Risks to software development are present throughout the creation of information systems (IS). The ability of researchers and practitioners to consider risk within their models and project management methods has been hampered by the lack of a rigorously tested instrument to measure risk properties. An instrument to measure software development risk based on properties described in the literature is proposed. A survey of 152 IS project participants was collected to examine the reliability and validity of the instrument, both which appear strong. The instrument then was used to empirically demonstrate a strong anticipated relationship between risk and project success.
AndersonJ.C. (1987). An approach for confirmatory measurement and structural equation modeling of organizational properties. Management Science, 33(4), 525–541.
2.
AndersonJ.C., & GerbingD.W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411–423.
3.
AndersonR.E., HairJ.F., & TathamR.T. (1992). Multivariable data analysis with readings (3rd ed.). New York: MacMillan Publishing.
FornellC., & LarckerD.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.
19.
GordonP. (1999). To err is human, to estimate, divine. InformationWeek, n711, 65–72.
20.
HayesF. (1997). Managing user expectation. Computerworld, 31(44), 8–9.
21.
HendersonJ.C., & LeeS. (1992). Managing I/S design teams: A control theory perceptive. Management Science, 38(6), 379–387.
22.
HocevarD., & MarshH. (1985). Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97(3), 562–582.
23.
JiangJ., KleinG., & PickR. (1995). Are your sure you want to use that data in your study?IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 25(2), 378–380.
24.
JoreskogK.G. (1993). Testing Structural Equation Models. In BollenK.A., and LongL.S. (Eds.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
25.
JoreskogK.G., & SorbamD. (1989). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications (2nd ed.). Chicago: SPSS Inc.
26.
LarsonE. (1997). Partnering on construction projects: A study of the relationship between partnering activities and project success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 44(2), 188–195.
27.
LongJ.S. (1983). Confirmatory factors analysis: An introduction to LISREL. Sage University Paper Series On Quantitative Application in the Social Science.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McFarlanF.W. (1981). Portfolio approach to information systems. Harvard Business Review, 59(5), 142–150.
30.
MeyerR.L. (1998). Avoiding the risks in large software system acquisitions. Information Strategy, 14(4), 18–33.
31.
NidumoluS. (1995). The effect of coordination and uncertainty on software project performance: Residual performance risk as an intervening variable. Information Systems Research, 6(3), 191–219.
32.
PressmanR.S. (1992). Software engineering: A practitioner's approach (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
33.
SaleemN. (1996). An empirical test of the contingency approach to user participation in information system development. Journal of Management Information Systems, 13(1), 145–166.
34.
SchunkD.H. (1989). Self-efficiency and cognitive skill learning. In AmesC., & AmesR. (Eds.). Research on Motivation in Education (Vol. 3). San Diego: Academic Press.
35.
SchwalbeK. (2000). Information technology project management.Cambridge, MA: Course Technology.
36.
ZmudR.W. (1980). Management of large software development efforts. MIS Quarterly, 4(1), 45–55.
