Responses to Senior Editor’s, Associate Editor’s, and ...
Responses to Senior Editor’s, Associate Editor’s, and Reviewers’ Comments
MIS Quarterly MS#A2626
“De-escalating Information Technology Projects:
Lessons from the Denver International Airport”
October 11, 1999
Responses to the Senior Editor’s Comments
|Comment |Response or Action Taken |
|The AE recommends conditional acceptance of your manuscript. I |We thank the senior editor for conditionally accepting this |
|concur with all the AE suggestions and the recommendation. |manuscript. We have carefully reviewed all the reviewer and AE |
|Please address all the reviewer and AE comments. They will |comments and have made appropriate revisions to address the |
|improve your paper. I have a few additional comments. My |remaining issue. Thank you for your continued encouragement on|
|comments focus on the early parts of the manuscript and hence |this manuscript. We look forward to its publication in MIS |
|are complementary to those of the AE and the reviewers. |Quarterly. |
|Abstract. You claim the paper reporting an "intensive case |Done. |
|study." I would delete the word 'intensive. | |
|I continue to be somewhat disappointed with the lack of depth |Thanks for this advice. In this revision, we have enriched the|
|in the case. You have improved the discussion on process but I |case by providing more evidence of some of the conflicts that |
|find the event facts focus overly on rational aspects and be |took place. Specifically, we have emphasized the following |
|rather superficial regarding all the political and legal |areas: |
|aspects that must have been present in the situation. Clearly, | |
|the mayor's rerunning for an office must have influenced his |1. The political situation. As you suggest, there were |
|decisions much more than the paper gives credit too. What ever |political considerations in that Mayor Webb was expected to run|
|you can do to highlight the political, legal, and work culture |for re-election the following year. The following paragraphs |
|(e.g., civil engineering culture) aspects, the more satisfying |were added: |
|the case study presentation and the paper. | |
| |Although he expected “to be judged on more than just DIA” |
| |(Denver Post, Jul 19, 1994), after the delaying the opening of |
| |the airport four times, he was aware that his reputation was at|
| |stake. As he told the Rocky Mountain News “Politically, how |
| |can you go out and tell people that you’ re going to delay the |
| |project by a year…” (Page 12). |
| | |
| |According to George Dougherty, who served as Denver Airport |
| |director until June 1992: “[Throughout the project, United] |
| |applied significant pressure and had previously made |
| |contributions to [Mayor Webb] political campaign and sponsored |
| |fund-raising events. He was not in a position to make a |
| |decision counter to their wishes” (Page 15). |
| | |
| |2. Legal situation: The following evidence was added: |
| | |
| |Immediately after Mayor Webb’s decision to authorize the |
| |construction of an alternative manual baggage handling system, |
| |United and Continental Airlines as well as BAE geared up for |
| |protracted negotiations and possible litigation. Continental |
| |maintained that the Mayor’s actions constituted a breach of |
| |contract for which it could sue the city or choose to cancel |
| |its lease of DIA gates. United urged the city to bring in |
| |mediators “because of the deteriorating relationship with BAE” |
| |(Page 14). |
| | |
| |On August 31, 1994, the Rocky Mountain News reported that in an|
| |effort to avoid legal action, the City of Denver had proposed a|
| |“stand still” agreement whereby major parties (the City, United|
| |Airlines, and BAE) would waive certain previous agreements and |
| |rights until the new airport was opened and operational. “Of |
| |course,” the reporter emphasized, “the legal departments of |
| |these parties are going to be busy until the end of this |
| |century with this case” (Page 14). |
| | |
| |Additionally, significant sums in legal fees had to be spent to|
| |counter the lawsuits and related investigations, which led the |
| |city auditor to remark: |
| | |
| |“I didn’t realize when everyone talked about DIA was going to |
| |mean full employment that what that would mean was full |
| |employment for lawyers. I never dreamed that when the airport |
| |was completed that we would exchange construction workers for |
| |lawyers” (Denver Post, Feb. 28, 1995). (Page 16). |
| | |
| |3. Conflict between the city of Denver and BAE: The following |
| |material was added. |
| | |
| |Mayor Webb notified BAE of a $12,000-a-day penalty for not |
| |finishing the baggage system by DIA’s original October 29, 1993|
| |completion date. Webb also demanded that BAE pay for the $50 |
| |million conventional tug-and-cart baggage system. Di Fonso, |
| |reviewing Mayor Webb’s letter, summed up the situation as |
| |follows: “We have gotten to the point with the city that we |
| |are literally not talking to each other. Consultants |
| |recommended a backup baggage system, and the minute that the |
| |decision was made, the city had to defend it. We are left out |
| |in limbo.” (Page 13) |
|I highly encourage you to drop the tutorial like discussion on |The tutorial on process and variance research has been dropped.|
|process and variance research that you now have in the |Instead, a single sentence is used to define each of these |
