice has less impact on project success than previously thought. Boards and top managers may have to personally accept that they have more influence on whether a project succeeds or fails.

1. Top Management Support:
mantra or necessity?
Raymond Young & Ernest Jordan
Macquarie University

2. Overview
• Background – IT Project Failure
• Methodology – Case Study Analysis
• Results
• Discussion

3. 2/3 projects realise no benefits!
$1,000 billion pa spent on IT. (Seddon & al 2002) ROI
30% on projects (?) 30%
Some OK
10-20% (Clegg et al 1997)
2/3 of projects
30-40%
No
deliver no benefits
(Willcocks and Margetts 1994)
whatsoever
Fail
15% (Standish 1999,2003)

4. 2/3 projects realise no benefits!
• IT project failure has been an issue almost since the dawn of
business computing (Caminer 1958).
• It has been studied intensively for the past 40 years (Lucas
1975, Lyytinen and Hirschheim 1987)
• but it remains a poorly understood phenomena
(Sauer 1993, 1999).
• An enormous number of largely untested methodologies
have been proposed and adopted (Checkland 1981, Strassmann
1995, Clegg et al. 1997).

5. 2/3 projects realise no benefits!
“dimensions thought to be important
divide tasks, requirements scrubbing, KISS, reduce scope, simulation/scenarios, prototyping,
pilots, testing, user participation, user surveys, publicising participation results, team
meetings, user led teams, user committees and good relationships, user managed
decisions and development, user commitment, monitor progress and promote open
discussion, critical task focus, project organisation, external contracts and outsourcing,
formal procedures, cost allocation structures, pre-scheduling, cost and schedule
estimation, incremental approach, path-analysis, risk-driven project planning, physical
arrangements, staff with top talent, seek champions, cross training, morale building,
manage expectations, implementation games, training, role playing, study and screen
potential actors, specification standards and methods, task and organisational analysis
techniques, information hiding/abstraction and modelling, bench marking, flexible
governance structures, task matching, contingency models, managing technology
options, adapt authority and decision structure, modify process model, technical
analysis, service assessment, gain management support, appropriate leadership, change
authority or workflow, adopt/configure new organisational technologies
(Lyytinen, Mathiassen et al)
have no consistent impact
on the success of computing”
(Kraemer & King 1986).

6. 2/3 projects realise no benefits!
ROI
30%
Some OK
10-20% (Clegg et al 1997)
2/3 of projects
30-40%
No
deliver no benefits
(Willcocks and Margetts 1994)
whatsoever
Fail
15% (Standish 1999,2003)
The traditional wisdom
must be revisited

7. Re-examining the traditional wisdom
Standish (1996) • Project methodologies (35)
2. User involvement (19) – Clear statement of requirements (15),
3. TMS (16) – Proper planning (11),
– smaller project milestones (9)
4. Clear statement of requirements (15)
• User (25):
5. Proper planning (11)
– User involvement (19),
6. realistic expectations (10) – ownership (6)
7. smaller project milestones (9) • TMS (16)
8. Competent staff (8) • High level planning (13):
9. ownership (6) – realistic expectations (10),
10. clear vision & objectives (3) – clear vision & objectives (3)
11. hard working, focussed staff (3) • Project staff (11):
– Competent (8),
– hard working and focussed (3)
Hypothesis: Top Management Support: mantra or necessity?

8. Methodology
Case Study

9. What is Top Management Support?
Garrity (1963), O'Toole and O'Toole (1966), Rockwell
(1968), Freeman (1969)
Brandon (1970), Dinter (1971), Adams (1972), Schmitt and
Kozar (1978)
Markus (1981), Rockart and Crescenzi (1984) Lane (1985),
Doll (1985) Lederer and Mendelow (1988), Delone
(1988), Doll and Vonderembse (1987), Izzo
(1987), Rockart (1988)
Reich and Benbasat (1990), Henderson (1990), Emery
(1990), Jarvenpaa and Ives (1991), Bassellier and
Pinsonneault (1998), McGolpin and Ward (1997),
Rochleau (2000), Mähring (2002), Sharma and Yetton (2003)

10. The many criteria for success
EDP Success: MIS Success: SIS Success:
Technical focus User focus Organisational focus
Information
Quality
Intention
Use
to use
System
Net Benefits
Quality
User Satisfaction
Service
Quality
Delone, W. H. and McLean, E. R. (2003)
The Delone and McLean Model of Information Systems Success: a ten-year update
Journal of Management Information Systems, 19:4, 9-30.

