بررسی پیاده سازی سیستم : تعهد مدیریت به مدیریت پروژه

Recent literature has shown a renewed interest in systems implementation research. Current trends in the organizational deployment of IT have motivated new studies of implementation efforts. This paper reports on one phase of a pluralistic investigation of systems implementation projects. A survey instrument, based on previously validated measurement items, is described; it was tested and validated. In the process, a method for appraising the significance of interaction effects was determined. The results of the analysis show that, for the data of this study, the organizational priority given to implementation projects by top management is only associated indirectly with improved user information satisfaction (UIS). Only when this priority occurs in the management of continuing development and enhancement, does top management support seem to be significant to users. It was also found that the efficiency and flexibility of the development process was significant in its own right, even without any effects of top management support.

The implementation of automated support systems for information processing has long been a central issue. Much work has appeared addressing the disparity between high technical quality of systems and low success in their effective deployment. This paper reports on the first stage of case study investigation into implementation projects in two medium sized companies. Its objectives included the discovery of success factors in the context of large-scale systems, integrated across multiple corporate functional areas. The company sizes allowed the use of statistical survey sampling. Early papers on systems implementation assumed that their quality could be evaluated in an absolute sense. Ein-Dor and Segev [19] noted the emphasis on physical installation; this was later characterized as ‘system delivery’ [11]. In reaction to this view, Lucas [52] defined it as including all phases of systems development. Cooper and Zmud [12] then expressed the need for a more specific “directing and organizing framework” for IS implementation research. The working definition adopted for this research came from Swanson [72]. He used the phrase “system realization” and restricted the implementation process to the systems life cycle stages between design and use. Swanson defined implementation as “a decision-making activity that converts a design concept into an operating reality so as to provide value to the client.” Numerous researchers have used definitions with equal scope. In 1994, Iivari and Ervasti used the term “institutionalizing” [34]. They noted the trend toward software acquisition and the relative scarcity of large-scale production systems developed in-house. Guimaraes and Igbaria [30] also commented on ‘dramatic’ changes to implementation efforts due to changed system characteristics. They suggested the need to reevaluate prior discoveries in the context of current trends. Lucas and Spitler [54], for instance, noted a lack of implementation field studies involving networked, multifunction workstations that are common in organizations today. In a recent survey exposition of this whole scenario [56], an operationalization of Swanson’s model has been proposed as a unifying vehicle for new implementation research.

Apparently, active support of management may not be effective if the project is not perceived as well administered. Indeed, the primary emphasis of management’s commitment to the project must be shown in the efficiency and flexibility of its response to user needs. In practical terms, top management in many firms can regard this study as an important guide, in their efforts to obtain support for high-priority implementation projects. The challenges of management have always included the opportunities and risks associated with employee perception. Change management in particular must include a great sensitivity to the potential such perceptions have for helping to carry an implementation project forward, or for stopping it. High-level managers are usually quite accustomed to showing their support to users. Unless priority is given to insuring the efficiency and effectiveness of the implementation process itself, other top management attempts to display high-level support may be viewed as disingenuous. Methodological aspects surrounding the study of factor interactions in general can also be seen as a contribution of this study. Interaction effects have been discussed in recent literature (e.g. see [8]). There is, however, some inconsistency in the way such interactions are treated. No paper has been found that handles cross-product variable inclusion in quite the same way as I have. As the “interactionist framework” of Kaplan and Duchon [41] becomes more and more relevant to today’s research models, a convergent approach to the interrelationships among research variables becomes critical.