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.

Google Online Preview   Download