Student 1 Hi,Project is a temporary goal that a team or an .docx

Student 1:
Hi,
Project is a temporary goal that a team or an organization
undertakes in order to create a unique product or service. A
project different from a day-to-day activity, this is because
project(s) are temporary, it will have a start, a goal, a defined
objective, and a scope that must be achieved by the defined end
time (Project Management Institute, n.d.). On top of the above-
mentioned, projects heavily rely on the effective management of
triple-constants, time, quality & cost. The key attributes of a
project are that,
1. A project will always have a start and end dates
2. Requires resources from multiple teams or areas in an
organization to achieve one common goal
3. Involves uncertainty and changes to scope
4. Has budget limitation that impacts utilization of resources
and supplies
5. Will always need a stakeholder or a sponsor
In my experience, I learnt that he role of top management /
business leadership commitment is key for a project to yield
fruitful results as many projects aren’t completed due to lack of
leadership support & commitment. Involvement of top
management in our project helped us team in getting key
decisions and changes related to infrastructure, architecture,
network & operations quickly. Leadership involvement during
initiation/kick-off ensured that the impacted teams that are on
the other side of the organization co-operated more readily than
usual. Having the top management involved in the project
helped our team in getting additional resources and support
when required that otherwise could have resulted in delay or
even termination of the project. IT projects are filled with
unique challenges in every step, some of them are,
1. Scope change in the middle of the project

2. Delivery delays due to miscommunication of scope between
impacted teams (Ramachandran, 2017)
3. Remote stakeholders that make output delivery and decision-
making difficult (Ramachandran, 2017)
Absence of pre-defined project management practices that
jeopardizes the delivery when blockers appear (Ramachandran,
2017)
Thanks,
Vamshi
References
Project Management Institute. (n.d.). What is Project
Management? Retrieved from Project Management Institute:
https://www.pmi.org/about/learn-about-pmi/what-is-project-
management
Ramachandran, K. (2017, September 18). 5 IT Project
Management Challenges and How to Overcome Them. Retrieved
from Capterra: https://blog.capterra.com/it-project-management-
challenges-and-how-to-overcome-them/
Student 2:
IT Management
What is a project, and what are its main attributes? How is a
project different from what most people do in their day-to-day
jobs?
A project is a venture towards developing a certain product or
services which is unique, is a mostly a collaborative practice
which is planned and organized to follow particular order so as
to achieve. For an activity to be referred to as a project, there
are some attributes that must be displayed. This includes;
projects are unique and mostly temporary because they aim to
solve a specific problem then they are dismissed. (Jenkin, Chan
& Sabherwal, 2019)
Projects are deemed to be different from the day-to-day jobs
because they have sponsors and its purpose is clearly outlined.
The goals and objectives drive the project as t has the starting

and expected completion dates.
Discuss the importance of top management commitment and the
development of standards for successful project management.
Provide examples to illustrate the importance of these items
based on your experience on any type of project.
Top management commitment to the project is very important,
this is because they give hope and moral support to the team
developing the project. It means that organization is offering
support to all the required needs to make the project
successfully. Sometimes when support of the top management is
not seen, it may mean that they are against the project and
hence adoption may become a challenge. They are important
also in pulling resources together, approvals and the whole
organizational cooperation. (Tracy & Yolande, 2019)
Standards development to achieving a successful project
management are very crucial as they are used as the guidelines
and procedures to the team members. They are all guided by the
rules and regulations posed on the standards outline.
Discuss the unique challenges that an IT project presents.
There are various challenges to which IT project faces which
includes; the mid-project changes and adjustments, this are
mostly brought up by clients and may necessitate a whole
changeover of the project. Poor communication between the
operating teams is another challenge which may lead to slow
delivery of the objectives. Poor project management skills by
the top management is another big challenge because they are
the steering team.
References
Jenkin, T. A., Chan, Y. E., & Sabherwal, R. (2019). Mutual
Understanding in Information Systems Development: Changes
within and across Projects. MIS Quarterly, 43(2), 649–671.
Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2019/13980
Tracy A. Jenkin & Yolande E. Chan (2019). Mutual
Understanding in Information Systems Development: Changes

