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.
Third, expectations of the process do not affect the confirmation of
expectations. The respective hypothesis H1 Process is the only one that is not
Hypothesis Confirmed?
Path
Coefficient tStatistic p-value f2
Process Model
H1 Process No 0.05 0.429 0.668 0.003
H2 Process Yes 0.42 3.721 0.000 0.148
H3 Process Yes 0.43 3.849 0.000 0.290
H4 Process Yes 0.36 3.597 0.000 0.149
H5 Process Yes 0.42 4.494 0.000 0.304
Product Model
H1 Product Yes 0.17 1.683 0.092 0.037
H2 Product Yes 0.74 7.258 0.000 0.639
H3 Product Yes 0.48 4.302 0.000 0.337
H4 Product Yes 0.31 3.163 0.002 0.111
H5 Product Yes 0.31 3.134 0.002 0.146
Table 10: Results for hypotheses.