Institutionalization, Embedded Rationality, and the Escalation of Commitment to IT Projects

Information systems development projects often involve continued commitment even in the face of negative feedback - a phenomena many describe as "escalation." Existing perspectives that explain escalation decisions implicitly make an assumption of a universal "disembedded" rationality, and characterize such commitment as a sort of paradox. In this paper, we develop an alternative, institutional perspective that embraces a conception of rationality that is embedded within social contexts. Through this lens we analyze and recast three published case studies on escalation decisions and find that contextual factors such as legitimacy and momentum reinforce IT project persistence, in effect institutionalizing projects over time. Further, we find evidence of three distinct rationalities - efficiency, technical, and innovative - that each gain and lose salience for commitment decisions over time. We argue that commitment, when viewed through this institutional perspective, is not the paradoxical exception associated with failed IT projects, but rather, the norm once an IT project is institutionalized.

[1]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[2]  K. Robson Reason's Neglect: Rationality and Organizing – By Barbara Townley , 2009 .

[3]  Michael G. Bowen The Escalation Phenomenon Reconsidered: Decision Dilemmas or Decision Errors? , 1987 .

[4]  Ramiro Montealegre,et al.  De-escalating Information Technology Projects: Lessons from the Denver International Airport , 2000, MIS Q..

[5]  B. M. Staw The Escalation of Commitment To a Course of Action , 1981 .

[6]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Sunk Costs in the NBA: Why Draft Order Affects Playing Time and Survival in Professional Basketball , 1995 .

[7]  J. Schofield Increasing the generalizability of qualitative research. , 1993 .

[8]  T. H. Kwon,et al.  Unifying the fragmented models of information systems implementation , 1987 .

[9]  A. Tversky,et al.  The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. , 1981, Science.

[10]  R. Boland,et al.  Accounting in organizations: A union of natural and rational perspectives , 1983 .

[11]  Joel Brockner,et al.  Factors affecting entrapment in waiting situations: The Rosencrantz and Guildenstern effect. , 1975 .

[12]  Isin Guler,et al.  Throwing Good Money after Bad? Political and Institutional Influences on Sequential Decision Making in the Venture Capital Industry , 2007 .

[13]  Timo Saarinen,et al.  Understanding Runaway Information Technology Projects: Results from an International Research Program Based on Escalation Theory , 1994, J. Manag. Inf. Syst..

[14]  Sten Jönsson Institutions and Organizations , 1997 .

[15]  Donald E. Conlon,et al.  The Role of Project Completion Information in Resource Allocation Decisions , 1993 .

[16]  Mark Keil,et al.  Pulling the Plug: Software Project Management and the Problem of Project Escalation , 1995, MIS Q..

[17]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Expo 86: An Escalation Prototype. , 1986 .

[18]  Bengt Holmstrom,et al.  AGENCY COSTS AND INNOVATION , 1989 .

[19]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  ORGANIZATIONAL ESCALATION AND EXIT: LESSONS FROM THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT , 1993 .

[20]  S. Clegg,et al.  Power and Organizations , 2006 .

[21]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Institutionalized Organizations: Formal Structure as Myth and Ceremony , 1977, American Journal of Sociology.

[22]  Rajiv Sabherwal,et al.  Determinants of Commitment to Information Systems Development: A Longitudinal Investigation , 1996, MIS Q..

[23]  G. Poggi Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology , 1969 .

[24]  Helga Drummond,et al.  Is Escalation Always Irrational? , 1998 .

[25]  KeilMark,et al.  De-escalating information technology projects , 2000 .

[26]  Nicholas Berente,et al.  Institutional Contradictions and Loose Coupling: Postimplementation of NASA's Enterprise Information System , 2012, Inf. Syst. Res..

[27]  J. Brockner The Escalation of Commitment to a Failing Course of Action: Toward Theoretical Progress , 1992 .

[28]  Peter W. Roberts,et al.  Integrating Transaction Cost and Institutional Theories: Toward a Constrained-Efficiency Framework for Understanding Organizational Design Adoption , 1997 .

[29]  H. Simon,et al.  The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.) , 1996 .

[30]  Jeannette A. Colyvas,et al.  Roads to Institutionalization: The Remaking of Boundaries between Public and Private Science , 2006 .

[31]  Joel Brockner,et al.  Face-Saving and Entrapment , 1981 .

[32]  Oliver E. Williamson,et al.  Markets, hierarchies, and the modern corporation: An unfolding perspective , 1992 .

[33]  W. Powell,et al.  The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis , 1993 .

[34]  P. Harrison,et al.  IMPACT OF 'ADVERSE SELECTION' ON MANAGERS' PROJECT EVALUATION DECISIONS , 1993 .

[35]  M. Keil,et al.  Information systems project escalation: a reinterpretation based on options theory , 1999 .

[36]  W. Powell,et al.  The iron cage revisited institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields , 1983 .

[37]  J. Laurenson Leadership in administration. , 1965, The New Zealand nursing journal. Kai tiaki.

[38]  Mark Keil,et al.  Information Technology Project Escalation: A Process Model , 2008, Decis. Sci..

[39]  Amrit Tiwana,et al.  Information Systems Project Continuation in Escalation Situations: A Real Options Model , 2006, Decis. Sci..

[40]  Jan Pries-Heje,et al.  Making IT Project De-Escalation Happen: An Exploration into Key Roles , 2008, J. Assoc. Inf. Syst..

[41]  G. Noblit,et al.  Meta-Ethnography: Synthesizing Qualitative Studies , 1988 .