Software Engineering

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Understanding Top Management Involvement in Sdlc Phases


     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


One of the most essential factors in the success of system implementation has been recognized as top management support and involvement. Few research, however, have addressed the question of what sort of engagement is necessary through the various stages of the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC). Given the many challenges to top management involvement and support in the various SDLC phases. The objective of this research was twofold. First, to examine the relationship between top management support and the phases of SDLC in order to give guidance for top management practices to ensure the success of information system projects. Second, because top management support is critical to project success, this study sought to investigate approaches of motivating top management to participate in the SDLC as well as the barriers that hinder them from doing so. This study investigates the type of involvement and support of top management in various phases of system implementation, which will help us in understanding the support mechanism from top management in various SDLC stages. To achieve this goal, the authors performed a qualitative study in five different firms in Kuwait, interviewing top management, project management, system analysts, and IT managers. The research gave criteria for top management engagement and determined that top management should be involved in most of the SDLC phases, primarily in the planning and implementation phases. Through involvement, top management will obtain an insight on IS implementation and resource needs, as well as a knowledge of the need for organizational commitment to the IS project. They will be able to make the right decisions and engage with the implementation team more effectively.

Keywords

TM Involvement, SDLC, TM Support, TM Motivation, TM Involvement Barriers
User
Subscription Login to verify subscription
Notifications
Font Size

  • E. Akgun, H., Keskin, H., Ayar & Z. Okunakol (2017). Knowledge sharing barriers in software development teams: A multiple case study in Turkey. Kybernetes. pp, 566-644.

  • M. Aldahmash, (2018). A review on the critical success factors of agile software development: an empirical study [Doctoral dissertation, University of Southampton]. University of Southampton Research Repository.

  • V. N. Anney, (2014). Ensuring the quality of the findings of qualitative research: Looking at trustworthiness criteria. Journal of Emerging Trends in Educational Research and Policy Studies, 5(2), 272-281.

  • Antony & S. Gupta (2019). Top ten reasons for process improvement project failures. International Journal of Lean Six Sigma. CiiT International Journal of Software Engineering and Technology, Vol 13, No 6, June 2021 112 ISSN 0974-9748/CIIT–IJ-8133/21/$20/$100 © 2021 CiiT Published by the Coimbatore Institute of Information Technology

  • M. R. Barrick, G. R., Thurgood, T. A. Smith & S. H. Courtright, (2015). Collective organizational engagement: Linking motivational antecedents, strategic implementation, and firm performance. Academy of Management journal, 58(1), 111-135.

  • M. Ben Rehouma, (2020). Exploring the Role of Participation in Government Employees' Adoption of IT: A Qualitative Study of Employees' Participation in the Introduction of the E-File in Germany. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age (IJPADA), 7(1), 33-46. doi:10.4018/IJPADA.2020010103.

  • M. Bilal, A. Gani, M. Liaqat, N. Bashir, & N. Malik, (2020). Risk assessment across life cycle phases for small and medium software projects. Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, 15(1), 572-588.

  • Birt, S. Scott, D. Cavers, C. Campbell & F. Walter, (2016). Member checking: a tool to enhance trustworthiness or merely a nod to validation?. Qualitative health research, 26(13), 1802-1811.

  • Boonstra, (2013). How do top managers support strategic information system projects and why do they sometimes withhold this support. International Journal of Project Management, 31, 498–512.

  • P. Bourque & R. E. Fairley, eds.,(2014) Guide to the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge (SWEBOK (R)): Version 3.0, IEEE Computer Society; www.swebok.org.

  • V. Braun, & V. Clarke, (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.

  • L. Campbell, C. Quincy, J., Osserman & O. K. Pedersen, (2013). Coding in-depth semi- structured interviews: Problems of unitization and intercoder reliability and agreement. Sociological Methods & Research, 42(3), 294-320.

  • A. Carpenter, M. A. Geletkanycz, & W. G. Sanders, (2004). Upper echelons research revisited: Antecedents, elements, and consequences of top management team composition. Journal of Management, 30(6), 749–778.

  • S. Cicmil, and D. Hodgson, (2006) New possibilities for project management theory: a critical engagement, Project Management Journal, 37(3), 111-122.

  • Collier, F. Fishwick. w. Floyd (2004). Managerial involvement and perceptions of strategy process, Long Range Planning, 2004, 37, 67-83.

