Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Early Diagnosis of MIS Implementation Failure: Promising Results and Unanswered Questions


Author Info

  • Michael J. Ginzberg

    (New York University)

Registered author(s):


    Much of the research on MIS implementation which has been conducted in the past decade has focused on identifying and measuring the organizational characteristics which appear to be particularly conducive to either success or failure of system development efforts. While such research is useful in providing insight about the implementation problem, it provides little guidance for the management of ongoing implementation efforts. The study described in this paper attempts to address the implementation management question by exploring the use of MIS users' pre-implementation expectations about a system as indicators of the likely success of that system. System development efforts can be viewed as multi-stage processes. During the first of the stages, Definition, most of the key decisions about the system as the user will see it are made, e.g., system goals, scope, overall approach. The Definition stage, however, typically accounts for no more than 25% of the resources required for system development. Thus, the decisions which will have the greatest effect on the users' acceptance or rejection of a system are made prior to the bulk of spending on the project, and an assessment of the project's probability of success or failure should be possible at that time. The results of a number of implementation studies suggest that implementation failure is more likely when users hold unrealistic expectations about a system. Research in other areas, especially product evaluation and job satisfaction, also shows a connection between realism of expectations and outcomes (e.g., satisfaction). Thus, user expectations held at the end of the Definition stage might serve as early warning indicators of MIS implementation outcomes. If these expectations prove to be reliable indicators of subsequent success or failure, it would enable system developers to diagnose likely problems and to take corrective action at an early project stage. This paper reports on a longitudinal study of user expectations as predictors of project success or failure. The results strongly suggest that users who hold realistic expectations prior to implementation are more satisfied with the system and use it more than users whose pre-implementation expectations are unrealistic. While the results are encouraging, further research is necessary in a number of areas---e.g., better definition of key expectations, simpler tools for measuring expectations, proper timing of expectations measurement---before reliable instruments for measuring expectations in ongoing projects will be available. The paper outlines, however, some steps which can be taken now to help assure that potential system users develop realistic expectations.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by INFORMS in its journal Management Science.

    Volume (Year): 27 (1981)
    Issue (Month): 4 (April)
    Pages: 459-478

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:27:y:1981:i:4:p:459-478

    Contact details of provider:
    Postal: 7240 Parkway Drive, Suite 300, Hanover, MD 21076 USA
    Phone: +1-443-757-3500
    Fax: 443-757-3515
    Web page:
    More information through EDIRC

    Related research

    Keywords: management science implementation;


    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Eom, S. B., 1995. "Decision support systems research: Reference disciplines and a cumulative tradition," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 511-523, October.
    2. Joerg Becker & Patrick Delfmann & Mathias Eggert & Sebastian Schwittay, 2012. "Generalizability and Applicability of Model-Based Business Process Compliance-Checking Approaches – A State-of-the-Art Analysis and Research Roadmap," BuR - Business Research, German Academic Association for Business Research, vol. 5(2), pages 221-247, November.
    3. Thomas J. Holmes & David K. Levine & James A. Schmitz, Jr., 2008. "Monopoly and the incentive to innovate when adoption involves switchover disruptions," Staff Report 402, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
    4. Dana Costea & Ganesh Vaidyanthan, 2013. "A Measure of Perceived Usefulness in the Pre-Implementation Stages of Healthcare Projects," Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology,, vol. 3(1), pages 2, February.
    5. Uwe Dulleck & Rudolf Kerschbamer & Alexander Konovalov, 2014. "Too much or too little? Price-discrimination in a market for credence goods," Working Papers 2014-13, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
    6. Au, Norman & Ngai, Eric W. T. & Cheng, T. C. Edwin, 2002. "A critical review of end-user information system satisfaction research and a new research framework," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 451-478, December.
    7. Thomas J. Holmes & David K. Levine & James A. Schmitz, 2012. "Monopoly and the Incentive to Innovate When Adoption Involves Switchover Disruptions," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 4(3), pages 1-33, August.
    8. Mabert, Vincent A. & Soni, Ashok & Venkataramanan, M. A., 2003. "Enterprise resource planning: Managing the implementation process," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 146(2), pages 302-314, April.
    9. Joost M.E. Pennings & Scott H. Irwin & Darrel L. Good & Olga Isengildina, 2005. "Heterogeneity in the likelihood of market advisory service use by U.S. crop producers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(1), pages 109-128.
    10. Brown, Susan A. & Venkatesh, Viswanath & Kuruzovich, Jason & Massey, Anne P., 2008. "Expectation confirmation: An examination of three competing models," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 52-66, January.


    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.


    Access and download statistics


    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:inm:ormnsc:v:27:y:1981:i:4:p:459-478. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mirko Janc).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.