Conclusion - the roots of project failure
This outsourcing event failed to meet any time, process or cost objectives as the strong governance mismatched the changed business circumstances that demanded a more collaborative inter-dependent mode of operation (Sanderson, 2009, Sanderson and Cox, 2008). The consortium created to deliver the software consisted of six interacting partners, each with their own internal objective and supporting its own organisational and individual group objectives (Marshall et al., 2015, Morgan, 1997). These organisations were operating within the overall framework of an overarching goal as laid down in the contract. However, they also needed to achieve other objectives; such as cost reduction, service delivery and service profit margin. Changes in institutional context, relationships and hierarchies, objectives and outcome have been shown to engender conflict if the objectives of constituent organisations are compromised or contested (Campbell, 2010, Campbell, 2004, Lindegaard, 2013). Furthermore, a project environment displays systemic conflict throughout all its stages, a situation known to be associated with poor outcomes (Verma, 1998). Within this project high conflict emerged due to severe constraints in ability to deliver and a focus only on contractual demands that constrained supplier manoeuvrability to respond to change. This resulted in suppliers focusing only on instrumental goals and showing low flexibility in response to uncertainty.
The strong controls observed and the tight contracts focused on ‘safeguarding’ or ‘prevention’ increases the control over suppliers but reduces the opportunity for cooperation (Parmigiani and Rivera-Santos, 2011, Poppo and Zhou, 2013). Furthermore, processes put in place to constrain and regulate supplier’s behaviour to reduce risk, minimise supplier opportunism and ensure success are founded on a purely rational perspective.
