Reasons for the failure or success of implementing integrated

construction management software

1. Introduction

Implementing a computerised project management system is a major commitment in

terms of time, money and human resources.

As part of a MBA dissertation at the

Potchefstroom Business School of the
Northwest University, “A framework for
the implementation of an integrated
computerised construction
management system in the South
African construction industry”, Lana
Marais examined the reasons why
system implementations succeeded or
failed.

Construction management software can be defined as software that manage a

construction company and its projects with modules that seamlessly integrate
estimating, certificates, scheduling, payroll, costing and accounting and plant
management.

The key factors determining success or failure were identified.

The following methods were used to determine why the implementation of project
management software succeed or fail:

• Implementation Analysis
• Questionnaires
• Interviews
2. Implementation Analysis

Construction companies who purchased integrated project management software

were divided into five categories:

A. Failures before or during implementation

B. Failures after implementation
C. Successful, but problematic
D. Successful
E. Outstanding successes

Based on the literature study, the following reasons/factors for project failure or
success were identified for further investigation:

• Finances/adequate resources. Was the client willing and able to invest the
necessary resources in the project?
• Suitability. Was there a good fit between the client’s need and the software?
Did the software address the client’s needs?
• Training. Was the training of such a nature that it enabled the client to
successfully implement the system?
• Complexity. Complexity refers to the detail, depth and scope of information
required to implement the system as well as the requirements of the
construction company in that regard.
• Data quality. If the quality of the data is poor, incomplete or irrelevant, the
reporting following from it is unusable.
• Hardware. Is the hardware up to standard in terms of speed, security, storage
and communications requirements?
• End users. Do the end users show commitment and are they involved and
empowered? Have they bought into the new management software?
• Management. Are they involved and committed to the project? Are they
leading from the front?
• Expectations. Are the client’s expectations in line with what the software can
deliver?
 • Politics. Could internal politics have a detrimental influence?
• Competence. Does the company have suitably skilled staff to implement the
project?
• Time scale. Is the time scale realistic?
• Planning. Is the implementation proceeding according to a well thought out
plan?
• Ownership. Does the client take ownership of the project on all levels?
• Service. Are the levels of service rendered during the implementation process
satisfactory?
• Overall picture. Does the company have a single vision of what needs to be
achieved or is it compartmentalised in terms of departments or activities.
• Resistance. Is active or passive resistance to change present? (Chapman
2006; Khazanchi, 2005:89-95: Jaafar et al. 2007:115-121 & Stewart et
al.,2004:175)

2.1 Analysing the failures.

2.1.1 Category A: Failure before or during implementation.

A significant portion of construction companies in this category are start-up

companies. Further analysis of this group revealed that 80% of such companies
were no longer in business after three years.

Two main factors were identified as contributing to the high number of new entrants
in the market: black economic empowerment in the construction sector as well as the
general upswing due to major infrastructure projects.

Figure 2.1 : Reasons for failure before or during implementation.

The main reason for failure is that new companies seldom have the necessary
resources (time, money, and competent staff) to properly implement a computerised
project management system.

They are more in need of basic management skills and have not yet the
organisational depth to make adequate use of sophisticated systems. In buying
these systems, they have unrealistic expectations that the system will bridge the lack
of management expertise.

2.1.2 Category B: Implementation is completed but the client fails to operate

the system thereafter

This category consist of clients who completed the training but the system is no
longer used.

Figure 2.2 :Failure after implementation

The most significant reasons for implementation failure in this category are:

• Inadequate resources. The company is unable or unwilling to commit the

required resources to the project.
• The system is not appropriate or too complex for the client’s needs.
• Their expectations in terms of outcomes versus inputs and needs are
unrealistic. High levels of inadequate hardware, unrealistic time frames and
untrustworthy data is symptomatic thereof.
• Low levels of management involvement and a lack of project ownership are
present.
• End users shows high levels of resistance to change, lack of an overall project
vision and buy–in as well as a lack of skills.
2.1.3. Conclusion regarding failures

The above factors show a great deal of similarity to international research into
system failure conducted by the Standish Group. They rank the major factors for
system implementation failure as:

• Incomplete or changing specifications

• Lack of end user involvement

• Lack of resources

• Unrealistic expectations and lack of planning

• Lack of management involvement, lack of IT management and organizations

being technologically illiterate. (Standish Group, 2006)

The high number of relatively young companies which do not have the required
resources to implement sophisticated project management systems need to be
addressed with simplified project management products and methodologies.

