[논문]Why projects fail? How contingency theory can provide new insights – A comparative analysis of NASA’s Mars Climate Orbiter loss

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.01.004

Why projects fail? How contingency theory can provide new insights – A comparative analysis of NASA’s Mars Climate Orbiter loss

International journal of project management : the journal of the International Project Management Association, v.27 no.7, 2009년, pp.665 - 679

Sauser, Brian J. (Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 201 216 8589) , Reilly, Richard R. (fax: +1 201 216 5541.) , Shenhar, Aaron J. (Stevens Institute of Technology, School of System and Enterprises, Castle Point on Hudson, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA)

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

AbstractWhen important projects fail, the investigation is often focused on the engineering and technical reasons for the failure. That was the case in NASA’s Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO) that was lost in space after completing its nine-month journey to Mars. Yet, in many cases the root cause of the failure is not technical, but managerial. Often the problem is rooted in management’s failure to select the right approach to the specific project. The objective of this paper is to enrich our understanding of project failure due to managerial reasons by utilizing different contingency theory frameworks for a retrospective look at unsuccessful projects and perhaps more important, potential prevention of future failures. The evolving field of project management contingency theory provides an opportunity at this time to re-examine the concept of fit between project characteristics and project management, and offer deeper insights on why projects fail. After outlining several existing contingency studies, we use three distinct frameworks for analyzing the MCO project. These frameworks include Henderson and Clark’s categorization of change and innovation, Shenhar and Dvir’s NTCP diamond framework, and Pich, Loch, and De Meyer’s strategies for managing uncertainty. While each framework provides a different perspective, collectively, they demonstrate that in the MCO program, the choices made by managers, or more accurately, the constraints imposed on them under the policy of ‘better, faster, cheaper’, led the program to its inevitable failure. This paper shows that project management contingency theory can indeed provide new insights for a deeper understanding of project failure. Furthermore, it suggests implications for a richer upfront analysis of a project’s unique characteristics of uncertainty and risk, as well as additional directions of research. Such research may help establish new and different conceptions on project success and failure beyond the traditional success factors, and subsequently develop more refined contingency frameworks. The results of such research may enable future project managers to rely less on heuristics and possibly lead to a new application of “project management design.”

주제어

참고문헌 (72)

Peart 1971 Design of project management systems and records
Acad. Manag. Rev. Eisenhardt 14 4 532 1989 10.5465/amr.1989.4308385 Building theories from case study research

상세보기
Manag. Sci. Pich 48 8 1008 2002 10.1287/mnsc.48.8.1008.163 On uncertainty, ambiguity, and complexity in project management

상세보기
Admin. Sci. Quart. Henderson 35 1 9 1990 10.2307/2393549 Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms

상세보기
Organ. Sci. Terwiesch 13 4 402 2002 10.1287/orsc.13.4.402.2948 Exchanging preliminary information in concurrent engineering: alternative coordination strategies

상세보기
Shenhar AJ. Real life project analysis - guidelines. Stevens Institute of Technology; 1999.
Project Manag. J. Bubshait 23 2 43 1992 Project characteristics that influence the implementation of project management techniques: a survey
Clark 1991 Product development performance
Griner CS, Keegan WB. Enhancing mission success - a framework for the future: a report by the NASA chief engineer and the NASA integrated action team. National Aeronautics and Space Administration; 2000.
Int. J. Project Manag. Turner 11 2 93 1993 10.1016/0263-7863(93)90017-H Goals-and-methods matrix: coping with projects with lll defined goals and/or methods of achieving them

상세보기
The Standish group: the chaos report. West Yarmouth, MA: The Standish Group International, Inc.; 2001.
Evans M. Overdue and over budget, over and over again. The Economist; 2005.
Hammer 2003 Reengineering the corporation: a manifesto for business revolution
Roush W. R deficit=D inflation. Technology Review, July 27; 2005.
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change Tishler 51 2 151 1996 10.1016/0040-1625(95)00197-2 Identifying critical success factors in defense development projects: a multivariate analysis

상세보기
Zhang L, Lee KO, Zhang Z, Banerjee P. Critical success factors of enterprise resource planning systems implementation success in China. In: Proceedings of the 36th Hawaii international conference on systems sciences; 2003.
Int. J. Project Manag. Belassi 14 3 141 1996 10.1016/0263-7863(95)00064-X A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in projects

상세보기
Morris 1987 The anatomy of major projects: a study of the reality of project management
Int. J. Project Manag. Munns 14 2 81 1996 10.1016/0263-7863(95)00057-7 The role of project management in achieving project success

상세보기
Project Manag. J. Pinto 19 3 67 1988 Critical success factors across the project life cycle
Organ. Stud. Lindkvist 19 6 931 1998 10.1177/017084069801900602 Managing product development projects: on significance of fountains and deadlines

상세보기
Int. J. Project Manag. Payne 17 1 55 1999 10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00005-2 Company-wide project management: the planning and control of programs of projects of different type

상세보기
Int. J. Project Manag. Floricel 19 445 2001 10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00047-3 Strategizing for anticipating risks and turbulence in large-scale engineering projects

상세보기
Admin. Sci. Quart. Drazin 30 514 1985 10.2307/2392695 Alternative forms of fit in contingency theory

상세보기
Lawrence 1967 Organization and environment: managing differentiation and integration
Res. Organ. Behav. Pennings 14 267 1992 Structural contingency theory: a reappraisal

상세보기
Manag. Sci. Shenhar 47 3 394 2001 10.1287/mnsc.47.3.394.9772 One size does not fit all projects: exploring classical contingency domains

상세보기
Woodward 1958 Management and technology
Burns 1961 The management of innovation
Shenhar 1265 2004 The Wiley guide to managing projects How projects differ, and what to do about it
Res. Policy Shenhar 25 607 1996 10.1016/0048-7333(95)00877-2 Toward a typological theory of project management

상세보기
Acad. Manag. J. Lewis 45 3 546 2002 10.2307/3069380 Product development tensions: exploring contrasting styles in project management
Thompson 1967 Organizations in action
Youker R. The difference between different types of projects (Revised). In: Proceedings of PMI 30th annual seminar and symposium. Philadelphia, PA; 2002 http://www.maxwideman.com/guests/index.htm.
Am. Sociol. Rev. Perrow 32 194 1967 10.2307/2091811 A framework for the comparative analysis of organizations

상세보기
Galbraith 1977 Organization design
Archibald 2003 Managing high-technology programs and projects
Archibald RD, Voropaev VI. Commonalities and differences in project management around the world: a survey of project categories and life cycle models. In: Proceeding of the 17th IPMA world congress on project management. Moscow, Russia; 2003.
Int. J. Project Manag. Atkinson 17 6 337 1999 10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00069-6 Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria

상세보기
Shenhar 2007 Reinventing project management: the diamond approach to successful growth and innovation
Crawford 2004 Project categorization systems
IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. Williams 52 4 497 2005 10.1109/TEM.2005.856572 Assessing and moving on from the dominant project management discourse in the light of project overruns

상세보기
Sauser 2004 A case study of Mars Climate Orbiter
Blake 1978 Managing for responsive research and development
Steele 1975 Innovation in big business
Wheelwright 1992 Revolutionizing product development
IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. Tatikonda 47 1 74 2000 10.1109/17.820727 Technology novelty, project complexity, and product development project execution success: a deeper look at task uncertainty in product innovation

상세보기
Int. J. Project Manag. Soderlund 9 4 451 2005 Developing project competence. Empirical regularities in competitive project operations
PMI 2002 Government extension to a guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)
PMI 2003 Construction extension to a guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)
PMI 2003 United States Department of Defense Extension to: a guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)
Res. Policy Dvir 27 915 1998 10.1016/S0048-7333(98)00085-7 In search of project classification: a non-universal approach to project success factors

상세보기
Manag. Sci. Gatignon 48 9 1103 2002 10.1287/mnsc.48.9.1103.174 A structural approach to assessing innovation: construct development of innovation locus, type, and characteristics

상세보기
IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. Shenhar 45 1 33 1998 10.1109/17.658659 From theory to practice. toward a typology of project management styles

상세보기
Manag. Sci. Mihm 46 6 733 2003 10.1287/mnsc.49.6.733.16021 Problem-solving oscillations in complex engineering projects

상세보기
Gillham 2000 Case study research methods
Yin 1994 Case study research: design and methods
Denzin 1984 The research act
Stake 1995 The art of case research
Goldin 2000 When the best must do even better: remarks by Daniel S. Goldin at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Perrow 1999 Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies
Vaughn 1996 The challenger launch decision: risky technology, culture, and deviance at NASA
CAIB 2003 Columbia accident investigation board report
Lewis 1984 The voyage of Columbia, the first spaceship
Project Manag. J. Webster 18 2 41 1987 The space shuttle challenger incident: showcase project
J. Cases Inform. Technol. Guthrie 7 3 57 2005 10.4018/jcit.2005070104 The Columbia disaster: culture, communication and change

상세보기
Chaisson 1998 The Hubble wars
10.2514/6.2005-3332 Marshall LA, Corpening GP, Sherrill R. A chief engineer’s view of the NASA X-43A scramjet flight test. In: Proceedings of 13th AIAA/CIRA international space planes and hypersonic systems and technologies conference; 2005. p. 1181-200.
Acta Astronaut. Newman 48 5-12 517 2001 10.1016/S0094-5765(01)00071-6 Failure-space. A systems engineering look at 50 space system failures

상세보기
IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. Balachandra 44 276 1997 10.1109/17.618169 Factors for success in R&D projects and new product innovation: a contextual framework

상세보기
Syst. Res. Forum Sauser 1 1 27 2006 10.1142/S1793966606000102 A return to the moon: a system engineering management framework and the success of lunar prospector

상세보기
Eng. Manag. J. Shenhar 17 4 8 2005 10.1080/10429247.2005.11431667 Toward a NASA-specific project management framework

상세보기

표제어: PCR

동의어: Packet Collision Rate

용어 설명 출처 목록 (6)

용어 설명: PCR은 세균 특이성이 있는 primer를 이용하여 적은 수의 세균이 있을지라도 쉽게 검출할 수 있는 유용한 방법이며, 이를 이용하여 구강 내 치면세균막이나 타액에서 직접 세균을 검출할 수 있게 되었다[8].

내보내기 구분	파일저장 인쇄 메일전송
구성항목	기본정보 상세정보 관리번호, 논문명, 저널/프로시딩명, 저자 , 발행년, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, 발행기관 관리번호, 논문명, 대등논문명, 저자 , 저널/프로시딩명, 발행기관, 발행년, 발행언어, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, ISBN, ISSN, 주제분야, 키워드, 초록(한글), 초록(영문), 저자(소속기관)
저장형식	Text(ASCII format) Excel format RefWorks Direct Export RIS format (for Reference Manager, ProCite, EndNote), Scholar's Aids, Mendeley
메일정보	받는사람 (필수) @ 보내는사람 (선택) @ 제목 내용 KISTI 검색결과 이메일 서비스
안내	총 건의 자료가 검색되었습니다. 다운받으실 자료의 인덱스를 입력하세요. (1-10,000) 검색결과의 순서대로 최대 10,000건 까지 다운로드가 가능합니다. 데이타가 많을 경우 속도가 느려질 수 있습니다.(최대 2~3분 소요) 다운로드 파일은 UTF-8 형태로 저장됩니다. 파일의 내용이 제대로 보이지 않을실 때는 웹브라우저 상단의 보기 -> 인코딩 -> 자동선택 여부를 확인하십시오. ~ Text(ASCII format) Excel format

연합인증

Why projects fail? How contingency theory can provide new insights – A comparative analysis of NASA’s Mars Climate Orbiter loss

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

주제어

참고문헌 (72)

이 논문을 인용한 문헌

관련 콘텐츠

원문 URL 링크

이 논문과 함께 이용한 콘텐츠

AI-Helper ※ AI-Helper는 오픈소스 모델을 사용합니다.

선택된 텍스트