Within and Across Projects.
Student 3:
Hi,
A project is “a temporary endeavor undertaken to create
a unique product, service, or result” (Project Management
Institute, 2017). The project is a unique endeavor that is short
term, should have a sponsor, stakeholders, users, change in
requirements, roadblocks, need resources with various skills,
and have uncertainty. Projects are quite different from day-to-
day activities as projects have objectives, goals, milestones,
start and end dates, various resources. A r day-to-day resource
activity includes - attend meetings, accomplish small goals,
communicate with co-workers to get things done, resolve
challenges, inform the team about progress. Therefore, a project
is different from day-to-day activities, although there are some
similarities between them.
Top management commitment is a crucial aspect in
setting up the important in standards and for a successful run of
the project. Leadership can sponsor and approve the funds for
the project, acquire required resources for the project, get
assistance and cooperation from other project teams, guide the
project teams, resolve the dependencies, encourage the
successful project team members. For example, in one of my
projects, our project team has a blocker where we need
information from another team to move forward in our project.
We have attempted to reach this other team many a time but
haven’t received the information that is needed. Finally, we
have communicated this issue to top management and requested
their help. The top management has then involved in the process
and used their power to get the information that we need. In this
way, the top management will always help when we need
something and ensure that projects are progressing smoothly
without impediments. IT project face the following challenges:
· Change in priorities: An IT project priority always changes

based on the stakeholder views and users’ complaints. So, IT
project team should be agile to adapt to those changes.
· Poor communication between IT and business: One of the
major challenges for IT projects is poor coordination and lack
of communication between IT and business. Therefore, the
project managers must ensure that every requirement and
feedback is communicated effectively in a timely manner to get
the issues resolved.
· Lack of User Input: A lack of end-user input can create chaos
when the final product is delivered in the market. So, a
successful project involves proper user input and feedback after
a large functionality is developed and released in the market.
This ensures that the needs of the end-user are addressed and
makes the organization to stay competitive in the market.
Thanks,
Prasnnna
References
Project Management Institute. (2017). A Guide to the Project
Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide) (6th
Edition ed.). Project Management Institute.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT: CHANGES WITHIN AND ACROSS
PROJECTS1
Tracy A. Jenkin and Yolande E. Chan
Smith School of Business, Queen’s University,
Kingston, ON CANADA K7L 3N6 {[email protected]}
{[email protected]}

Rajiv Sabherwal
Sam M. Walton College of Business, University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville, AR 72701 U.S.A. {[email protected]}
Although information systems development (ISD) projects are
critical to organizations and improving them has
been the focus of considerable research, successful projects
remain elusive. Focusing on the cognitive aspects
of ISD projects, we investigate how and why mutual
understanding (MU) among key stakeholder groups
(business and information technology managers, users, and
developers) changes within and across projects,
and how it affects project success. We examine relationships
among project planning and control mechanisms;
sensegiving and sensemaking activities by, and MU among,
these stakeholder groups; and project success.
Combining deductive and inductive approaches for theory
building, we develop an initial model based on the
literature and then modify it based on the results of a
longitudinal embedded mixed-methods study of 13
projects at 2 organizations over a 10-year period. The results
provide insights into the development of MU
within projects, including (1) how MU changes during projects
as a result of cognitive activities (sensegiving
and sensemaking); (2) how planning and control mechanisms
(and the associated artifacts) affect these
cognitive activities; (3) how MU, and achieving it early in the
project, affects success; and (4) how stakeholder
engagement (in terms of depth, scope, and timing) affects the
relationships in (1) and (2). The results also indi-
cate that project management mechanisms, stakeholder
engagement, and MU may change (either improve or
deteriorate) across projects, depending on the disagreements
among stakeholders in previous projects, the

