Rethinking IS project boundaries in practice: A multiple-projects perspective

Abstract

Information Systems research and prescriptive IS project management methodologies are dominated by a perspective on single projects that treats the unit of analysis as a lonely phenomenon with strictly defined boundaries. This study questions this assumption by exploring how the taken for granted project's boundaries are defined in practice. It investigates a case study of an ERP implementation project in an international organization. The findings show the busy multiple-projects platform of contemporary organizations that ERP project cannot be isolated from. They also reveal that project management boundaries are continually crossed and that project's boundaries in practice are malleable and changeable. They are defined through negotiations with other projects and programs where what is inside or outside a project is subject to change according to the outcomes of such negotiations. A flatter view of project organizing could facilitate such an interaction. The implications for IS project management research and practice are discussed.

The interplay between evidence and judgment in the IT project prioritization process

“…We saw at both departments that technological interdependencies make it difficult to separate and compare specific projects' dimensions or characteristics. This confirms previous findings (Elbanna, 2010) that projects are not fully defined entities, which makes comparison between projects even more difficult. In addition, underlying project complexities increase the perceived uncertainty of a project's outcome (Howcroft and McDonald, 2007).…”

Lost in translation? An actor-network approach to HRIS implementation

“…For example, the decision to centralize payroll in our case during the HRIS implementation process is consistent with her notion of project drift as an inherent feature of ERP implementation (Elbanna, 2008). Furthermore, the role that changes in the strategic priorities of the business and particularly the aim of preparing the business for restructuring and sale provides a good example of the extent to which IS implementations are influenced by other priorities in a multi-project environment (Elbanna, 2010). As such we build on the existing ANT-inspired literature on IS implementations by not only examining the contribution that this framework makes to understanding the implementation process but also by examining the links between IS implementation and the ongoing role played by a key business function (HR) as a result of the implementation.…”

“…Examples include studies of the implementation of computer aided ambulance dispatch systems (McGrath, 2002), computerized baggage handling system in a major US airport (Mahring, Holmstrom, Keil, & Montealegre, 2004), health information systems (Cho, Mathiassen, & Nilsson, 2008;Cresswell, Worth, & Sheikh, 2010) inter-organizational information systems in a major Spanish seaport (Rodon, Pastor, Sese, & Christiaanse, 2008) an ICT enabled development project in Latin America (Andrade & Urquhart, 2010) and in relation to the deployment of CAD software across a number construction firms (Harty, 2010). Particularly notable are recent contributions by Elbanna (2008Elbanna ( , 2010 in which she uses an ANT framework to explain both project drift and the impact of other projects on the IS implementation, two issues that are relevant to the study of HRIS implementation and are evident in the case study we discuss below.…”

Conflict resolution effectiveness on the implementation efficiency and achievement of business objectives in IT programs: A study of IT vendors

“…The interdependencies across projects in large information technology (IT) implementations means that the traditional boundaries of project management do not hold and that collaboration in the form of program management is essential to avoid conflict and eventual failure [1]. Yet programs by their nature are complex due to managing interrelated projects with multiple managers in a resource limited environment, with differing and often conflicting needs, emergent inputs and conditions affecting the process, and elevated ambiguity [2][3][4] .…”