|beginning of the paper. There are plenty of other papers who |terms and a few references are provided as pointers for |
|provide this type of tutorial. I found the discussion on |interested readers. |
|variance and process to be distracting and adding little to the| |
|paper. | |
|Please consider including footnotes 1 and 2 as main text in the|These two footnotes have been folded into the main text of the |
|paper. These sorts of things are more important than outlining |paper, per your suggestion. |
|the differences between process and variance research that are | |
|easily accessible in published articles and books. There are | |
|now papers in the literature clearly arguing that the dichotomy| |
|of process and variance is an artificial division. Most IS | |
|research takes a hybrid form even the papers that claim to be | |
|taking a process perspective. The same goes for the arguments | |
|between inductive versus deductive. Your approach was hybrid. | |
|Introduction, page 2, top paragraph. The last two sentences |Done. |
|repeat each other. Drop the bolded sentence and simplify the | |
|sentence before it. Thank you! | |
|Please rewrite the first five pages. Drop the methodological |The first five pages have been rewritten. Most of the |
|stuff (e.g., page 5 and the earlier references to process |methodological material pertaining to process versus variance |
|versus variance, p. 8/first paragraph/last sentence, and so |theories has been removed. We have retained only enough to |
|forth) and help the reader understand what the prior research |motivate why our paper, which takes a process perspective, |
|has found that is reviewed in Table 1. The current version does|represents a contribution (in light of the prior research focus|
|not clearly articulate the contributions of the past research |on factors). Material has been added to help the reader |
|on de-escalation. My recommendation is driven from the point |understand what the prior research has found. The contribution|
|that there is nothing methodologically new in your study, but |of the manuscript has been more clearly articulated. |
|there is new in terms of your empirical findings, particularly | |
|given the previous empirical research on de-escalation. Focus | |
|your paper on where your contribution is. The reader needs to | |
|understand where the prior research stands on de-escalation so | |
|that they can more easily understand and appreciate your new | |
|contribution to this literature. | |
|page 7. Decision 4. Is "fragment" the right word? |In this revision, we have substituted the word “restructure” |
| |which is a more appropriate term. |
|As the AE mentions, the suggested revisions should be doable. |Thank you again for your continued encouragement, support, and |
|We would encourage you to complete the revision by December 31,|constructive feedback. We have revised the paper in the manner|
|1999. Please follow the manuscript preparation guidelines in |that you, the AE, and the three reviewers have suggested. |
|submitting the next version. Congratulations on your successful| |
|revision. The AE and I look forward to the next version of this| |
|paper. | |
Responses to the Associate Editor’s Comments
|Comment |Response or Action Taken |
|As all three reviewers have noted, the authors have done a |We thank the associated editor for conditionally accepting our |
|commendable job of addressing concerns about the clarity of |manuscript. In this revision, we have followed the many |
|objectives and organization of the paper. Generally, the paper |excellent suggestions you provided. Specifically, we have: |
|reads well, and the authors have focused clearly on presenting |clarified the distinction between phase 1 and phase 2 |
|and supporting a process model of de-escalation. The paper now |removed the propositions |
|represents a useful contribution to theory and practice, and I |clearly separated the case facts from our own analysis and |
|congratulate the authors on their efforts. I tend to agree, |interpretation. |
|however, with reviewer 3 that the paper still needs some | |
|revision. I believe the revisions necessitate only a few hours'| |
|work but can attack the concerns that reviewer 3 raises and can| |
|greatly strengthen the paper. Specifically, I have three | |
|concerns: | |
|While the four phases help describe events at DIA and a more |When the problems with the baggage system were first detected, |
|general process model of de-escalation, I find phase 2 to be |Mayor Webb announced that he would delay the opening of the |
|vague. In particular, the description of "clarifying the |airport until the baggage system was fully functioning. It was|
|magnitude of the problem," refers to the high cost of keeping |at this juncture that DIA came under investigation and external|
|DIA closed. It appears, however, that this recognition of cost |pressure mounted. Although it can be said that problem |
|was happening at about the same time as other events in Phase |recognition occurred in phase 1, the true magnitude and nature |
|1, and that it is the basis for much of the external pressure |of the problem was not apparent to the decision makers until |
|that the city was experiencing. In addition, it did not appear |phase 2. It was in this phase that an outside risk management |
|to result from a purposeful "reexamination of prior course of |consulting firm was hired to re-examine the prior course of |