2.2 Category C: Successful implementation but with problems

Problematic implementations are implementations that had problems during the

implementation phase but eventually became successful.

The Standish Group has stated reasons why project implementation is problematic:

• Inadequate end user involvement, technologically incompetent

• Changing goals and expectations, incomplete specifications

• New or untested technology

• Unrealistic expectations, goals and time scales

Lack of resources (Standish Group,2006)

Figure 2.3. Problematic
Implementations

The analysis of problematic implementations in the South African construction

industry identified the following characteristics of problematic implementations:

• The company does not take ownership of the project.

• The project outcomes are badly defined. Differences exist in terms of client
expectations, no overarching vision exists, the level of complexity required,
and the physical data as well as implementation processes are mismatched.
• End users neither have the needed skills nor bought into the project.
• Management does not supply sufficient guidance or leadership.
• The implementation process is under-funded.
Although differences in terms of emphasis exist, the reasons for problematic
implementation are in line with research from the Standish Group.

2.3 Analysing Successful implementations

2.3.1 Category D: Successful implementations

Successful implementations can be defined as successful in the eyes of both the

software house or services provider and the client. The clients are long term stable
users of most or all aspects of the integrated system.

The Standish Group identified the following factors as indicative of successful

implementations:

• Top management and end user involvement

• Clear specifications, proper planning, realistic expectations, and small

reachable goals.

• Competent staff, ownership, clear visions and goals and a focused,

hardworking team (Standish Group,2006)

Figure 2.3 Successful Implementations

The reasons why implementations of construction project management software in
South Africa are successful are:

• Good fit between the company’s needs and the software

• Client takes ownership of the implementation process
• End users are involved in the process and are competent.
• Management are involved.
• Training is successful

2.3.2 Category E: Outstandingly successful implementations

These implementations are stars- outstanding successes. These clients use the
system to its full potential. They take advantage of the synergy created by integration
of all the business and project management functions. These clients push the
envelope in terms of systems and are often the driving force in further development.

Figure 2.5 Outstandingly Successful implementations

The main reasons why implementations are outstandingly successful are:

• Programmes are highly suitable for their needs

• Both the end users and management are involved in all aspects of system
implementation and are highly skilled.
• The company takes ownership of the project.
• The training is seen as appropriate. A very good relationship exists between
the client and the software house.
• Factors that are normally negative such as internal politics, data quality,
hardware, although it plays a small role, in these cases work for and not
against the implementation process.
3. Determining statistical significance

The statistical significance of the hypotheses of the implementation factors was

determined.

Two methods were used to evaluate the significance of the hypotheses:

I. The Chi (X²) score. A Chi (X²) score of higher than 5 is an indication that the
results are meaningful.
II. The p-value. The smaller the p-value, the more meaningful the results.
(Levine et.al., 2005:280-304)

Positive and negative hypotheses’ were tested and found significant and is
tabulated below:

Table 1: Positive hypothesis – Factors that must be present

Pearson-method M-L method

Factor Chi (X²) p-value Chi (X²) p-value

Applicability 18.13 0.02 14.99 0.059

Training 23.87 0.002 22.43 0.004

End user involvement 7.04 0.133 7.23 0.124

Realistic expectations 16.67 0.033 18.5 0.018

Competence 17,52 0.025 18.67 0.017

Ownership 12.125 0.016 12.912 0.017

“Big picture” – defined outcomes 7.72 0.46 8.68 0.37

Table 3.2: Negative hypothesis: Factors that must not be present

Pearson-method M-L method

Factor Chi (X²) p-value Chi (X²) p-value

Lack of resources 12.95 0.113 12.99 0.112

Interne politics 9.47 0.31 8.60 0.38

Systems too complex for needs 5.6 6.77 0.23 0.15

If negative factors are present, thus if there is for example a lack of resources the
chances of successfully implementing project management software are slim.

If the positive success factors are absent (thus they are measuring negative), such
as the applicability of the software, then the implementation of project management
software will probably fail.

4. Client’s expectations in regard to key aspects of successful implementation

By using a questionnaire and personal interviews feedback was obtained from

companies that have implemented constuction management software as to what
aspects are key to them for a successful implementation. The factors were grouped
into themes.

4.1 Software:
• The software must be specific to the unique needs to project management
in a construction environment.
• The software should also integrate key management and business
processes.
• Detailed project centred reporting is needed.
• The software house must have an in depth knowledge of the industry.
 • The software house should also have a thorough understanding of the
client’s needs, and must be able to identify gaps between the current
reality and the expected outcomes.
• Although the software is bespoke software, it must be flexible in terms of
client needs.
• Integration with Microsoft products is seen as an advantage.
• Good service and the willingness of the supplier to listen to and act on
client feedback and to address client specific needs are important.
• Software must be user friendly.
• Software must have a modern look and feel.