11. Project Management
vs Project Success
project management success is less
Scope of project success
important (Baccarini 1999)
Scope of project
management success
“benefits are not delivered or realised by
1 2 3 4 5 6
the project manager and project team,
they require the actions of operations
management.” (Cooke-Davis 2002)
1 2 3 4 5 6
Initiation Planning Development Implementation Benefit Closedown
there is not a strong relationship between
project management success and
project success or between project
management failure and project
failure (Markus et. al. 2000)

12. Project Management Success
Very strong emphasis in practice

13. Summary of literature offering
advice to top managers
Scope of TMS advice
(Delone & McLean 2003)
IT in general IT Projects IT
Function
Realisation of (Garrity 1963; O'Toole and (Rockwell 1968; Adams
benefits O'Toole 1966; Rockart and 1972; Delone 1988; Reich
Crescenzi 1984; Lane 1985; and Benbasat 1990;
(Seddon, Staples et al. 1999)
Criteria for success
Doll and Vonderembse McGolpin and Ward 1997;
1987; Rockart 1988; Rochleau 2000)
Henderson 1990)
User (Freeman 1969; Dinter (Markus 1981; Mähring
satisfaction 1971; Jarvenpaa and Ives 2002; Sharma and Yetton
Technical or
No direct interest
1991; Bassellier and
Pinsonneault 1998)
2003)
(Schmitt and Kozar 1978;
(Brandon 1970; Doll 1985;
project
management
success
to top managers
Izzo 1987; Lederer and
Mendelow 1988)
Emery 1990)

14. What is Top Management Support?
• Garrity (1963)
– Devote time to the [IT] program in proportion to it’s cost and
potential
• (O'Toole and O'Toole 1966; Rockart and Crescenzi 1984; Lane 1985; Doll
and Vonderembse 1987)
2. Review Plans
3. Follow up on results
4. Facilitate “problems…integrating computer systems with
[business processes] ”
• (Rockart 1988; Henderson 1990; Sharma and Yetton 2003)
• Project Champions (Beath 1991, Morton 1983)

15. A model to test the traditional wisdom
Chief Executive Officer (2.1)
Chief Operating Officer (1.7)
Business unit leader (1.6)
Top Business unit CIO (1.3)
Management Chief Financial Officer (1.2)
Chief Information Officer (1.0)
IT Project
Governance
Activities
ICT Projects Changed
Operations ICT Operations
Changed
Business processes Business Processes

16. Models of top management support
Initiate Plan Develop Implement Benefits
Project Chartering The project Shakedown Onward & Upward
Select Change Manage Change
Initiate Outcomes
Enablers Implementation
Longer
Idea Competitive
Development project Early adoption term
Generation advantage
penetration
Management Support
COBIT
Initiate
Meta-Structural
Support
Monitor
Direct
Evaluate
Structural
Change Implement Benefits
Support
Required

17. Top Management support

18. Case Studies
HB280 – 2006
Organisations with a reputation for consistent
'Typical' organisations
success with IT projects
TechServ TechMedia ABS The Agency SkyHigh
A routine low ERP Enhancing IT ERP ERP
Project Characteristics profile IT implementation Project implementation implementation
project. Governance
Abandoned (15-31%) -
On time on budget (16-34%)   -  
Some benefits (52-62%)     
Meet perf. target (10-20%)     
Main factors contibuting to outcome
• Descriptive Case Studies
Board -  () () 
Senior Goles and Hirschheim 2000;
managers Tashakkori () () ()
and Teddlie 2003; Benbasat and Zmud 1999 
()  
• Multiple-case study 
Project sponsor
PM / PM methodology design


 - () 
2 typical organisations,
Project●team  3 exemplary organisations
  () 
Business managers
● -
Case history developed 
through interviews with:()  
User involvement - - () () 
●
project
Technical issues
sponsors,     
●
top managers,
●
project team,
●
stakeholders from multiple levels
●
Rigour through multiple sources of evidence: interviews, project
documentation, observation, critical review (at 3 levels) Young and Jordan 2002a;
Young and Jordan 2002b; Young 2003; Young and Jordan 2003