introduction of new project elements in subsequent projects, and
the reflection on previous projects.
Keywords: Information systems development, project planning,
project control, cognition, sensegiving,
sensemaking, mutual understanding, project stakeholders
Introduction 1
Despite being crucial to organizations (Gemino et al. 2007;
Wallace et al. 2004), information systems development (ISD)
projects continue to show a propensity to fail, with less than
half being successful (Hughes et al. 2017; Standish 2015).
This is attributed to reasons such as technical complexity,
dynamic power structures, and uncertain and changing
requirements (e.g., Davidson 2002; Hughes et al. 2017). Con-
sistent with the need to share knowledge among information
technology (IT) and business project stakeholders (managers
and staff) to address such issues, the primary causes for ISD
problems are seen as sociocognitive (Lyytinen 1987; Newman
and Noble 1990), such as stakeholders’ conceptions of reality
that are different (Cronin and Weingart 2007; Rai et al. 2009)
and evolving (Vlaar et al. 2008). Thus, mutual understanding
(MU) among key stakeholders (business and IT managers,
users, and developers), or the extent to which they have a
shared conception of the ISD project, is important to project
1Arun Rai was the accepting senior editor for this paper.
The appendices for this paper are located in the “Online
Supplements”
section of MIS Quarterly’s website (https://misq.org).
DOI: 10.25300/MISQ/2019/13980 MIS Quarterly Vol. 43 No.
2, pp. 649-671/June 2019 649

Jenkin et al./Mutual Understanding in IS Development
success. However, MU itself may change, developing or
deteriorating, over time (Davidson 2002; Gregory et al. 2013).
In this article, we focus on such changes in MU among
stakeholders.
The changes in MU among stakeholders can be understood
using prior theoretical work on sensegiving and sensemaking
(e.g., Vlaar et al. 2008; Weick 1995). Sensegiving involves
framing and sharing information, including narratives,
explanations, and signals by some individuals to influence
how others think and act (Gioia and Chittipeddi 1991; Vlaar
et al. 2008), whereas sensemaking involves individuals
accessing and interpreting information to develop compre-
hension and construct meaning (Stigliani and Ravasi 2012;
Vlaar et al. 2008). The need to share knowledge across pro-
ject stakeholders is also apparent in the literature on planning
and control (e.g., Kirsch 2004; Zmud 1980) in ISD projects.
For example, Wallace et al. (2004) discuss how poor planning
and control cause knowledge gaps such as unclear schedules
and milestones for evaluating progress. Similarly, Tiwana
(2009) examines the relationship between project control and
knowledge sharing between IT and client departments. The
relationship between project control and MU has also been
examined (e.g., Gregory et al. 2013; Kirsch 2004), but sense-
giving and sensemaking, which have both been argued to
enable MU (e.g., Vlaar et al. 2008), have not been studied in
conjunction with project planning and control mechanisms.
Thus, the literature recognizes that (1) the use of planning and
control mechanisms in ISD projects involves knowledge
sharing among stakeholders, (2) such knowledge sharing

enables sensegiving and sensemaking, and (3) sensegiving
and sensemaking enable MU. But these arguments are inde-
pendent of each other, and how project planning and control
mechanisms interact with cognitive activities (i.e., sense-
giving, sensemaking) to affect cognitive (i.e., MU) and
project outcomes is not well understood. Therefore, we seek
to provide insights into changes in MU over time when con-
sidering project planning and control mechanisms as well as
sensegiving and sensemaking. Specifically, we examine how
sensegiving and sensemaking by project stakeholders helps
explain the effects of planning and control mechanisms on
MU, and the changes in MU over time within a project (i.e.,
within a project stage, or between stages of the same project)
and across projects (i.e., from one project to the next, or to
one much later). Thus, we address the following research
questions:
1. Within a project, how do project management mech-
anisms (planning, control) affect cognitive activities
(sensegiving, sensemaking) by key stakeholders, cogni-
tive outcome (MU among key stakeholders), and project
success?
2. How do project management mechanisms, cognitive
activities, cognitive outcome, and success of an ISD
project affect subsequent projects?
To address these questions, we conduct case studies of 13 ISD
projects in 2 organizations, mitigating some of the issues with
single-project studies (Elbanna 2010). Combining deductive
and inductive approaches (e.g., Shepherd and Sutcliffe 2011),
we use the literature to propose an initial model and then use
empirical findings, based on a longitudinal embedded mixed-
methods design (Creswell and Clark 2007), to reach the
emergent model.