4.2 Implementation process

• Leadership. Management must take the lead in terms for getting the buy-in
of all role players, establishing project communication channels and
defining the project overall vision and outcomes.
• Planning. The implementation process must be formally planned, with a
calendar of activities, milestones and responsibilities.
• All role players’ inputs must be sought in the implementation process and
they all must be kept up to date regarding all important developments
during the implementation process.
• Before implementation is commenced, it is important that the following
aspects are properly investigated and understood: the client needs,
current system, processes and organizational structure.
• The technical, relational and training aspects of system implementations
must be managed pro-actively.
• Personal service and attention during the implementation process is
important.
• During the implementation process, the unique company specific needs
must be taken into account.
• Mother tongue assistance during the implementation process is
particularly helpful for end users.
 • Consultants/trainers involved in the implementation process must
understand the industry as well as the practical aspects surrounding
construction and construction companies and must also be able to
integrate this knowledge in practice during the implementation process.
• The implementation must be of a high technical standard.
• A clear distinction must be drawn between the installation of a programme,
training and implementation.

4.3 Training

• Personal one-on-one training is preferred.

• The trainer must have comprehensive understanding of the industry and how
different processes link together and must be able to explain these
interactions in terms of how it is addressed in the programme. The trainer
must be able to adapt this knowledge to company specific situations.
• The facilitator must have empathy, patience and be flexible to the users
needs.
• The training must be divided into logical, small easy to grasp sessions.
• Training materials such as manuals must be user friendly and written in
straightforward language.

4.4 Expectations after implementation:

• System implementation is seen as the start of a relationship between the

client and the service provider/ software house. Project management,
software and client needs are not static. The relationship must be of such a
nature that the client’s changing needs and the software are aligned.
• Timely, friendly and competent support whether or not on site, telephonic or
via e-mail is important.
• Support must be available on a software, business process and technical
level.
• There must be opportunities for continuous training of new and existing
program users to enable them to effectively run the system.
 • Upgrades and new versions must be tested thoroughly before released and
should be accompanied by good notes explaining the changes.
• The programme vendor must communicate regularly with clients and must
create two way communication and feedback channels.

5. Conclusion

The main expectations of companies regarding project management software are:

• The software must be specific to the needs of the construction industry.
• The software must integrate business and project management processes.
• A strong emphasis must be placed on cost management.
• The software vendor must have in depth knowledge of the industry.
• The software vendor must be willing to enter in to a long-term partnership with
the client.

Main indicators of a successful implementation are:

• The software is appropriate to the organizations needs.
• A high level of competence, buy-in and ownership exits at all levels of the
organization.

The main indication that implementation will fail are:

• Lack of resources
• Inappropriate software
• Complexity- the software is too complex for the organization’s needs or
stage of organizational development
• Lack of ownership and involvement in decision making at all levels of the
organization.
• Unrealistic expectations.
• Resistance to change.

For the implementation of integrated construction management software to be

successful it is vitally important that the expectations be met and the positive factors
are present. It is critically important for an organization’s wanting to implement
construction management software to seriously consider whether or not any of the
negative factors are present which could potentially derail the implementation of the
system.

Bibliography
Chapman, M.R. 2006. IBM research: implementation failures. Softletter April 2006 [web]
www.softletter.com [Date of use: 20 Nov. 2006].

Jafaar, M., Aziz, A.R.A., Ramayah, T. & Saad, B. 2007 Integrating information technology
in the construction industry: technology readiness assessment of Malaysian contractors,
International Journal of Project Management, 25.

Khazanchi, D. 2005. Information technology (IT) appropriateness: the contingency theory of

“fit” and IT implementation in small and medium enterprises. Journal of Computer
Information Services, Spring.

Levine, D M., Stephan, D., Krehbiel, T.C. & Berenson, M L. 2005. Statistics for managers
using Microsoft® Excel. 4th ed. N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall

Stewart, R.A., Mohammed, S. & Marrossezeky, M. 2004. An empirical investigation into the
link between information technology implementation barriers and coping strategies in the
Australian construction industry. Construction Innovation 2004, Australia: Arnold Publishers

Standish Group. 2006. Implementation report. [web] www.standishgroup.com [Date of use:

20 Nov. 2006].