Premium
Comparing senior executive and project manager perceptions of IT project risk: a Chinese Delphi study
Author(s) -
Liu Shan,
Zhang Jinlong,
Keil Mark,
Chen Tao
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
information systems journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.635
H-Index - 89
eISSN - 1365-2575
pISSN - 1350-1917
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2575.2009.00333.x
Subject(s) - delphi method , senior management , risk management , project risk management , focus group , risk perception , project manager , risk management plan , project management , perception , business , public relations , psychology , knowledge management , marketing , it risk management , engineering , political science , project management triangle , finance , computer science , systems engineering , artificial intelligence , neuroscience
The success rate for information technology (IT) projects continues to be low. With an increasing number of IT projects in developing countries such as China, it is important to understand the risks they are experiencing on IT projects. To date, there has been little research documenting Asian perceptions of IT project risk. In this research, we examine the risks identified by Chinese senior executives (SEs) and project managers (PMs), and compare these two groups. The importance of top management support in IT projects is well documented. Prior research has shown that from the perspective of IT PMs, lack of support from SEs is the number one risk in IT projects. Surprisingly, senior executives' perceptions towards IT project risk have never been systematically examined. One reason why lack of support from senior executives continues to represent a major risk may be that senior executives themselves do not realize the critical role that they can play in helping to deliver successful projects. In this study, we use the Delphi method to compare the risk perceptions of senior executives and project managers. By comparing risk factors selected by each group, zones of concordance and discordance are identified. In terms of perceived importance ascribed to risk factors, PMs tend to focus on lower‐level risks with particular emphasis on risks associated with requirements and user involvement, whereas SEs tend to focus on higher‐level risks such as those risks involving politics, organization structure, process, and culture. Finally, approaches for dealing with risk factors that are seen as important by both SEs and PMs are provided.