Project Management Journal

respectively), project performance (0.92 and 0.81, respectively), and client satisfaction ( 1.00 and 0.99, respectively). Only one of our control variables (see ‘Measurement Scales’) showed a significant effect with process satisfaction or product satisfaction (trust toward the vendor, p , 0.05).

Summary and Discussion

We developed and empirically tested a
model of IS project success that is based
on the expectation–confirmation the-
ory and that explicitly considers CVC.
The model suggests client satisfaction
to be the uppermost criterion that is
associated with process performance
(i.e., budget and schedule) and product
performance (i.e., functional and non-
functional requirements). While we
differentiate between project success
concerning the process and the product,
the data from a questionnaire survey
with people in charge of IS projects on
behalf of clients contracting the projects
widely corroborate the hypothesized
models (see Table 10). We thus advance
the understanding of measuring IS
project success, contribute to a better
understanding of IS development, and
explicitly link a success factor (i.e., the
perceived quality of CVC) to success cri-
teria (Siau et al., 2010). While previous
studies have mostly dealt with vendors’
perspectives, our study uses data col-
lected from project managers on behalf
of clients. In the following sections, we
discuss implications of our findings,
address the study’s limitations, and pro-
vide guidance for future research.

Implications for Research

Our study is in line with previous research analyzing the role of process and product for achieving client satisfaction (Basten & Pankratz, 2015). While previous research analyzed the perspective of project managers on behalf of the vendor, we now complement the picture by explicitly taking client perceptions into account. In general, our study contributes to the development of IS project management theory, offering several insights.

First, we found that the perceived
quality of CVC has an influence on
the client’s evaluation process. Our
results show that CVC influences the
client perceptions of process and prod-
uct performance. Furthermore, CVC is
positively associated with satisfaction
concerning the process and the prod-
uct (see Figures 3 and 4). However,
the relevance of CVC for satisfaction
concerning the process seems to be
more important. Finally, we emphasize
that the improvement of project per-
formance or satisfaction might only be
partially related to a managed percep-
tion due to the communication itself.
Nevertheless, improved CVC is likely to
result in objectively improved process
and product performance, because bet-
ter and more efficient communication
(that is, an improvement in communi-
cation quality) is likely to lead to fewer
misunderstandings and clearer defi-
nitions, ultimately resulting in better
products and processes (Basten et al.,
2016; Petter, 2008; Poston et al., 2010;
Sharma et al., 2008; Walton & McK-
ersie, 1965). Our results also support the
claim by Lee and Kim (1999) regarding
the importance of strengthening com-
munication between client and ven-
dor for building confidence to prevent
opportunism in IS projects.

Second, by using the expectation– confirmation theory and observing the client perceptions of IS projects, we show that client satisfaction in IS projects can be explained by confirmation of expectations to a large extent. The effect of project performance in the product model is stronger than the effect of project performance in the process model. We presume that clients tend to value the final product higher than the process leading to the product. Accordingly, long-term objectives, such as achieving business goals, seem to be considered more important than adherence to budget and schedule as short-term goals. Nevertheless, the perceived process performance has shown to have a positive effect on the confirmation of expectations, therefore still contributing to client satisfaction. And while the final product might be valued higher than the process itself, both are linked to each other, as the process leads to the product and flaws and improvements of the process can rub off onto the product.