Holistic Project Management Guidelines for Information Systems Evaluation

  • Lorraine Galvin


This chapter investigates current practice of Information Systems (IS) investment evaluation and proposes holistic guidelines for management. Qualitative research was undertaken through interpretive case studies of three Irish organisations on the evaluation context (life cycle stages, stakeholder and purpose). The guidelines proposed in this chapter include an eight-stage life cycle model, which details the purpose of evaluation, stakeholders' governance, benefits and measures at each stage.


Project Management Information System Organisational Learning Organisational Context Life Cycle Stage 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abma, T.A. (2000) ‘Dynamic Inquiry Relationships: ways of creating, sustaining and improving the inquiry process through recognition and management of conflicts’, Journal of Qualitative Inquiry, 6(1): 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Shehab, A.J., Hughes, R. and Winstanley, G. (2004) ‘Using Causal mapping methods to identify and analyse risk in information system projects as a post-evaluation process’, in D. Remenyi (ed.) Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on IT Evaluation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 9–16.Google Scholar
  3. Ashurst, C. and Doherty, N. (2003) ‘Towards the Formulation of a ‘Best Practice’ Framework for Benefits Realisation in IT Projects’ [Online] Available from:[Accessed 5 June 2004].
  4. Ballentine, J. and Stray, S.J. (1999) ‘Information Systems and other capital investment: evaluation practices compared’, Journal of Logistics Information Management, 12(1): 78–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bank of Ireland (2005) Company Information [Online] [Accessed 16 June 2005].
  6. Bannister, F (2001) ‘Citizen Centricity: A Model of IS Value in Public Administration’, Electronic Journal of Information systems Evaluation, 5(2).Google Scholar
  7. Beyon-Davies, P., Owens, P. and Williams, M. (2004) ‘Information Systems evaluation and the information systems development process’. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 17(4): 276–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byrd, T.A., Thrasher, E., Lang, T. and Davidson, N.W. (2005) ‘A process orientated perspective of IS success: examining the impact of IS on operational cost’, The International Journal of Management Science, 34(5): 448–460.Google Scholar
  9. Celtic Linen (2005) Market Analysis Report 2005.Google Scholar
  10. Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (2005) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed.). New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Deschoolmeester, D., Braet, O. and Willaert, P. (2004) ‘On a balanced methodology to evaluate a portfolio of IT investments’ in D. Remenyi (ed.) Proceedings of 11th European Conference on IT evaluation proceedings, pp. 115–126.Google Scholar
  12. Doherty, N. King, M. and Al-Mushayt, O. (2003) ‘The Impact of inadequacies in the treatment of organisational issues on Information Systems Development projects’, Journal of Information and Management, 41: 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Drummond, H. (1999) ‘Are we any closer to the end? Escalation and the case of Taurus’, Journal of Project Management, 17(1): 11–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eason, L. (1998) Information Technology and Organisational Change. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  15. Farbey, B., Land, F. and Targett, D. (1993[G2]) How to Assess Your IT Investment: A Study of Methods and Practice. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  16. Fitzgerald, B. (1998) ‘Executive Information Systems without Executives’, in D. Avison and D. Edgar-Nevill (eds.) Matching Technology with Organisational Needs, Proceedings of Third Conference of the UK Academy for Information Systems, Lincoln University, UK, McGraw-Hill, pp. 298.Google Scholar
  17. Frisk, E. and Planten, A. (2004) ‘IT Investment Evaluation — A survey amongst managers in Sweden’, in D. Remenyi (ed.) Proceedings of the 11th European Conference on IT Evaluation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp.145–154.Google Scholar
  18. Galliers, R. and Leidner, D.E. (2003) Strategic Information Management: Challenges and Strategies in managing Information Systems. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  19. Goulielmos, M. (2003) ‘Outlining organisational failure in information systems development’, Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal, 12(4): 319–327.Google Scholar
  20. Gregory, A.J. and Jackson, M.C. (1991) ‘Evaluating organizations: a systems and contingency approach’, Systems Practice, 5(1): 37–60.Google Scholar
  21. Hogbin, G. and Thomas, D. (1994) Investing in Information Technology — Managing the Decision Making Process., London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  22. Huang, Y.M. and Trevisan, M.S. (2003) ‘Evaluability assessment: a primer’, Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 8(20).Google Scholar
  23. Hughes, B and Cotterell, M. (2002[G3]) Software Project Management (3rd ed.). London[G4]: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  24. Irani, Z., Sharif, A.M., Love, P.E.D. and Kahrarman, C. (2002) ‘Applying Concepts of Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping to Model the IT/IS Investment Evaluation Process’, International Journal of Production Economics, 75(1): 199–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mangan, A. and Stahl, B.C. (2002) ‘Who is responsible for ISIS? The Irish Credit Unions Problem of Introducing a Standardised Information System’ in R. Hackney (ed.) Business Information Technology Management: Semantic Futures. Manchester: Manchester Metropolitan University Business School, Manchester, UK.Google Scholar
  26. Naughton, E. (2004) ‘Room for better project management’ [Online] Available from:[Accessed 21 January 2005].
  27. Nijland, M. (2004) ‘Understanding the use of IT evaluation methods in organisations’, Ph.D. thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
  28. Patton, M.Q. (2001) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Pressman, R. (2000) Software Engineering: A Practioners Approach. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  30. Remenyi, D. (1999) IT Investment Making a Business Case. Oxford: Butterworth-Heineman.Google Scholar
  31. Remenyi, D., Money, A. and Sherwood-Smith, M. (2000) The Effective Measurement and Management of IT Costs and Benefits (2nd ed.). Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.Google Scholar
  32. Serafeimidis, V. and Smithson, S. (1999) ‘Rethinking the approaches to information systems investment evaluation’, Logistics Information Management, 12: 94–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Silvius, A.J. (2004) ‘ROI Doesn't Matter: Insights in the True Business Value of IT’ in D. Remenyi (ed.) Proceedings of the 11th Conference on IT Evaluation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  34. Small, M.H. and Chen, J. (1995)‘Investment justification of advanced manufacturing technologies: an empirical analysis’, Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 12(1): 27–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Walsham (1993) Interpreting Information Systems in Organisations. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Willcocks, L.P. and Lester, S. (1997) ‘In search of information technology productivity. Assessment issues’, Journal of the Operational Research Society, 48(11): 1082–1094.MATHGoogle Scholar
  37. VHI (2005)[Accessed 24 June 2005] About page.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lorraine Galvin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations