distortion in information systems project status reporting

ASAC 2005Toronto, OntarioRon ThompsonCharles IacovouH. Jeff SmithBabcock Graduate School of ManagementWake Forest UniversityDISTORTION IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS PROJECT STATUS REPORTINGPrevious research has shown that information systems (IS) projects are prone todistorted reporting, which can have an adverse effect on performance. We derivea conceptual model of salient factors that contribute to inaccurate reporting, andtest it using responses from 191 team members working on numerous IS projectswithin governmental agencies.IntroductionTo address perceived deficiencies in IS project management, there has been considerableresearch into factors that impede or facilitate IS project success. Many have focused on issuessuch as risk components (Ropponen, 1999), project management (Nidumolu, 1995), and userinvolvement and senior management support (McKeen and Guimaraes, 1997). Only recently hasanother factor begun to receive attention: communication regarding project status informationwithin the organizational hierarchy.Previous research suggests that distorted IS reporting is pervasive in IS development andis detrimental to the projects’ success (Keil and Robey, 2001; Smith and Keil, 2003). Accordingto this line of research, individuals reporting on the status of IS projects frequently provideinaccurate representations, especially when they must deliver bad news about the project(Iacovou, 1999; Keil and Robey, 2001; Smith and Keil, 2003). Furthermore, it has been positedthat inaccurate reporting in turn has a damaging impact on the performance of IS projects (Keiland Robey, 2001; Tan et al., 2003).The objective of this study is to develop and test a model linking 1) factors hypothesizedto influence the quality of project reporting, and 2) the impact of reporting quality on projectperformance. To the best of our knowledge, this represents the first attempt to do so. Theremainder of the paper is structured as follows. First, we review relevant literature to explorepotential causes of distortion in IS project reporting. Next, we present our research model andassociated hypotheses. Following that, we describe our research methodology and our results.The paper concludes with a discussion of contributions of the work and opportunities for futureresearch.72

Distortion in IS Project Status ReportingIS project reporting refers to the upward communication (either verbal or written) ofinformation about the status of project activities to interested managers. In such communications,the reporters usually compare the state of the activities for which they are responsible (withrespect to budgets, schedules and other dimensions) against a project plan and identify issues thatmay be causing deviations from the plan. Our work primarily focuses on the “team-member tothe project manager” communication link of the project communication chain, because of thecritical role it plays in managing the project. Since team members are the original sources of keystatus information, and project managers tend to be the key decision-makers in running theproject activities, communication in this dyad is likely to have an influence on projectperformance.In addition to the inherent difficulties associated with assessing project status (e.g.,project size and complexity, subjective nature of assessing the project development process, etc.),certain behaviours by report senders further degrade the quality of reporting in IS projects.Research shows that reporting quality also suffers because report senders are not always willingto provide accurate and complete information about the status of their project work (Snow andKeil, 2002).To understand what motivates reporters to deliberately distort their reports, we turn to theMessage Exchange literature. According to this perspective, reports are viewed as instrumentsthat enable reporters to engage in selective fact encoding and biased information-giving in orderto pursue their goals (Stohl and Redding, 1987). In such communications, IS project reporters arelikely to distort their reports to enhance their professional image, deflect blame for projectproblems, please powerful supervisors, or further other personal goals (Athanassiades, 1973).Message Exchange researchers have identified and empirically assessed severalantecedents of distortion, including attributes of the relationship between the reporter and theexecutive (Fulk and Mani, 1986). Our research model (see Figure 1) incorporates thesepreviously investigated dyadic factors to provide a new perspective on IS reporting. Moreover, itextends the existing Message Exchange literature in two ways. First, we supplement pastresearch on distorted reporting by introducing additional dyadic and project-level factors that aresalient in IS development. These factors include the (1) organizational membership of thereporting dyad, (2) the project’s perceived importance, (3) the project’s structure and (4) thecontrols employed in the project. These factors were identified based on our review of the ISliterature on project communication and management. Second, we extend our model beyond thequality of reporting to also include the impact of reporting quality on project performance.In the following sections, we discuss each of the distortion antecedents in detail. To limitthe complexity of our model, we treat the above antecedent factors as being independent; that is,we do not explicitly address the possibility of interactions among the antecedent factors, or ofmoderating influences that might occur. That level of analysis is left for future research.73