The rest of this article is organized as follows. We first
develop the initial model by integrating concepts of cognition,
stakeholders, and planning and control mechanisms. We then
discuss our research methods. Next, we summarize the
insights from our analyses and present the emergent model.
We conclude with a discussion of the implications and
limitations of our study.
Theoretical Development
Project Success
Project success has generally been viewed as including pro-
cess efficiency, product effectiveness, user satisfaction, and
degree of project completion (e.g., whether the project is
smoothly completed, partially abandoned, or totally aban-
doned) (Aladwani 2002; Gemino et al. 2007). Process effi-
ciency reflects how well the project was executed, and
product effectiveness reflects the quality of the system
delivered. Past research views evaluations of ISD projects as
value laden and social, based on the perceptions and expec-
tations of various project stakeholders (e.g., Hughes et al.
2017). Thus, if one stakeholder group is not satisfied, the pro-
ject may be viewed as less successful than if all stakeholder
groups are satisfied.
Mutual Understanding
Mutual understanding refers to the extent to which stake-
holders have a shared conception of the project regarding, for
example, its goals and processes, and stakeholder roles (Greg-
ory et al. 2013). Other terms used to describe MU include
congruent understanding (Vlaar et al. 2008) and shared under-
standing (Gregory et al. 2013). The importance of MU is
highlighted in the information systems (IS) literature, such as
on IS group performance (e.g., Nelson and Cooprider 1996)

and technology innovativeness (e.g., Lind and Zmud 1991).
650 MIS Quarterly Vol. 43 No. 2/June 2019
A shared understanding of goals and methods has been linked
to project success (Aladwani 2002; Gregory et al. 2013). Dif-
ferent interpretations arise in projects (Cronin and Weingart
2007; Lyytinen 1987) because of differing goals, interests,
and conceptions of reality (Sambamurthy and Kirsch 2000).
Thus, developing MU is important.
MU among stakeholders changes over time, developing or
deteriorating, and at different rates (Gregory et al. 2013;
Monin et al. 2013). Prior ISD studies link MU development
to project planning (Wallace et al. 2004) and control mech-
anisms (Gregory et al. 2013; Kirsch 2004), and sensegiving
and sensemaking (Vlaar et al. 2008). However, the relation-
ships among project management mechanisms, sensegiving,
and sensemaking have not been examined. Thus, under-
standing how and why project planning and control mech-
anisms affect changes in MU over time through sensegiving
and sensemaking provides valuable theoretical and practical
insights into the role of these mechanisms beyond their tradi-
tional role in project management.
To address this gap, we develop an initial model (Figure 1),
focusing on how project management mechanisms and cogni-
tive activities (sensegiving, sensemaking) affect MU among
project stakeholders, and how MU affects project success.
Within a project, and consistent with the literature (Monin et
al. 2013; Vlaar et al. 2008), sensegiving and sensemaking
activities influence MU among stakeholders. However,

instead of viewing project planning and control mechanisms
as affecting MU directly, we reason that they affect MU
through their sensegiving and sensemaking potential. Consis-
tent with the literature, we argue that MU influences the
success of the ISD project (Aladwani 2002; Gregory et al.
2013). Given the limited literature on MU change within and
across ISD projects, we do not include these aspects in the
initial model but use a data-driven inductive approach to
develop propositions about them.
Sensegiving and Sensemaking Activities
ISD projects include an ongoing dialogue among IT and busi-
ness stakeholders, involving episodes of sensegiving and
sensemaking (cognitive activities) (Gioia and Chittipeddi
1991; Stigliani and Ravasi 2012), which affect the MU (the
focal cognitive outcome) among these stakeholders (Vlaar et
al. 2008). Sensemaking involves constructing and recon-
structing meaning, interpreting,2 and updating cognitive
frameworks (Gioia and Chittipeddi 1991). Sensemaking in
organizations involves an interplay between individual and
group sensemaking, through conversations and artifacts
(Weick et al. 2005).
Through sensegiving, individuals influence others’ interpre-
tation of a situation, that is, their sensemaking (Gioia and
Chittipeddi 1991). ISD projects include several stakeholders
(business and IT managers, users, and developers) who may
pursue their own agendas (Sambamurthy and Kirsch 2000).
Influencing others’ sensemaking is one way to do this. Sense-
giving and sensemaking3 affect each other; one or more actors
provide sense via artifacts or communication and one or more
actors make sense of such stimuli (Gioia and Chittipeddi
1991). Thus, it is important to understand the role of actors
as sensemakers and sensegivers.