  • Darma, A. Susanto, S. Mulyani, & J. Suprijadi (2018). The Role of Top Management Support in the Quality of Financial Accounting Information Systems. Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, 13(4).

  • B. L. de Sousa Jabbour, C. J. C. Jabbour, C. Foropon & M. Godinho Filho (2018). When titans meet–Can industry 4.0 revolutionise the environmentally-sustainable manufacturing wave? The role of critical success factors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 132, 18-25.

  • R. Denis and D. K. Denis (1995). Performance Changes Following Top Management Dismissals, Journal of Finance, 50, 1029-1057.

  • G. Dhingra (2015). Micromanagement-boon or bane. An employee‟s perception-with reference to IT Sector. Int. J. Res. Manag. Soc. Sci, 3(1), 38-42.

  • Dong, D. Neufeld, & C. Higgins (2009). Top management support of enterprise systems implementations. Journal of Information Technology, 24, 55-80.

  • C. Eian, L. K. Yong, M. Y. X., Li, & N. A. B. N. Hasmaddi (2020). Integration of Security Modules in Software Development Lifecycle Phases. arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.05540.

  • Elbanna, (2013). Top management support in multiple-project environments: An in practice view. European Journal of Information Systems, 16(1), 1–17.

  • Elzamly, B. Hussin, & N. Salleh (2016). Top fifty software risk factors and the best thirty risk management techniques in software development lifecycle for successful software projects. International Journal of Hybrid Information Technology, 9(6), 11-32.

  • Elzamly, N. Messabia, M. Doheir, S. S., Abu-Naser, N. B. M. Yaacob, M. Al-Aqqad, & M. Alazzam, (2019). Assessment risks for managing software planning processes in information technology systems. International Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 28(1), 327-338.

  • W. R. Fitriani, P. Rahayu, & D. I. Sensuse, (2016). Challenges in agile software development: A systematic literature review. In 2016 International Conference on Advanced Computer Science and Information Systems (ICACSIS) (pp. 155-164). IEEE.

  • V. Garousi, A. Tarhan, D. Pfahl, A., Coşkunçay, & O. Demirörs, (2019). Correlation of critical success factors with success of software projects: an empirical investigation. Software Quality Journal, 27(1), 429-493.

  • Geyskens, J.-B. Steenkamp, L.K. Scheer, and N. Kumar, (1996), “The effects of trust and interdependence on relationship commitment: a transatlantic study”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 303-317.

  • H. A. H. Gondal, S. M. U. Din, S. Fayyaz, M. D., Zeb & B. Nadeem (2018). Preeminent risk factor affecting software development. In 2018 International Conference on Advancements in Computational Sciences (ICACS) (pp. 1-7). IEEE.

  • R. Griffin, & G. Moorhead (2014). Organizational Behavior: Managing People and Organizations, 11th Edition. Arizona State University: Cengage.

  • J. Haynie, K. W. Mossholder, & S. G. Harris, (2016). Justice and job engagement: The role of senior management trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 37(6), 889-910.

  • Hertati, M. Widiyanti. Desfitrina., & A. Syafarudin. (2020). The Effects Of Economic Crisis On Business Finance. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues 10, (3) 236-244.

  • R. Hoda, & L. K. Murugesan (2016). Multi-level agile project management challenges: A self-organizing team perspective. Journal of Systems and Software, 117, 245-257.

  • G. Hooley, J. Lynch, and J. Shepherd, (1990), “The marketing concept: putting the theory into practice”, European Journal of Marketing, Vol. 24 No. 9, pp. 7-23.

  • Hsia, T. L., Chiang, A. J., Wu, J. H., Teng, N. N., & Rubin, A. D. (2019). What drives E-Health usage? Integrated institutional forces and top management perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior, 97, 260-270.

  • H. Y. Hsu, F. H. Liu, H. T., Tsou & L. J. Chen, (2019). Openness of technology adoption, top management support and service innovation: a social innovation perspective. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing.

  • Ibrahim, Z., Johar, M. G. M., & Rahman, N. R. A. (2018). The Quality of Teamwork on Methodology in Software Development Workflow. International Journal of Engineering & Technology, 7(4.28), 510-525.

  • S. Islam, & N. Evans (2020). Key Success Factors of PRINCE2 Project Management Method in Software Development Project: KSF of PRINCE2 in SDLC. International Journal of Engineering Materials and Manufacture, 5(3), 76-84.