Figure 1Research ModelPM*Power+-DyadMembershipPM*TrustProjectImportanceProjectUncertaintyProjectControl-++-+Distortion inCommunications-ReportingQuality+ProjectPerformance* PM = Project ManagerTrust in Project Executive: Trust is “behavioral reliance on another person under acondition of risk” (Currall and Judge, 1995). A lack of trust will create concerns about thepotential misuse of transmitted information by project executives (against the interests ofreporters). Because of this, concerned reporters would be more selective and guarded with theirproject reports when dealing with untrustworthy executives. Empirical evidence supports therelationship between trust and distortion (O’Reilly and Roberts, 1974; Fulk and Mani, 1986).Consequently, we posit that:Hypothesis 1: Reporters with high trust in their project managers will distort their ISreports less than those with low trust.Project Executive’s Power: Power refers to the level of influence that a projectexecutive has over the reporter. This “power distance” between the two is usually determined bythe relative positions of the reporter and the project executive in the organizational hierarchy andthe level of upward influence that the executive can exert within the organization (Fulk and Mani,1986; Stohl and Redding, 1987). Reporters who are in low power positions (relative to theexecutives) are more likely to slant their reports, especially when transmitting information that is74

detrimental to their own interests or that contains bad news (Fulk and Mani, 1986; Stohl andRedding, 1987; Bean, 2001). Given the evidence supporting the linkage between power anddistortion, we propose that:Hypothesis 2: Reporters communicating to more powerful executives will distort their ISreports more than those communicating to less powerful ones.Organizational Membership: Homogenous dyads include a report sender and receiverwho are both employed by the same departrment, while in a heterogenous one they are indifferent departments (or firms). The dyad’s membership is likely to affect distortion in twoways. First, because of inter-cultural communication issues that are present in heterogeneousdyads, communication is likely to be less effective. Indeed, research shows that functionallydiverse teams (i.e., those including individuals from multiple departments) are likely toexperience lower quality interactions due to different communication styles and the inherenttension and power struggles in multi-group settings (Oetzel, 2001). Such communicationenvironments are likely to have an enhancing effect on face-saving tactics, including distortion.Thus, the work on diverse project teams suggests that:Hypothesis 3: Reporters in heterogeneous dyads will distort their IS reports morefrequently than those in homogeneous dyads.Second, we assert that organizational membership is likely to impact distortion indirectlyby affecting the level of the project executive’s power. One would expect that the relative powerof the project executive over the project participant would be lower in dyads with heterogeneousorganizational membership than in those with homogeneous organizational membership. Thus,heterogeneous membership could be expected to have a suppressing effect on distortion,mediated through the project executive’s power. We expect that:Hypothesis 4: Reporters in homogeneous dyads will perceive their executives to be morepowerful than those in heterogeneous dyads.Based on our review of the IS project management literature, we identified three projectfactors that are likely to be significant in terms of their influence on distortion in projectreporting. These salient factors are: perceived project importance (Barki et al., 2001), projectstructure (McFarlan, 1981) and project control management (Henderson and Lee, 1992).Project Importance: Importance refers to the significance that the organization placeson the system under development. It is determined by the strategic potential and by the symbolicvalue of the system (Iacovou, 1999), and it is likely to influence distortion. Specifically, strategicIS projects tend to be large, complex undertakings, consuming significant financial and humanresources (Ewusi-Mensah and Przasnyski, 1991; Iacovou, 1999). Given the large volume andcomplexity of sub-tasks that must be monitored, ambiguity is likely to increase, with moreopportunities for undetected distortion. Consistent with the above assertions, Bean (2001) foundempirical support for the relationship between project importance and distortion. Thus, weanticipate that:75

Hypothesis 5: Reporters in high importance projects will distort their IS reports morethan those in low importance ones.Project Structure: Project structure refers to level of ambiguity in the specifications ofthe desired project deliverables (McFarlan, 1981; Nidumolu, 1995). Low structure projectssuffer from a lack of clarity and specificity in the system requirements and frequent changes tothem over the course of the project; high structure projects, on the other hand, have clearer andmore stable requirements (Nidumolu, 1995). Distortion is more likely to occur in low structureprojects because uncertainty and ambiguity makes it more difficult for executives to detect it,which in turn makes it a less risky behaviour. We assert that:Hypothesis 6: Reporters in low structure projects will distort their IS reports more thanthose in high structure projects.Project Control Management: Project control refers to “the set of mechanisms designedto motivate individuals to work in such a way that desired objectives are achieved” (Kirsch et al.,2002, p. 485). The introduction of structured controls in a project (e.g., specific methodologies,design approaches, CASE tools) is likely to decrease the incidents of distortion as it will maketheir potential detection more likely. Pinto and Mantel’s (1990) findings lend support to thisargument. They found that the use of schedules, plans, and other control mechanisms wasassociated with better communication and improved trouble-shooting. Research showing that theuse of control tools in IS projects positively impacts their performance (Henderson and Lee,1992; Barki et al., 2001) is also consistent with this assertion. We therefore propose that:Hypothesis 7: Reporters in projects with strong project controls will distort their ISreports less than those in projects with lax controls.As indicated in the introduction, numerous researchers have posited that increaseddistortion in communications will lead to lower quality project reporting. With this line ofresearch, individuals reporting on the status of IS projects frequently provide inaccuraterepresentations, especially when they have to deliver bad news about the project (Iacovou, 1999;Keil and Robey, 2001; Smith and Keil, 2003). As a result, we anticipate that:Hypothesis 8: Higher levels of distortion will be associated with lower project reportingquality.Since IS projects are social undertakings that aim to develop a technological system foran organization, assessing their performance can be a complex task. From a social perspective,one would expect that successful projects would result in satisfied project members; from atechnological perspective, they should produce usable systems in an efficient manner; and froman organizational perspective, they should result in a net benefit to the adopting firm (Aladwani,2002). Although, to the best of our knowledge the impact of reporting quality on projectperformance has not been tested formally, we posit that:76

Hypothesis 9: Higher quality reporting will be associated with stronger projectperformance (including task, psychological and organizational outcomes).One additional factor was added to our model as a control factor (for analysis purposes).Related to the issue of project structure, we believe that the size and complexity of a project couldhave an impact on distortion behaviors by project members. More specifically, in larger, morecomplex projects, it will be more difficult for a project manager to detect distortions incommunications, and hence we may anticipate more distortion would occur. For that reason, weadded project size to our model as a control variable.SampleThe sample consisted of individuals who were team members in state governmentalprojects in an Eastern U.S. state. These individuals included users, IS professionals and vendorrepresentatives. We used stratified sampling to select a diverse subset of projects (based onseveral dimensions, including project duration, budget, and vendor involvement) from a listing ofon-going state projects. Surveys were sent to all non-executive participants in each selectedproject. The cover letter that accompanied the survey was signed by the researchers, the stateauditor and an executive from each respondent’s organization. The respondents were instructedto answer the questions in the questionnaire within the context of a specific IS project (the projecton which the participant spent most of his/her time).Five hundred surveys were mailed, and twenty-one were returned as undeliverable. Tworeminders (one ten days after the survey mailing and the other two weeks later) were emailed toeach subject. Two hundred and sixty-four participants responded, yielding a gross response rateof 55.1%. Of these, seventy-three cases were removed from the sample because of missing data.A case was removed if the respondent did not complete two or more of the items for anyconstruct. In addition, a case was removed if the respondent had not answered the single item for“organizational outcome.” This left one hundred and ninety-one usable responses, for a netresponse rate of 43.8%.Test of MeasuresWherever possible, we utilized previously developed and validated perceptual measuresto assess the constructs of interest (see Appendix 1 for a list of the measures). To assess thequality of reporting (from the project team members to the project manager), we utilized Mohrand Spekman (1994)’s communication quality scale. This measure assesses the following fivedimensions of reporting quality: timeliness, accuracy, adequacy, completeness and credibility.The items used to measure distortion behaviors were developed specifically for thisstudy. The six items were based loosely on measures originally employed by Roberts andO’Reilly (1974). The development process included a card-sorting exercise with six participants.Following the card-sorting exercise, modifications were made to the wording of three items toaddress potential weaknesses that had been identified.77

At the project level, project importance was captured through eight items taken from the11-item scale developed by Barki et al. (2001). We removed three items that did not appearrelevant to the public-sector context of our study. Project uncertainty was measured with a fouritem scale employed by Nidumolu (1995). The six items used to measure project control weretaken from Barki et al. (2001).The three measures for trust in the project executive, as well as the three items measuringpower of the project executive, were taken from Roberts and O’Reilly (1974). We also includeda single item to determine whether or not the project manager and the project executive wereemployed by the same organization (i.e., dyad membership).To analyze the data, we utilized the Partial Least Squares (PLS) technique; morespecifically, the PLS-Graph version 3.0 software was used to carry out the analysis (Chin andFrye, 2001). All constructs were measured with multiple reflective indicators, with the exceptionof project performance. To evaluate project performance, we used an 11-item, multi-dimensionalscale that was developed by Aladwani (2002). Since we have conceptualized projectperformance as a higher-order construct that has three separate dimensions, it was appropriate tomodel performance with formative indicators. To do so, we computed a summed score for eachof task outcomes (7 indicators) and psychological outcomes (3 indicators). Organizationaloutcome was measured with a single indicator. This resulted in three formative indicators forproject performance: task, psychological, and organizational outcomes. Appendix 1 shows theitems and descriptive statistics for each.To assess the quality of the measurement model in each of the studies, we conductedseveral tests of convergent and discriminant validity, as prescribed by Chin (1998) and Fornelland Larcker (1981). To assess convergent validity, we checked (1) individual item reliability and(2) construct reliability.With respect to item reliability, we examined the item-to-construct loadings for all multiitemvariables. Five items were removed because of low item loadings (1 for distortion, 2 forproject importance, 1 for project control, and 1 for project manager’s power). All remainingitems exhibited loadings of .55 or higher, as shown in Appendix 1. Although loadings of .70 orgreater are desirable, slightly lower loadings are considered acceptable, especially if the loadingsof other items within the same construct are high (Chin, 1998).Construct reliability was assessed utilizing two internal consistency indicators: compositereliability and average variance extracted (AVE) scores. All composite reliability indicators forthe multi-item measures in our surveys are higher than .8, and the AVE scores for all constructsare .50 or higher (Fornell and Larcker, 1981), as shown in Table 1.78

Table 1Tests of Internal Consistency of Measurement ScalesConstructCompositeReliability(CR)AverageVarianceExtractedNumber ofItemsReporting Quality 5 .93 .74Distortion in Communications 5 .87 .57Project Control 5 .84 .52Project Structure 4 .92 .74Project Importance 5 .83 .50Trust in Project Manager 3 .91 .77Project Manager’s Power 2 .81 .68Performance 3 .85 .65To test discriminant validity, we examined whether the square root of the AVE score ofeach construct was greater that its correlations with the other latent constructs (Chin, 1998). Thistest allows us to assess whether the variance that is shared between the construct and its items isgreater than the variance shared with other constructs. As shown in Table 2 below, all constructspassed this test.Table 2Test of Discriminant Validity Across Measures of ConstructsPF RQ DI PC PS PI TR PWPF .81RQ .26 .86DI .32 .41 .75PC .66 .24 .35 .72PS .45 .29 .26 .38 .86PI .12 -.12 -.17 .04 -.03 .71TR .50 .22 .40 .45 .22 -.07 .88PW .41 .16 .19 .34 .14 -.07 .54 .81Note: PF – Performance; RQ – reporting quality; DI – distortion; PC – project control; PS– project structure; PI – project importance; TR – trust in project manager; PW – projectmanager’s controlNote: The values on the diagonal (shaded cells) represent the square-root of the averagevariance extracted (AVE). The off-diagonal values display the correlations amongconstructs. For adequate discriminant validity, the values in the shaded cells should begreater than those in the corresponding row and column.79

ResultsTo assess statistical significance of the path estimates obtained from PLS, bootstrapping(with 500 resamples) was employed. The results of the tests of the structural model are shown inTable 3. In addition to the path estimates, we also examined the amount of variance explained(R 2 ) for each of the endogenous constructs. The R 2 values were .25 for distortion, .16 forreporting quality, and .07 for project performance. We also added a surrogate measure of projectsize (the maximum number of project team members assigned to the project) to the model as acontrol variable. As can be seen from Table 3, the project size did have a small, but statisticallysignificant, influence on distortion. In addition, we note that two of the hypothesizedrelationships were not statistically significant. Nevertheless, most of the hypotheses in theresearch model were supported.Although the path coefficients linking the dyad membership and the perceived power ofthe project manager to distortion were in the direction that was hypothesized, neither was verylarge or statistically significant. In contrast, the path from trust in the project manager todistortion was very strong and significant at the p < .01 level.Table 3Results of Tests of the Structural ModelHypothesis PathPathCoefficient Support?H1 Trust – Distortion -.32** YesH2 Perceived Power – Distortion .06 NoH3 Dyad Membership – Distortion .08 NoH4 Dyad Membership – Perceived Power -.14* YesH5 Project Importance - Distortion .16* YesH6 Project Structure - Distortion .11* YesH7 Project Control – Distortion -.19** YesH8 Distortion – Reporting Quality -.41** YesH9 Reporting Quality - Performance .26** YesTeam size (control factor) .10** significant at p < .05; ** significant at p < .01All three of the project-level constructs exerted a statistically significant influence ondistortion, although the strength of the influences were modest. It appears that, as predicted inprevious studies, greater use of formal control mechanisms did result in lower distortion.Nevertheless, the fact remains that the size of the project (using the number of project membersas a surrogate measure of project size) also has some impact on the degree of distortion. Futurestudies could benefit from incorporating size more directly into their conceptual development.80

Two of the primary assertions of the research model received substantial support. First,the influence of distortion on reporting quality was very strong, as anticipated. The greater thedistortion, the poorer the quality of reporting, which is consistent with previous observations andexpectations. Second, the quality of reporting did have a strong, positive influence on projectperformance. Although many other factors (not included in this study) will also impactperformance, we believe that this is the first empirical study to test this relationship.Limitations and Implications for Future ResearchWhile the findings of our studies seem promising, we do wish to note a few limitations.First, with respect to measurement, our instruments gauged self-reported perceptions. While suchmeasures tend to be subjective, we believe that they shed significant light on the phenomenonunder investigation. Indeed, evidence suggests that insiders’ evaluations of projects areconsistent with assessments by outsiders (Hoegl and Gemuenden, 2001). Second, with respect tothe sampling, our work is cross-sectional in nature. The lack of longitudinal data did not allow usto assess the dynamic nature of the bidirectional influence between reporting and projectperformance.In addition, the applicability of our findings may be limited because of the use of a singlesource to derive our measures. We embraced this approach in order to protect the anonymity ofthe respondents and to minimize their personal risk in participating in the study. As theadmission of inaccurate reporting is a rather controversial and sensitive issue, we wanted toeliminate any concern that potential respondents might have about protecting their identities.Thus, we decided to allow a single respondent for each project, without requiring the input ofadditional individuals (i.e., those receiving status reports). Future studies could benefit fromhaving multiple respondents (including project managers) from the same project, to helptriangulate results.Finally, we selected a subset of factors that we anticipated would impact distortion, basedon a review of previous literature. Additional work could be done to test additional potentialinfluences, such as individual characteristics (e.g., risk propensity) or organizational issues (e.g.,organizational climate).ConclusionsOur work demonstrated empirically that distortion in project communications does have alarge, negative impact on project reporting quality and, more importantly, poor quality reportingis associated with degraded project performance. In addition, we have demonstrated theimportance of dyadic factors (especially trust in the project manager) and project factors(including project control mechanisms) associated with greater or lesser distortion.81

ReferencesAladwani, A.M. "An Integrated Performance Model of Information Systems Projects," Journal ofManagement Information Systems, 19(1), 2002, 185-.Athanassiades, J.C. "The Distortion of Upward Communication in Hierarchical Organizations,"Academy of Management Journal, 16(2), 1973, 207-226.Barki, H., Rivard, S. & Talbot, J. "An Integrative Contingency Model of Software Project RiskManagement," Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4), 2001, 37-69.Bean, D.F. "Equivocal Reporting: Ethical Communication Issues," Journal of Business Ethics,29, 2001, 65-76.Chin, W.W. "The Partial Least Squares Approach to Structural Equation Modeling," In ModernMethods for Business Research, G. A. Marcoulides (ed.) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Nahwah,NJ, 1998, 295-336.Chin, W.W., and Frye, T. PLS-Graph User's Guide, Soft Modeling, Inc, 2001.Currall, S.C. & Judge, T.A. "Measuring Trust Between Organizational Boundary Role Persons,"Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 64(2), 1995, 151-170.Ewusi-Mensah, K. & Przasnyski, Z.H. "On Information Systems Project Abandonment: anExploratory Study of Organizational Practices," MIS Quarterly, 15(1), 1991, 67-86.Fornell, C., and Larcker, D.F. "Evaluating Structural Equation Models with UnobservableVariables and Measurement Error," Journal of Marketing Research, 18,(1), 1981, 39.Fulk, J. & Mani, S. "Distortion of Communication in Hierarchical Relationships," In:Communications Yearbook, Mclaughlin, M.L. (ed), Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, California,1986, 483-510.Henderson, J.C., and Lee, S. "Managing I/S Design Teams: A Control Theories Perspective,"Management Science, 38(6), 1992, 757.Hoegl, M., and Gemuenden, H.G. "Teamwork Quality and the Success of Innovative Projects: ATheoretical Concept and Empirical Evidence," Organization Science, 12(4), 2001, 435.Iacovou, C.L. "Managing IS Project Failures: A Project Management Perspective," Ph.D.dissertation, University of British Columbia, 1999.Keil, M., and Robey, D. "Blowing the Whistle on Troubled Software Projects," Communicationsof the ACM, 44(4), 2001, 87-93.Kirsch, L.J., Sambamurthy, V., Ko, D.G. & Purvis, R.L. "Controlling Information SystemsDevelopment Projects: The View From the Client," Management Science, 48(4), 2002, 484-498.McFarlan, F.W. "Portfolio Approach to Information Systems," Harvard Business Review, 59(5),1981, 142-150.McKeen, J.D. & Gumaraes, T. "Successful Strategies for User Participation in SystemsDevelopment," Journal of Management Information Systems, 14(2), 1997, 133-150.Nidumolu, S. "The Effect of Coordination and Uncertainty on Software Project Performance:Residual Performance Risk as an Intervening Variable," Information Systems Research, 6(3),1995, 191.Oetzel, J.G. "Self-Construals, Communication Processes, and Group Outcomes in Homogeneousand Heterogeneous Groups," Small Group Research, 32(1), 2001, 19-54.O’Reilly, C.A. & Roberts, K.H. "Information Infiltration in Organizations: Three Experiments,"Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11, 1974, 253-265.82

Pinto, J.K. & Mantel, S.J. Jr "The Causes of Project Failure," IEEE Transactions on EngineeringManagement, 37(4), 1990, 269-276.Ropponen, J. Software Risk Management: Foundation, Principles, and Empirical Findings,Jyvaskyla University Printing House, Jyvaskyla, Finland, 1999.Smith, H.J., and Keil, M. "The Reluctance to Report Bad News on Troubled Software Projects: ATheoretical Model," Information Systems Journal, 13(1), 2003, 69-95.Snow, A.P., and Keil, M. "The Challenge of Accurate Software Project Status Reporting: A Two-Stage Model Incorporating Status Errors and Reporting Bias," IEEE Transactions on EngineeringManagement, 49(4), 2002, 491-504.Stohl, C. & Redding, W.C. "Messages and Message Exchange Processes," In: Handbook ofOrganizational Communication: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Jablin, F.M. (ed.), SagePublications, Newbury Park, California, 1987, 451-502.Tan, B., Smith, H.J., Keil, M., and Montealegre, R. "Reporting Bad News About SoftwareProjects: Impact of Organizational Climate and Information Asymmetry in an Individualistic anda Collectivist Culture," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 50(1), 2003, 64-77.Appendix 1: Constructs and MeasuresItemMeanStandardDeviationWeightLoadingItemWording(RE) - Reporting Quality to Project Manager (To what extent do you believe that the communicationyou provided to your project manager regarding the project status was:)RE1 5.88 1.24 .22 .69 Untimely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TimelyRE2 6.11 1.21 .28 .89 Inaccurate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AccurateRE3 5.94 1.37 .23 .91 Inadequate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 AdequateRE4 5.93 1.35 .22 .93 Incomplete 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CompleteRE5 6.20 1.29 .23 .87 Not credible 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Credible(TR) – Trust in Project Manager (7-point scales)TR1 5.18 1.85 .36 .89 To what extent do you have confidence and trust in yourproject manager concerning his/her general fairness?TR2 5.59 1.90 .38 .86 How free do you feel to discuss with your project managerthe problems and difficulties you have in this projectwithout jeopardizing your position or having it “heldagainst you” later?83