|action," which is how the authors label this phase. Thus, both |action and to evaluate whether the airport opening delays and |
|temporally, and characteristically, the clarifying of the |added cost would materially affect the airport’s ability to |
|magnitude of the problem, as described here, appears |meet operating and debt services when it opened. We have added|
|indistinguishable from Phase 1. The second part of the |relevant case facts to clarify the distinction between these |
|description of phase 2-"redefining the problem"-however, |two phases. |
|appears to be distinct in nature from Phase 1. This appears to | |
|be the legitimate focus of Phase 2. | |
|The propositions are repetitive and do not contribute to the |Given that the propositions, as pointed out by you and reviewer|
|analysis. As Reviewer 3 notes the propositions in almost all |3, were redundant and were not adding to the analysis, we |
|cases restated other statements by the authors. In fact, the |have removed them in this revision. |
|authors would typically state a point as a conclusion of their | |
|analysis prior to stating it as a proposition. (See, for | |
|example, page 22: "Given the psychological, social, and | |
|organizational forces that can promote and reinforce escalation| |
|behavior, feedback must be unambiguously negative and there | |
|must often be external pressure in order for problem | |
|recognition to occur. Thus we state the following proprosition:| |
|Proposition 3. Problem recognition is most likely to occur | |
|under conditions of unambiguous negative feedback and external | |
|pressure toward withdrawal.") | |
|The presentation of the case facts actually mixes in analysis, |We have edited the manuscript to achieve a clear separation |
|conjecture, and opinion. This is why, I believe, two reviewers |between case facts (which are presented on the front-end) and |
|found the analysis section to be repetitive. Overall, the |our analysis and interpretation (which is presented on the |
|authors have done an excellent job of adding evidence, but this|back-end). Thank you for this excellent suggestion. In making|
|section undermines the evidence by also boldly stating the |these changes, we found it useful to present a simplified |
|authors' analysis and opinions. The authors do not provide |version of our model on the front-end as a means of organizing |
|evidence for some of the statements in the case description. |the case narrative and the key decisions that marked the |
|For example, the first statement under "Recognizing negative |boundaries between phases. On the back-end, we concentrate on |
|feedback" on page 11 appears to represent author |further development of the model by examining the key |
|conjecture-there is no corroborating evidence. The authors |de-escalation triggering activities in each phase. Here, we |
|opine, on the bottom of page 11, that "this failed test |move beyond the case facts, offering the results of our own |
|represented unambiguously negative feedback." Similarly, the |analysis and interpretation as well as relevant information |
|first paragraph on page 12 surmises the reasons for erosion of |from the literature. |
|confidence in BAE but provides no support. Note, too, that at | |
|the top of page 14, the authors state that "By redefining the | |
|problem, Webb encouraged the exploration of alternative courses| |
|of action." This is analytical in nature and leads to the | |
|problem of repetitiveness in the analysis section. On page 15 | |
|under "Managing Impressions" the authors discuss how Mayor Webb| |
|saved face but there is no corroborating evidence that that was| |
|either intention or outcome. Again, this is clearly appropriate| |
|as analysis, but it isn't a case fact. This practice is | |
|repeated on page 16 under "De-institutionalizing the project." | |
|My sense is that this paper would be significantly strengthened|The extensive comments that you provided have been very helpful|
|if the authors addressed the above three points. The first two |in further strengthening the manuscript. Thank you for your |
|are very easy, the third requires some rethinking but again |continued encouragement. We believe we have addressed all of |
|does not represent a major departure from the existing paper. |the remaining issues that were raised and look forward to the |
| |paper’s publication. |
|In more clearly separating case facts from analysis, I believe | |
|the authors could address the repetition that the reviewers | |
|observed. Specifically, they can note in pages 1-5 that they | |
|observed in their data four distinct phases. They can then | |
|provide the facts for those four phases without breaking them | |
|down into their subparts as the current text does. They can | |
|eliminate all analysis and conjecture from the case facts. I | |
|would encourage the authors to again add any quotes or | |
|paraphrasing of interviewees' comments in the case facts, but I| |
|would discourage their own assessments. | |
| | |
|Following the case description, they can explain that they | |
|found "triggers" and "outcomes" associated with each phase. | |
|Currently, they explain this twice. Then they can rely on both | |
|existing literature, as they do, and case facts, which they | |
|also do, adding in their own analysis of the sequence of | |
|events. | |
| | |
|I believe the paper will then be ready for publication and I am| |
