Group (IEG 2011), which emphasize the failure to account for complexity and multifactorial nature of problems as a reason for the failure of IS interventions.

Similarly, a World Bank review (Dener et al., 2010) of experiences with financial MIS in 55 projects revealed that lack of human resource capacity was the single most important factor in project failure, mentioned as a factor in 60% of the projects. In addition, they reveal that institutional and organizational resistance were key factors that could cause failure and that this was interlinked with weak leadership from senior management. This accords with the findings of Nelson (2007), who points to lack of proper management as a critical factor in failure. The last factor mentioned in the World Bank review was complexity of project design and lack of project preparation and planning.

Heeks (2002) developed two models for understanding and explaining failure of IS in government organizations, although the models apply more widely to general IS failure. The first, the Factor Model, uses five factors that can be sources of failure: strategy, management, design, competencies, and technology. The second, the Design‐Reality Gap Model, assesses gaps between project design and the actual situation to explain failure, focusing on areas such as information, technology, processes, objectives and values, staffing and skills, management systems and structures, and other resources. Similarly, Rand Europe (2010) listed five capacities and readiness conditions (infrastructure, financial, institutional, human, relationship or receptivity) for using ICT successfully in service delivery.

In donor‐funded projects that the recipient government implements, the question of recipient ownership and government commitment to the project usually plays a role. An evaluation of World Bank performance of all ICT components of projects between Fiscal Year 2003 (FY03) and FY10 highlights government commitment as an important factor that needs to be in place to avoid failure (IEG 2011). The IEG finds that the rate of achievement of ICT objectives is low (IEG 2011). Intended results are achieved in only half of the ICT components in projects supporting public sector governance in which MIS development is included. Again, the quality of design of ICT components is essential to avoid project failure and is listed as the most critical factor leading to poor performance. The poorly performing projects were found to have overly complex designs in contexts in which stakeholders lacked basic abilities to address problems. The IEG (2011) also highlights implementation shortcomings and a high rate of cancellation of ICT components. In a summary of others’ experiences, the IEG refers to complexity that organizational and political pressure adds to “think and act big” as a source of failure, as well as users’ lack of understanding of the system and failure to focus on real problems and needs.

# **Systematizing the case study evidence**

Many case studies confirm the main findings described in the reviews and larger studies cited above. To provide a comprehensive picture of the factors, taking these case studies into account, Table 1 provides a summary of the evidence of factors that probably contribute to IS project failure.

Table 1: Main Factors Contributing to Information System (IS) Project Failure

|Areas|Factors|Suggested effects (source of evidence)|
|---|---|---|
|Incentives<br>and agenda|Agents<br>with<br>opposing<br>incentive|‐Local actors behave according to own values or vested interests<br>not aligned with IS project requirements (Walsham and Sahay|

6