Why Software Projects Escalate: An Empirical Analysis and Test of Four Theoretical Models

By Mark Keil, J. Mann, Arun Rai. MIS Q., 2000

511 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Information Systems, Management Information Systems, Management Science and Operations Research

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/803f8cc3156ce2c3a8298fa7be31a2e4577bacc2

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Information Systems

In Management Information Systems

In Management Science and Operations Research

Citations in the corpus

Stuck in the Past: Why Managers Persist with New Product Failures (2006, background): “This insight has implications for the groundwork necessary for organizations to design systems, policies, and procedures to help them avoid the trap of escalation bias that is often associated with major strategic decisions.”
Offshore information systems project success: the role of social embeddedness and cultural characteristics (2009, methodology): “To account for variations in project characteristics, we controlled for three structural aspects: project size, project complexity, and requirements uncertainty (see Keil et al. 2000; Ravichandran and Rai 2000; Wallace et al. 2004).”
Understanding and Mitigating Uncertainty in Online Exchange Relationships: A Principal-Agent Perspective (2007, unknown): “More specifically, it has been examined in IS development projects (e.g., Keil et al. 2000), IT outsourcing (e.g., Bahli and Rivard 2003), online transactions (e.g., Clemons and Hitt 2004), online marketplaces (e.g., Ba and Pavlou 2002; Pavlou and Gefen 2004, 2005), and physician-patient…”
Moving forward: Balancing the financial and emotional costs of business failure (2009, background): “First, research on persistence has focused on the negative financial consequences of delaying the decision to exit from a losing course of action (e.g., Keil et al., 2000; Ross and Staw, 1986, 1993).”
Predictive Analytics in Information Systems Research (2011, unknown): “The study on project escalation by Keil et al. (2000) provides a good illustration of this usage.”
Enhancing IT governance practices: A model and case study of an organization's efforts (2007, background): “The activities include setting an appropriate IS development style (Lang et al., 2001), assessing project risk (Keil et al., 1998), ensuring adequate infrastructure (Ewusi-Mensah, 1997), and providing the project with adequate visibility and transparency (Weill andBroadbent, 1998).”
Real Options and IT Platform Adoption: Implications for Theory and Practice (2004, background): “This contrasts with the often observed propensity of managers to escalate commitment to troubled projects (Keil et al. 2000).”
Going Beyond the Dominant Paradigm for Information Technology Innovation Research: Emerging Concepts and Methods (2004, background): “…(2) project managers’ level of risk perception and risk propensity is high, (3) project managers hold asymmetric information about project status, and (4) perceived sunk costs associated with the project are higher (Bowen, 1987; Brockner, 1992; Keil et al., 2000; Schmidt and Calantone, 2002).”
Extending the two‐stage information systems continuance model: incorporating UTAUT predictors and the role of context (2011, background): “…between the tasks the system supports and those the users want to perform) and take corrective actions before project conditions worsen so as to avoid project escalation, a problem common to e-government and IS projects (e.g. Keil, 1995; Keil & Mann, 2000; Keil et al ., 2003; Nelson, 2005).”