|anxious to see it published in MISQ. | |
Responses to the Reviewer 1’s Comments
|Comment |Response or Action Taken |
|Congratulations on an excellent revision! Your methodology is |Thank you for the kind words. We appreciate the positive |
|much more suited to the type of data you have, and has resulted|feedback on our paper. |
|in a much richer and more insightful paper. | |
| | |
|The only comment I have is that you may want to tighten the |Given that the propositions were found to be redundant, we have|
|wording in some of the propositions – words such as |removed them in this revision. |
|"scapegoat", "uninterested third party", etc. - could be stated| |
|more formally. | |
| | |
|Otherwise, great job. | |
Responses to the Reviewer 2’s Comments
|Comment |Response or Action Taken |
|The authors have done an excellent job re-writing the paper |Thank you for the kind words. We appreciate the positive |
|from a process-model perspective. The paper is clear and well |feedback on our paper. In this revision, we have tried to |
|written and seems to meet the criteria for an applications |address the one remaining issue that you noted. |
|article. The section which describes the case (The computerized| |
|baggage handling system at DIA) and the section which presents | |
|the model (Discussion: revisiting the DIA findings in Light of | |
|the de-escalation literature) could probably be combined..... | |
|But in the scheme of things, this is trivial since the paper is| |
|well organized and reads well. | |
| | |
|Congratulations to the authors for a job well done. | |
Responses to the Reviewer 3’s Comments
|Comment |Response or Action Taken |
|The author has responded well to the suggestions made by |Thank you for the kind words. We appreciate the positive |
|previous reviews. Obviously a lot of new work has gone into the|feedback on our paper. |
|revised paper, and the paper is now well written, very clearly | |
|structured and provides an explicit, explained, detailed | |
|process model of de-escalation arising from the single case | |
|study. The paper is now informed by a much better sense of | |
|clear, limited objectives. All this is significant gain from | |
|the previous review process, and the author is to be commended | |
|on this achievement. At this stage it would be unhelpful to | |
|suggest any fundamentally new direction and I will restrict | |
|myself mainly to assessing the degree to which the paper has | |
|responded to the reviewers' suggestions, especially those of | |
|the SE and AE. However, because the paper is now different in | |
|several major ways, it is important to also to assess how far | |
|these new departures are sufficient to merit publication in | |
|present form. My view is that the paper does still need certain| |
|revisions and I will detail these below. | |
|The SE's suggestions are largely followed, especially points |In this revision, we have tried to eliminate the repetition you|
|2,3,4, 6, 7, 8. On point 1. The paper is more succinct in some |noted. Your comment regarding the significance of the process |
|ways , but actually there is a new bout of repetition that has |model is well-taken. Like most process models we have seen, |
|broken out in this revised paper, that needs to be addressed - |ours looks fairly “uncontentious/unsurprising” in its main |
|see below. On point 5 - I actually thought this was a very good|stages. We do not believe, however, that the model needs to be|
|suggestion by the SE, but it has been largely ignored. The |a contentious or surprising one in order to represent a |
|result is that the process model is not as significant and rich|contribution to this field. Here, we have engaged in theory |
|in it contribution as it could be - it is quite solid but looks|building where no previous process models had been proposed. |
|to me fairly uncontentious/unsurprising in its main stages - |We developed a parsimonious model that was simple and |
|one partly finds oneself asking - did you need to interview 40 |uncomplicated. In this context, we believe that simple is |
|plus people to get to such a relatively simple |“good” and that there is no virtue in building a model that is |
|conceptualisation? I say this as an experienced researcher who |overly complex when a simpler model can capture the essence of |
|has worked on this type of study and I think am now fairly |what appears to be happening. The IS literature is full of |
|familiar with the richness this type of work can yield. |examples of simple process models that have greatly contributed|
| |to our understanding of the dynamics of complex phenomena (see,|
| |for example, Smith’s (1993) model of how organizations respond |
| |to issues of information privacy). |
|The AE found the study too tightly married to previous factors |This is an insightful comment. We tried to approach this study|
|identified. My sense is that this is still the case. The |in an inductive fashion, remaining as open as possible to new |
|improved structure and clarity actually makes the case study |de-escalation triggers that might surface during the course of |
|feel much more like a mechanistic demonstration of factors |analysis. However, we did approach the research with a |
|previously identified in other studies, and now organised into |particular theoretical perspective that was informed by our |