Project Planning and Project
Control Mechanisms
The ISD literature considers planning and control mechanisms
as key ways to guide the project team and stakeholders to
increase the likelihood of project success (Barki et al. 2001;
Gemino et al. 2007). Accordingly, we focus on these mech-
anisms.
Project Planning
Project planning involves identifying the scope, structure, and
sequence of tasks; allocating resources; and estimating time
and costs (Wallace et al. 2004). The literature emphasizes
planning to provide information that mitigates uncertainty
(Barki et al. 2001). Planning has been viewed as critical to
meeting project targets (e.g., lower budget variances), pro-
ducing high-quality software (Yetton et al. 2000), and
enhancing the project success (Pinto and Slevin 1987).
The literature distinguishes between a comprehensive, formal,
and top-down approach to planning and an incremental, or
emergent, and bottom-up approach. This distinction is seen
in both the IS strategic planning (Chen et al. 2010; Segars and
Grover 1999) and broader strategy (Fredrickson 1984; Mintz-
berg 1990) literatures, which discuss planning attributes of
rationality (i.e., comprehensive, integrated, and formal
planning) and adaptability (i.e., frequent planning iterations
and a learning orientation). In these literatures, comprehen-
sive planning is “top-down” in nature; ideally, senior manage-
2Sensemaking can focus on interpreting past events, that is,
retrospective
sensemaking (Weick 1995), or envisioning what the future may
look like,

that is, prospective sensemaking (Gioia and Mehra 1996).
3Past studies identify other cognitive activities (e.g., sense
demanding, sense
breaking) (Monin et al. 2013; Vlaar et al. 2008) and outcomes
(e.g., novel
understanding). We focus on sensegiving and sensemaking,
which have
received the greatest attention and been most directly related to
MU.
MIS Quarterly Vol. 43 No. 2/June 2019 651
Project Management Mechanisms
Mutual
Understanding
Project
Success
Sensegiving
Sensemaking
Cognitive Activities Cognitive Outcome Project Outcome
Planning
Mechanisms
Control
Mechanisms

Sensegiving
Potential
Sensemaking
Potential
Figure 1. Initial Model
ment and project managers communicate a clear vision of the
project’s objectives, and how to achieve them, to the project
team and stakeholders. Thus, many of the project details are
conveyed up-front to the team by project and organizational
leaders. However, detailed plans may not exist in projects
with a high level of uncertainty. In such cases, planning pro-
cesses are more emergent and “bottom-up” (Segars and
Grover 1999), focusing on iteratively developing the project
objectives and deliverables. Thus, emergent planning in-
volves experimentation, developing prototypes and other
artifacts, and dialogue.
Project Control
Control is viewed as “any attempt to motivate individuals to
behave in a manner consistent with organizational objectives”
(Kirsch 2004, p. 374). The literature on control distinguishes
between the “controller,” who exercises control, and the “con-
trollee,” whose behavior is being controlled (Flamholtz et al.
1985). Early studies of ISD projects discussed formal control
mechanisms and their effects on project success (e.g., Zmud
1980). Control mechanisms were seen as ways to enable
managers to understand project progress and detect deviations
early enough to take corrective actions. The literature exam-
ines various types of formal and informal control mechanisms
(e.g., Henderson and Lee 1992).