  • R. Jain & U. Suman (2015). A systematic literature review on global software development life cycle. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 40(2), 1-14.

  • B.J. Jaworski, and A.K. Kohli (1993), “Market orientation: antecedents and consequences”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 57, pp. 53-70.

  • C. Kalliamvakou, T. Bird, A. Zimmermann, R. Begel, DeLine and D. M. German (2019) “What Makes a Great Manager of Software Engineers ?” IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 45(1), 87–106.

  • P. Kanavittaya (2016). The alignment of business strategy and IT/IS strategy, where agile software development is applied (Doctoral dissertation, Murdoch University).

  • W. Ke and KK. Wei, (2008) Organizational culture and leadership in ERP implementation. Decision Support Systems 45(2), 208–218.

  • G. Kearns, (2007). How the internal environment impacts information systems project success: an investigation of exploitative and explorative firms, Journal of computer information systems, Fall 2007, 48(1), 63-75.

  • A. Khan, & J. Keung (2016). Systematic review of success factors and barriers for software process improvement in global software development. IET software, 10(5), 125-135.

  • T. Koch, (2006). Establishing rigour in qualitative research: The decision trail. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 53, 91–100.

  • S. A. Licorish, & S. G. MacDonell, (2017). Exploring software developers‟ work practices: Task differences, participation, engagement, and speed of task resolution. Information & Management, 54(3), 364-382.

  • Y.S. Lincoln, & E.G. Guba (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

  • G. H., Liu, E. T. Wang, & C. E. Chua, (2015). Leveraging social capital to obtain top management support in complex, cross-functional IT projects. Journal of the Association of Information Systems, 16(8), 707-737.

  • Madampe, (2017). Successful Adoption of Agile Project Management in Software Development Industry. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technology Research,(November 2017).pp. 017-21.

  • Z. A. Maher, A. Shah, S. Chandio, H. M. Mohadis, & N. H. B. A Rahim,. (2020). Challenges and limitations in secure software development adoption-A qualitative analysis in Malaysian software industry prospect. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 13(26), 2601-2608.

  • L.M. Markus, C. Tanis, (2000). Multisite ERP implementations. Communications of the ACM 43 (4), 42–47.

  • J. Menezes, C. Gusmão, & H. Moura (2019). Risk factors in software development projects: a systematic literature review. Software Quality Journal, 27(3), 1149-1174.

  • F.F-H. Nah, J.L-S. Lau, J. Kuang. (2001) “Critical factors for successful implementation of enterprise systems”, Business Process Management Journal, Catchword, vol. 7, pp. 285-296,.

  • J. Neufeld, l. Dong, & C. Higgins (2007) Charismatic leadership and user acceptance of information technology. European Journal of Information Systems 16(4), 494–510.

  • Niazi, M. A. Babar & J. M Verner. (2010). Software process improvement barriers: A cross-cultural comparison. Information and Software Technology, 52, 1204–1216.

  • Niazi, M., Mahmood, S., Alshayeb, M., Riaz, M. R., Faisal, K., Cerpa, N., ... & Richardson, I. (2016). Challenges of project management in global software development: A client-vendor analysis. Information and Software Technology, 80, 1-19.

  • K. Nisyak, K. Rizkiyah, & T. Raharjo, (2020). Human Related Challenges in Agile Software Development of Government Outsourcing Project. In 2020 7th International Conference on Electrical Engineering, Computer Sciences and Informatics (EECSI) (pp. 222-229). IEEE.

  • Pasha, G. Qaiser & U. Pasha (2018). A critical analysis of software risk management techniques in large scale systems. IEEE Access, 6, 12412-12424.

  • Q. Patton (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3. ed.). Thousand Oaks, London, U.K.: Sage Publications.

  • J. Pickard (2013). Research methods in information (2. ed.). London: Facet Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.29085/9781783300235.

  • Ragu-Nathan, B., Apigian CH., Ragu-Nathan, T., and TU, Q. (2004) A path analytic study of the effect of top management support for information systems performance. Omega 32(6), 459–471.

  • Ramasubbu, N. (2013). Governing software process improvements in globally distributed product development. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 40(3), 235-250.

  • Runesson, M. Host: (2009). Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empr. Software, Eng. 14, 131-164.

  • J. Rupaliya, A. Trikha, & R. Kumar (2016). Evaluation of the progress in software development process and the reasons for delayed delivery. Evaluation, 3(11).

  • Staehr, L. (2010) Understanding the role of managerial agency in achieving business benefits from ERP systems. Information Systems Journal 20(3), 213–238.

  • Schwandt T.A. (2001). Dictionary of qualitative inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

  • Z. Shao, Y. Feng, and Q. Hu (2016). Effectiveness of Top Management Support in Enterprise Systems Success: A Contingency Perspective of Fit Between Leadership Style and System Life-Cycle,‖ European Journal of Information Systems, 25(2), 131-153.

  • S. Singh, (2014). Conducting case study research in non-profit organisations. Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal, 17, 77–84.

  • J. A. Smith, (2004). Reflecting on the development of interpretative phenomenological analysis and its contribution to qualitative research in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 1(1), 39-54.

  • Sony, & S. Naik, (2020). Critical factors for the successful implementation of Industry 4.0: a review and future research direction. Production Planning & Control, 31(10), 799-815.

  • Swink, (2000). Technological innovativeness as a moderator of new product design integration and top management support, J PROD INNOV MANAG 2000, 17, 208-220.

  • G.A. Tobin & C.M. Begley (2004). Methodological rigour within a qualitative framework. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48, 388–396.

  • van Kelle, J. Visser, A. Plaat, & P. van der Wijst (2015). An empirical study into social success factors for agile software development. In 2015 IEEE/ACM 8th International Workshop on Cooperative and Human Aspects of Software Engineering (pp. 77-80). IEEE.

  • S. Wang, H. Wang, & J. Wang, (2019). Exploring the effects of institutional pressures on the implementation of environmental management accounting: Do top management support and perceived benefit work?. Business Strategy and the Environment, 28(1), 233-243.

  • R. Wagner (2018). How to engage top management in projects and management. International Project Management Association IPMA. Retrieved from https://www.ipma.world/engage-top-managers-projects-project-management/.

  • Welshan: (1995). Interpretive case study in IS research: nature and metho d. Euro. J. Inf. Syst. 4,74-81.

  • Wiener, A. Cram, and U. Remus (2017). The View From the Top – How Senior Executives Exercise Control Over Information Systems Projects to Enhance Performance, Proceedings of the 25th European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS), No. July, pp. 1423–1438.

  • R.. Young & E. Jordan (2008). Top management support: Mantra or necessity?International Journal of Project Management, 26(7), 713–725.

  • Y. M. Yunus, A. Aman, & K. B. Keliwon, (2019). The Role of Business Leaders in Information Technology Innovation in the New Era of Disruptive Technology. Asian Journal of Accounting and Governance, 12.

  • Zwilkael (2008a). Top management involvement in project management; Exclusive support practices for different project scenarios, International journal of managing projects in business, 2008, 1(3), 387-403.

  • Zwilkael (2008b), “Top management involvement in project management: A cross country study of the software industry”, International journal of managing projects in business, 2008, 1 (4), 498-511.


Abstract Views: 143

PDF Views: 0




  • Understanding Top Management Involvement in Sdlc Phases

Abstract Views: 143  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Abstract


One of the most essential factors in the success of system implementation has been recognized as top management support and involvement. Few research, however, have addressed the question of what sort of engagement is necessary through the various stages of the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC). Given the many challenges to top management involvement and support in the various SDLC phases. The objective of this research was twofold. First, to examine the relationship between top management support and the phases of SDLC in order to give guidance for top management practices to ensure the success of information system projects. Second, because top management support is critical to project success, this study sought to investigate approaches of motivating top management to participate in the SDLC as well as the barriers that hinder them from doing so. This study investigates the type of involvement and support of top management in various phases of system implementation, which will help us in understanding the support mechanism from top management in various SDLC stages. To achieve this goal, the authors performed a qualitative study in five different firms in Kuwait, interviewing top management, project management, system analysts, and IT managers. The research gave criteria for top management engagement and determined that top management should be involved in most of the SDLC phases, primarily in the planning and implementation phases. Through involvement, top management will obtain an insight on IS implementation and resource needs, as well as a knowledge of the need for organizational commitment to the IS project. They will be able to make the right decisions and engage with the implementation team more effectively.

Keywords


TM Involvement, SDLC, TM Support, TM Motivation, TM Involvement Barriers

References