TR3 5.10 1.54 .40 .87 Project managers at times must make decisions that seem tobe against the best interests of their project team members.When this happens to you as a project team member, howmuch trust do you have that your project manager’sdecision was justified by other considerations?(DI) - Distortion of Information (7-point scales)DI1 2.28 1.69 .24 .58 How frequently did you find it necessary to alter thecontents of your project status reports (either verbal orwritten) to fit the project manager’s expectations?DI2 1.79 1.26 .29 .81 “There are significant forces in this project that cause me todistort information in some of my communication to theproject manager.”DI3 1.42 0.97 .30 .82 About how often during a typical work week do youwithhold information from the project manager that mightbe useful to him/her?DI4 1.55 1.08 .29 .89 How frequently did you find it necessary to omit particularproject status facts from the information you pass on to theproject executive?DI5 1.81 1.10 .20 .63 Of the total amount of project information you receive, howmuch of it must be actively changed in some way before youpass it on to the project manager?(PI) – Project Importance (If, for some reason, the system being developed is not implemented or if ithas operational problems, what impact would this have on the user organization(s) in terms of thefollowing?PI 5.10 1.73 .33 .73 Customer relations.PI2 4.02 1.83 .51 .82 Financial health.PI3 5.50 1.52 .13 .59 Reputation of the information systems group.PI4 5.42 1.46 .07 .65 Organizational image.PI5 4.67 1.75 .31 .73 Reputation of the user organization(s).(PS) – Project Structure (Please indicate your level of agreement with the following statementsconcerning conversion of the specifications into software in this project).PS1 5.10 1.57 .36 .85 There is a clearly known way to develop software that willmeet the requirements specifications.PS2 5.63 1.30 .16 .78 Available knowledge is of great help in developing softwarethat would meet the requirements specifications.PS3 5.04 1.57 .31 .87 Established procedures and practices can be relied upon todevelop software to meet the requirements specifications.PS4 5.26 1.47 .33 .93 An understandable sequence of steps can be followed fordeveloping software to meet the requirementsspecifications.(PW) – Project Manager’s Power84

PW1 3.54 2.10 .45 .73 In general, how much did you feel that the project managercan do to further your career?PW2 4.77 1.50 .73 .90 How often was your project manager successful inovercoming restrictions (such as regulations and quotas) ingetting you things you need in your job in this project (suchas equipment, personnel, etc.)?(PC) - Project Control (Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements regardingyour project team: 1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree)PC1 5.31 1.72 .22 .77 Project team members actively participate in the definitionof project goals and schedules.PC2 5.47 1.58 .44 .76 Every effort is made to keep project team turnover at aminimum.PC3 5.05 1.61 .23 .64 Special attention is being paid to project planning.PC4 5.51 1.58 .17 .59 The project team meets frequently.PC5 5.20 1.76 .29 .82 Project team members are kept informed about majordecisions concerning the project.(PF) - Performance (formative items – task, psychological, organizational)Task(T)35.64 8.94 .50 .90 Summated scale – seven items – “Relative to othercomparable IS projects, how does this project rate on eachof the following:”T1 4.84 1.60 Efficiency of operations.T2 4.68 1.65 Adherence to schedules.T3 4.93 1.54 Adherence to budgets.T4 5.28 1.48 Amount of produced work.T5 5.46 1.31 Quality of produced work.T6 5.11 1.51 Effectiveness of interactions with consultants.T7 5.31 1.47 Ability to meet its goals.Psych 13.64 2.13 .46 .88 Summated scale – 3 items – “Please rate your level of(P)agreement with the following statements:”P1 5.44 1.24 Generally speaking, members of our project are verysatisfied with their work.P2 5.35 1.27 The members are generally satisfied with the kind of workthey do in this project.P3 5.14 1.83 Members frequently think of quitting the project(reversed).Org 6.33 0.91 .24 .61 The outcome of this project will add value to businessoperations.85