Formal controls include outcome and behavior controls.
Outcome controls involve specifying the project’s interim and
final outcomes (e.g., requirements, design specifications, and
delivery date) and measuring the extent to which they are
fulfilled (e.g., quality assurance and testing results) (Choud-
hury and Sabherwal 2003; Kirsch 1997). Behavior controls
involve the controller providing specifications for the process
(e.g., ISD methods) and then assessing the extent to which the
controllee behaves according to these specifications (e.g.,
observation).
Informal controls include clan and self-controls. In groups
using clan controls, members share a common goal, depend
on one another, and influence each other to behave in accept-
able ways based on the group’s norms, values, and beliefs
(Kirsch 1996). Although project teams are often diverse and
temporary, role- or function-specific groups such as program-
mers and testers may operate as clans. Clan controls include
socialization to develop shared norms, and mechanisms to
reward behavior that is consistent with the norms and to sanc-
tion behavior that violates them. Self-control, by contrast,
stems from individual objectives and intrinsic motivation
(Kirsch 1996) and requires controllee autonomy (Tiwana and
Keil 2009).
Project Management Mechanisms and
Cognitive Activities and Outcomes
Although prior research discusses the relationships of project
planning and control mechanisms with MU (e.g., Gregory et
al. 2013; Kirsch 2004), how these mechanisms affect MU is
not described. For example, Gregory et al. (2013) find that
gaps in MU led to different control approaches being em-
ployed, which in turn led to the development or deterioration
of MU, but they do not examine how control mechanisms
such as status review meetings and socialization activities

help develop MU among project stakeholders.
Prior research suggests that artifacts, for example, templates
and methods (Vlaar et al. 2008), enable sensegiving or sense-
making (Gephart 1993; Stigliani and Ravasi 2012). Thus, we
incorporate the notion that project planning and control mech-
anisms have the potential to support sensegiving and sense-
making. For example, outcome controls, such as a plan, have
the potential to support moderate levels of sensegiving and
sensemaking, as discussed in detail later. In using a mech-
anism, the potential is converted into actual sensegiving and
sensemaking; the extent to which this potential is realized
depends on how the mechanism (e.g., plan) is used.
Table 1. Implications of Project Planning and Control
Mechanisms for Sensegiving and Sensemaking
Type of
Mechanism
Potential for
Sensegiving
Potential for
Sensemaking References
Planning
Comprehensive High Low
Bowman et al. (1983); Levina (2005); Segars

and Grover (1999)
Emergent Moderate High
Abdel-Hamid et al. (1999); Levina (2005);
Segars and Grover (1999)
Control
Self-control Low High
Henderson and Lee (1992); Kirsch (1996);
Tiwana and Keil (2009)
Clan control High High Kirsch (1997, 2004)
Outcome control Moderate Moderate
Choudhury and Sabherwal (2003); Kirsch
(1997); Nidumolu and Subramani (2003)
Behavior controls Moderate Moderate
Kirsch (1996, 1997); Nidumolu and Subramani
(2003); Orlikowski (1991)
We use logic and an extensive literature review to assess the
potential for the sensegiver to give sense with each mech-
anism (e.g., emergent planning, outcome controls), and the
potential for the sensemaker to make sense of what is con-
veyed through that mechanism. Table 1 provides the sense-
giving and sensemaking potential for each mechanism.
Appendices A and B provide further details regarding the
underlying logic and illustrative quotes from the literature,
respectively, supporting the connection between each mech-
anism and its sensegiving or sensemaking potential.
Extending existing theory, we propose that the greater the
sensegiving or sensemaking potential of the mechanisms used
in a project, the greater the actual sensegiving or sense-
making, respectively.

