IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/tjisxx/v17y2008i1p62-78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The post mortem paradox: a Delphi study of IT specialist perceptions

Author

Listed:
  • Vijay Kasi
  • Mark Keil
  • Lars Mathiassen
  • Keld Pedersen

Abstract

While post mortem evaluation (PME) has long been advocated as a means of improving development practices by learning from IT project failures, few organizations conduct PMEs. The purpose of the study is to explain this discrepancy between theory and practice. This paper integrates findings from a Delphi study of what experienced practitioners perceive as the most important barriers to conducting PMEs with insights from organizational learning theory. The results suggest that there are critical tensions between development practices and learning contexts in many organizations, and adopting PMEs in these cases is likely to reinforce organizational learning dysfunctions rather than improve current development practices. Based on these findings, we argue that the PME literature has underestimated the limits to learning in most IT organizations and we propose to explore paradoxical thinking to help researchers frame continued inquiry into PME and to help managers overcome learning dysfunctions as they push for more widespread use of PMEs.

Suggested Citation

  • Vijay Kasi & Mark Keil & Lars Mathiassen & Keld Pedersen, 2008. "The post mortem paradox: a Delphi study of IT specialist perceptions," European Journal of Information Systems, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 62-78, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:tjisxx:v:17:y:2008:i:1:p:62-78
    DOI: 10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000727
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000727
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/palgrave.ejis.3000727?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:tjisxx:v:17:y:2008:i:1:p:62-78. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/tjis .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.