19. Analysis
What is the most important CSF?
CSF T-Serv T-Medi a ABS Agency SkyHigh
Top management
3 Full Full Full Full Full
support
User
2 Partial Partial Partial Partial Partial
involvement
High level
4 No Partial Partial Partial Full
project planning
Project
1 Partial No - Partial Full
methodologies
5 Project staff No Partial No Partial Full

20. Research findings (1)
Hypothesis T-Serv T-Media ABS Agency SkyHigh Conclusion
Top management
1.
support      Strong support
Enable
2. improvements in      Supported
work practices
Project
3. Governance      Strong Support
structure.
Operational staff
4.
vs project teams.      Supported
High level
5.
project planning      Inconclusive
Project
6.
methodologies   -   Inconclusive
User
7.
involvement      Inconclusive
8. Project staff      Not supported

21. Implications
• If TMS is the most important CSF, then much of our
current research is misdirected.
– HB280 has informed AS8015 which has just been accepted as an
international standard on the corporate governance of IT
(ISO29832)
– HB280 findings are being incorporated into AS8016
• A major shift in emphasis may be required:
– Boards and top managers may have to accept that they personally
have the most influence whether a project succeeds or fails
– Boards, top managers and their advisors may have to accept that
the current ‘expert advice’ has less impact on success than
previously believed.
• Further research is needed to explain how TMS influences
success and to develop credible guidelines for practice.

22. Refuting McGolpin & Ward
SkyHigh
TechMedia

23. Refuting Akkermans & van Helden
“The core process on any successful
implementation consists of mutually
reinforcing communication and collaboration
between project team members from
different departments and business functions”
“If this core process is … under-performing, it is
highly likely that presence or attitude of
several of the key stakeholders (top
management …) are also insufficient”
• conflicts of interest almost always exist …
hence communication and collaboration will
tend not to be mutually reinforcing
– Hence the core process is actually the
identification and resolution of conflicts of
interest: an aspect of IT Governance

24. What is top management support?
ICT Project Governance
2
Evaluate
1
Initiate Top
Management Direct &
Support
Monitor
3 4
6
ICT Projects 5 Changed
Operations ICT Operations
Changed
Business processes Business Processes

25. The 6 Key Questions
for senior management and boards
1. What are the expected business benefits? 2. How much change is required
2 to realise the benefits?
Evaluate
1
Initiate Top
4. Who should Management Direct &
Support
sponsor Monitor
the project? 3 4
3. How will they be measured and rewarded?
(ie. how will the realisation of benefits be measured?) 6. Are the benefits being realised ?
6
ICT Projects 5 Changed
Operations ICT Operations
5. Is the culture right for
unexpected issues to be raised? Changed
Business processes Business Processes
Illustrated
version

26. Top management support activities
Hard & Soft prescriptions
Business Plan
Champion Project Team
Project Plan •PM, consultants, IT,
•Operations
3.Support 4.Support
1.Initiate 2.Evaluate 5.Implement 6.Benefits
Meta-structural structural
Culture
Sponsor
Project-image Governance Structure
Motivation Beliefs
•Consensus
•Passion •Reward Accountability
•Will to change

27. Evaluation:
a multi-rational sense-making process
Se
ns
CEO
e-
g iv
Communal
ing
Top team
ing
Polarised Project
ak
Team
-m
Fragmented
e
ns
Se
Organisation members
Issues & Alternative views
Adapted from Bryant (2004)

28. Application to practice
Key IT Project Governance Questions
Initiate/Evaluate
2. What are the expected business benefits?
3. How much change is required to realise the benefits?
4. Are there any other risks to be considered?
5. Do the benefits justify the risks and the effort required?
Support
7. Who should sponsor the project? (ie. who has the authority, ability and
motivation to resolve the potential conflicts that will arise)
8. Who will be accountable for the benefits and how will they be measured and
rewarded? (ie. how will the realisation of benefits be measured?)
Implement/Benefits
10. Is there a project plan and has rigorous change management planning been
done?
11. Is the project meeting time/cost/quality and business targets and expected to
continue to meet them? Have any significant new risks been identified?
12. Is there an appropriate governance structure?
13. If time/cost/quality and business targets change because of issues that arise
and decisions taken, should the project continue?