Stakeholders in ISD Projects
In ISD projects, stakeholders give and make sense of elements
related to the project, such as the development process and the
project deliverables. Given the differences in interpretations,
goals, and interests across stakeholders (e.g., Gregory et al.
2013; Lyytinen 1987), it is important to consider which stake-
holders give sense and which make sense over the course of
the project. Boland and Tenkasi (1995) take this into account
in their related concepts of perspective making and perspec-
tive taking, differentiated by the groups involved. Perspective
making focuses on within-group sensegiving-sensemaking
episodes to strengthen the group’s knowledge, whereas per-
spective taking considers each group’s viewpoint in across-
group sensegiving-sensemaking.
Past studies examine the role of IS versus business stake-
holders (e.g., Bassellier et al. 2001; Kirsch 2004), that is, the
functional home of the stakeholder. The structural position of
stakeholders is also deemed important (e.g., Boland and Ten-
kasi 1995; Markus and Mao 2004), for example, whether
management (e.g., a project manager) interacts with staff
(e.g., programmers) or staff interact with peers (e.g., pro-
grammers with users) (e.g., Nidumolu 1996). Thus, we dif-
ferentiate stakeholder groups along these functional (IT and
business) and structural (staff and management) dimensions,
resulting in four groups: IT managers (e.g., IT project mana-
ger, test lead), business managers (e.g., business unit mana-
ger, project sponsor), developers (e.g., programmer, tester),
and users (e.g., external customer, internal end-user).
Figure 2 depicts a sensegiving-sensemaking episode between
two stakeholders from these groups, showing the iterative
nature of the process and how it is affected by planning and

control mechanisms. This is a generic depiction, and addi-
tional stakeholders could be involved. Consistent with the
sensemaking literature (Monin et al. 2013; Stigliani and Rava-
si 2012; Vlaar et al. 2008), these sensegiving-sensemaking
episodes positively influence MU among stakeholders, which
positively affects project success (Aladwani 2002; Davidson
2002; Gregory et al. 2013). Combined with our previous
discussion of the effects of project management mechanisms
on sensegiving and sensemaking, we propose the following
(as shown in Figure 1):
Within an ISD project, project planning and project
control mechanisms (through their sensegiving and
sensemaking potential) influence sensegiving and
sensemaking activities, which affect each other and
enable MU among stakeholders, and this MU leads
to greater project success.
MIS Quarterly Vol. 43 No. 2/June 2019 653
Figure 2. Sensegiving-Sensemaking Episode
Research Design
Our research questions focus on understanding changes in
MU among project stakeholders and how these changes
depend on planning and control mechanisms and sensegiving
and sensemaking activities. To address these research ques-
tions, we use a variance approach, a longitudinal embedded
mixed-methods design that combines qualitative and quanti-
tative methods, and a theory-building approach that combines
deduction and induction.

The literature suggests that process-oriented research ques-
tions can be examined using a variance approach, a process
approach, or a hybrid approach (Burton-Jones et al. 2015;
Sabherwal and Robey 1995). According to Van de Ven
(2007, p. 148),
two different definitions of “process” are often used
in the literature: (1) a category of concepts or vari-
ables that pertain to actions and activities; and (2) a
narrative describing how things develop and change
.… When the first definition is used, process is typi-
cally associated with a variance model …. The
second meaning of process takes an event-driven
approach that is often associated with a process
study of the temporal sequence of events.
We adopt a variance approach (Burton-Jones et al. 2015) and
examine process in terms of activities and changes in state
(Van de Ven 2007) over time. The initial model (Figure 1)
focuses on how the use of project planning and control mech-
anisms (states) and sensegiving and sensemaking (activities)
affect the level of MU (state) among project stakeholders, and
how MU affects success (state) within a project. Qualitative
data on the cognitive activities are used to assess these acti-
vities in terms of their levels (state). We capture low,
moderate, and high levels of sensegiving and sensemaking,
and directionality in terms of who gave and made sense:
localized (i.e., between members of the same group),
unidirectional, or bidirectional.
The literature (Creswell and Clark 2007; Venkatesh et al.
2013) mentions four mixed-methods designs: triangulation,
embedded, explanatory, and exploratory. An embedded
design uses qualitative or quantitative methods in a study