|a process model. I believe the reason for this is that the |reading of the escalation literature. With that reading, we |
|author has not taken on board enough the AE's final comments |were aware of certain factors that might surface as |
|about stronger evidence supporting choice of key events. This |de-escalation triggers and consciously or subconsciously we |
|is slightly unfair - the author has done a lot to add in |were no doubt attuned somewhat to the presence or absence of |
|evidence, but my sense is that no great effort has been made to|such factors in the case data. We would argue, however, that |
|discover whether there is evidence to support additional |all researchers—by virtue of what they have read and done |
|factors outside those identified in previous studies. To put it|previously—bring a certain perspective to the research they |
|another way the study is said to be 'inductive', but often I |undertake. With this being said we did try to remain open and |
|get the sense that inductively we are looking for evidence to |we did identify some new de-escalation triggers. We tried not |
|demonstrate previously identified important factors, rather |to reach premature closure on our model—in fact we had no |
|than new ones that arise from this specific case. In other |process model in mind going into this research. The process |
|words the research process has received closure on the model |model emerged only after we had immersed ourselves in the case |
|too early. Some of this may arise from the more mechanistic |analysis. |
|presentation of the paper, of course, but I do not think all of| |
|it does. | |
|To be more constructive, much repetition can now be removed. |Thank you for this advice. Following your suggestion, as well |
|For example pages 1-5 have many points of saying the same thing|as the suggestions made by the Senior and the Associate |
|twice. Table 3 and Figure 1 are nicely designed but contain |editors, the first five pages have been rewritten. |
|almost the same information. Then the actual case is designed | |
|to rigorously show how accurate Table 3 is. This again feels | |
|repetitive, though fortunately the case material is | |
|interestingly written. Why do I then need Figure 1? I then got | |
|a bit thrown from pages 20-28 to find that the analysis | |
|repeated most of Table 3, Figure 1, the case study, and then | |
|produced 'propositions' which were virtually the same points | |
|made in that Figure/Table. Repetition can help to drive the | |
|point home, but I really do think this needs more imagination, | |
|and more work, especially in the analysis section. | |
|In the analysis section I would like to see some comparison |Comparing DIA to another case of escalation such as Taurus is |
|with other studies. The author mentions, for example the Taurus|an excellent suggestion. However, in our view such a |
|disaster for example. There are plenty more. Why were those NOT|comparison is not something that we could do justice to without|
|de-escalated, and why was this one? If you look in the |significantly lengthening the current manuscript. We |
|literature at successful projects then all were not successful |appreciate your suggestion, though, and have considered the |
|always - many were de-escalated at different points. How does a|merits of a separate paper that would provide the type of |
|comparison between those and the model in this paper work and |comparison you suggest. |
|what do we learn from such comparisons? I believe that the | |
|author has through this study a much richer contribution to | |
|make on the analysis side and would encourage him/her much more| |
|in this direction now. | |
|I still think that in the analysis section much more could be |Your comment about Taurus both here and in your earlier point, |
|made of the link between previous escalation - its character, |suggests that it is an example of a project that escalated, but|
|distinctive reasons in this case, i.e the antecedent conditions|didn’t undergo de-escalation. In our view, all projects that |
|in Figure 1 and subsequent ease/difficulty/path of |escalate and are later abandoned and judged to be failures |
|de-escalation - in other words how far the nature and strength |eventually undergo de-escalation. The question is “when?” and |
|of escalation influenced the degree of success, and the path of|“how?” does this occur. We believe that the process model |
|de-escalation. This, to me, is a crucial link. For example, in |developed in our paper lends some insight into these questions.|
|Taurus de-escalation was not possible. Why was this the case, |But, obviously there is a lot of room for additional research |
|and why was it possible in the Denver case. I think there is a |to address more fully the issues that you raise. |
|significant contribution to our understanding to be made by | |
|this paper on this issue, and would strongly encourage the | |
|author to make it. | |
| | |
|I really do hope that this helps. | |
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- sample employee responses to evaluation
- examples of responses to performance reviews
- funny responses to how are you doing
- funny responses to what s up
- funny responses to questions
- funny responses to how are you
- responses to how are you question
- sarcastic responses to stupid questions
- funny responses to stupid questions
- best responses to reviews
- sample responses to negative reviews
- responses to how are you