R&D projects affect the interests of different stakeholders in different ways. Understanding the stakeholders and analysing their interests helps in the better management of R&D projects. In this paper we discuss a methodology to systematically analyse the stakeholders of R&D projects. This methodology includes Freeman's (1984) three levels of analysis: rational, process and transactional. Based on these three levels, the stakeholder management capability of an R&D project is determined. The final stage is based on Mitchell et al. (1997) approach to analysing the dynamics of stakeholders. This methodology is illustrated using a New Zealand case relating to a road pricing R&D project.

A contingency fit model of critical success factors for software development projects: A comparison of agile and traditional plan-based methodologies Arthur Ahimbisibwe Robert Y Cavana Urs Daellenbach Article information:To cite this document: Arthur Ahimbisibwe Robert Y Cavana Urs Daellenbach , (2015),"A contingency fit model of critical success factors for software development projects", Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 28 Iss 1 pp. 7 -33 Permanent link to this document: http://dx.If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information. About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation. AbstractPurpose -While the choices available for project management methodologies have increased significantly, questions remain on whether project managers fully consider their alternatives. When project categorization systems and criteria are not logically matched with project objectives, characteristics and environment, this may provide the key reason for why many software projects are reported to fail to deliver on time, budget or do not give value to the client. The purpose of this paper is to identify and categorize critical success factors (CSFs) and develop a contingency fit model contrasting perspectives of traditional plan-based and agile methodologies. Design/methodology/approach -By systematically reviewing the previous literature, a total of 37 CSFs for software development projects are identified from 148 articles, and then categorized into three major CSFs: organizational, team and customer factors. A contingency fit model augments this by highlighting the necessity to match project characteristics and project management methodology to these CSFs. Findings -Within the three major categories of CSFs, individual factors are ranked based on how frequently they have been cited in previous studies, overall as well as across the two main project management methodologies (traditional, agile). Differences in these rankings as well as mixed empirical support suggest that previous research may not have adequately theorized when particular CSFs will affect project success and lend support for the hypothesized contingency model between CSFs, project characteristics and project success criteria. Research limitations/implications -This research is conceptual and meta-analytic in its focus...

No abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this article is to develop and empirically test an extension to the three-column format SERVQUAL instrument to evaluate passenger rail service quality. Design/methodology/approach -This article combines the literatures of service quality and rail transport quality to develop the conceptual framework. Three new transport dimensions (comfort, connection, and convenience) are added to the original five SERVQUAL dimensions (assurance, empathy, reliability, responsiveness, and tangibles). The instrument was tested on a passenger line in Wellington, New Zealand. Valid responses to 340 questionnaires were statistically analyzed. Findings -High Cronbach alpha values supported the reliability of the instrument. Content and construct validity are demonstrated also. Regression analysis identified assurance, responsiveness and empathy as the quality factors that had significant effects on overall service quality. In addition, customers indicated that reliability and convenience were also very important factors. Service quality "zones of tolerance" were identified for each dimension and attribute. Research limitations/implications -There are not many published studies to confirm or compare the results of the three-column SERVQUAL instrument, either in the general service literature or in the rail passenger literature. Although the five original SERVQUAL dimensions have been tested quite extensively, the three new rail transport dimensions require further development and testing, particularly since the sample was drawn from a single passenger line in New Zealand. More development and empirical testing are required to refine this measure. Practical implications -Based on the eight dimensions, the practical use of the "zones of tolerance" for identifying areas of quality shortfall and managing quality are illustrated in this paper. Originality/value -This paper provides one of the few empirical applications of the three-column SERVQUAL instrument and extends it to make it more suitable for evaluating rail passenger service quality.

Group model building (GMB) is a participatory approach to using system dynamics in group decision-making and problem structuring. This paper considers the published quantitative evidence base for GMB since the earlier literature review by Rouwette et al. (2002), to consider the level of understanding on three basic questions: what does it achieve, when should it be applied, and how should it be applied or improved? There have now been at least 45 such studies since 1987, utilising controlled experiments, field experiments, pretest/posttest, and observational research designs. There is evidence of GMB achieving a range of outcomes, particularly with regard to the behaviour of participants and their learning through the process. There is some evidence that GMB is more effective at supporting communication and consensus than traditional facilitation, however GMB has not been compared to other problem structuring methods. GMB has been successfully applied in a range of contexts, but there is little evidence on which to select between different GMB tools, or to understand when certain tools may be more appropriate. There is improving evidence on how GMB works, but this has not yet been translated into changing practice. Overall the evidence base for GMB has continued to improve, supporting its use for improving communication and agreement between participants in group decision processes. This paper argues that future research in group model building would benefit from three main shifts: from single cases to multiple cases; from controlled settings to applied settings; and by augmenting survey results with more objective measures.