based largely on the other method. We use a longitudinal
embedded mixed-methods design, conducting exploratory
quantitative analyses in a primarily qualitative study. Speci-
fically, we use quantitative analyses to explore the data and
qualitative analyses to develop a rich understanding. We
study changes over time using temporal bracketing (Langley
1999), that is, dividing each project into early, middle, and
late stages.
Moreover, we combine deductive and inductive theory-
building approaches (e.g., Shepherd and Sutcliffe 2011). We
use the ISD literature to identify the proposed relationships
(Figure 1) and develop an episode model (Figure 2) of sense-
giving and sensemaking between stakeholders, showing the
influence of project planning and control mechanisms. We
then use a bottom-up inductive approach to generate emergent
propositions (Eisenhardt 1989; Mantere and Ketokivi 2013).
The 10-year case study data, which include rich insights from
13 projects across two organizations, allow us to identify pat-
terns, relationships, and insights beyond those described in the
literature. Thus, consistent with Eisenhardt’s (1989) recom-
mendations for building theory from case studies, we are
guided by pre-identified concepts in the initial model but
allow unanticipated concepts and relationships to emerge.
This is further discussed in the next section (see Appendix C
for a summary).
Data

Data Collection
To select cases for inductive theorizing, Eisenhardt (1989)
recommends theoretical sampling. We first identified two
organizations with headquarters in North America: “Alpha”
and “Beta” (pseudonyms). We then used theoretical sampling
to select contrasting projects, asking the key informant at each
organization to choose projects ranging in focus, importance,
and success. At Alpha, a global software development firm,
we studied seven projects involving the development and
enhancement of enterprise software. At Beta, a global manu-
facturer and seller of high-tech products, we studied six
projects involving the development and enhancement of inter-
nally facing (i.e., supporting internal processes) and externally
facing (i.e., supporting customer or supplier interactions) sys-
tems. Thus, the two organizations provide different kinds of
ISD projects. Table 2 summarizes the 13 projects (see
Appendix D for further details).
We followed Eisenhardt’s (1989) recommendations on using
multiple and flexible data collection methods, combining
qualitative and quantitative data, involving multiple investi-
gators, and overlapping data collection and analysis. We
developed an interview guide based on the initial model and
refined through inputs from industry experts and researchers
(see Appendix E for the final version of the guide, which we
provided to the key informant at each organization to review
before the interviews). We discussed the kind of data to
collect, developed the interview guide, and considered interim
findings to plan subsequent interviews. Because of method-
ological and scheduling considerations, one of us conducted
the interviews.
We conducted three intensive waves of onsite interviews in
2004, 2005, and 2010, including 24 formal interviews with 21
informants at the two organizations, many of whom com-

mented on multiple projects. We conducted 17 interviews at
Alpha (informants included a vice president, product man-
ager, project managers, department managers, product
designers, programmers, team leads, testers, and technical
writers) and seven at Beta (informants included project
managers and functional managers in both IT and business).
Project documents and informal conversations at each organi-
zation provided additional insights. At each organization, a
key informant whose experience there spanned the 10-year
study period was interviewed about changes over time and
was asked to review the results and interpretations. Inter-
views were recorded and 214 pages of transcripts were
produced.
Data Coding
Our coding and analysis approach (see Appendix F for
details) involved coding data (text from the raw transcripts),
analyzing data from the coded transcripts, and iterating
between qualitative and quantitative analyses to enhance the
reliability of conclusions (Eisenhardt 1989). One author first
read the interview transcripts and created narratives of indiv-
idual projects, describing the project’s context, how it
unfolded, and the outcomes from participant perspectives. All
authors then discussed each narrative and developed a coding
scheme for the constructs (based on Figure 1) (Eisenhardt and
Graebner 2007; Miles and Huberman 1994). Data collection
and analyses were iterative. Before the 2010 interviews, all
authors discussed the projects studied …

Student 1 Hi,Project is a temporary goal that a team or an .docx

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Student 1 Hi,Project is a temporary goal that a team or an .docx

Ähnlich wie Student 1 Hi,Project is a temporary goal that a team or an .docx (20)

Mehr von cpatriciarpatricia

Mehr von cpatriciarpatricia (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Student 1 Hi,Project is a temporary goal that a team or an .docx