Identifying Focal Points in IT Project Governance Using a Synthetic and Systems Thinking Approach

  • Rani Yesudas
  • Mahmoud EfatmaneshnikEmail author
  • Keith Joiner
Conference paper


An effective project governance framework enables the project stakeholders to take the right actions to guide a project to success, and an efficient governance framework does so elegantly by a minimum number of actions necessary for the project success. Project governance provides direction in identifying the critical elements for project success and with techniques to measure its progress. There are several standards and tools available for the management of IT projects, yet there is an increase in the number of projects failing to attain the objective, deadline and budget. Complexities and uncertainties have increased in IT projects with the need to achieve innovation and the need for using emergent technologies. This situation makes it difficult for project proponents to assure project governance approaches for success. This article first analyses IT project life cycle activities and various reported IT project successes and failures. Then the systems thinking approach is applied to synthesise factors that can lead to failure at each stage of a project lifecycle. This information is then mapped to a complex system governance model to identify the order in which activities should be performed to obtain optimal results irrespective of the nature of the project.


  1. 1.
    Locatelli, G., Mancini, M., Romano, E.: Systems engineering to improve the governance in complex project environments. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32(8), 1395–1410 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pourdehnad, J.: Synthetic (integrative) project management: an idea whose time has come. Bus. Strat. Ser. 8(6), 426–434 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Muller, R.: Project Governance. Routledge, New York (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pyster, A., Olwell, D.H., Hutchison, N., Enck, S., Anthony Jr., J.F., Henry, D.: Guide to the systems engineering body of knowledge (SEBoK) v. 1.0. 1. Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kapsali, M.: Systems thinking in innovation project management: a match that works. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 29(4), 396–407 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kossiakoff, A., Sweet, W.N., Seymour, S.J., Biemer, S.M.: Systems Engineering: Principles and Practice, 2nd edn. Wiley Online Library (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Beasley, R.: 4.3. 1 the barriers to systems thinking. In: INCOSE International Symposium, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 517–531. Wiley Online Library (2012)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    PMI: A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide). Project Management Institute (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ogunlana, S.O.: Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Stakeholder perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 28(3), 228–236 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., Maltz, A.C.: Project success: a multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Plan. 34(6), 699–725 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Han, W.S., Yusof, A.M., Ismail, S., Aun, N.C.: Reviewing the notions of construction project success. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 7(1), 90 (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Standish Group: CHAOS Report: 21st Anniversary Edition (2014).
  13. 13.
    Gupta, S.K., Gunasekaran, A., Antony, J., Gupta, S., Bag, S., Roubaud, D.: Systematic literature review of project failures: current trends and scope for future research. Comput. Ind. Eng. 127, 274–285 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dwivedi, Y.K., et al.: IS/IT project failures: a review of the extant literature for deriving a taxonomy of failure factors. In: International Working Conference on Transfer and Diffusion of IT, pp. 73–88. Springer (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Antony, J., Gupta, S.: Top ten reasons for process improvement project failures. Int. J. Lean Six Sigma 10(1), 367–374 (2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Taherdoost, H., Keshavarzsaleh, A.: A theoretical review on IT project success/failure factors and evaluating the associated risks (2018)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chow, T., Cao, D.-B.: A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects. J. Syst. Softw. 81(6), 961–971 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Too, E.G., Weaver, P.: The management of project management: a conceptual framework for project governance. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 32(8), 1382–1394 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Keating, C.B., Bradley, J.M.: Complex system governance reference model. Int. J. Syst. Syst. Eng. 6(1–2), 33–52 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cellucci, C.: The analytic-synthetic method. In: Rethinking Logic: Logic in Relation to Mathematics, Evolution, and Method, pp. 75–94. Springer (2013)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rani Yesudas
    • 1
  • Mahmoud Efatmaneshnik
    • 1
    Email author
  • Keith Joiner
    • 1
  1. 1.University of New South WalesCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations