in 150 word summarize this article and get one sentence the most take away and tone sentence criticism from this article?

Talk Before It's Too Late: Reconsidering the Role of Conversation in Information Systems Project Management

Abstract: Effective team coordination is essential for the information systems (IS) projects success. We present a four-year study, based on design science research, to develop and instantiate a conceptual modelcalled Coopilotto improve real-time coordination in IS projects. Coopilot is a simple conversational guide to help IS project managers minimize the number of coordination surprises that arise for teams during their project meetings. Drawing on coordination literature outside the IS research field, we have adapted and instantiated the theory of joint activity developed by psycholinguist Herbert Clark. The results illustrate the value Clarks theory can add to the IS

field and both the importance of conversation intended as a new theoretical construct in IS team project coordination as well as the importance of reaching a sufficient level of understanding. Project managers involved in this study who used Coopilot reported both higher levels of confidence that their projects were on a successful path and overall higher levels of team motivation.

In this study, we wish to develop a prescriptive model; therefore, we have chosen to perform design science research [26, 27, 43, 59]. Design science seeks to obtain new theories through the design of artifacts[43, 59] that serve human purposes. It also seeks to provide relevant solutions to management problems[25]. Different approaches and methodologies [27, 29, 51, 58] have been proposed in design science. We decided to align our work with the process put forward by Holmstrm et al. [29] because it covers the entire spectrum, from the design research problem through to iterations and final theory development. Moreover, although we acknowledge that design science has experienced significant traction in the field of IS since the publication of Hevner et al. [27], we found the model of Holmstrm et al. [29] slightly more appropriate for an audience that covers a wider spectrum of disciplines within management studies. The process proposed by Holmstrm et al. [29] starts with the development of new ideas (solution incubation), then moves on to tested ideas (solution refinement), mid-range theory (explanation I), and formal theory (explanation II). Considerations about the development of a formal theory will be presented at the end of this paper, as part of the discussion for future research. Finally, evaluation is a crucial element in design science [27]; thus, we have also used strategies for design science research evaluation developed by Pries-Heje et al. [52]. For each phase of the process, an explanation is given as to what was evaluated, how it was evaluated, and when.

Concretely, returning to the example that began this paper, should Bob move on to the next phase, or instead attempt something else with regard to his project and the other people involved in it? We are now well equipped to help Bob make a decision. We recommend that he talk before it is too late, while the resources allocated to the project are still available and have not disappeared as the result of a progressive accumulation of coordination surprises. Bob should not move on to the next phase until he organizes a series of one-to-one and group

the extent to which our model is generalizable. In particular, with respect to the four phases of our methodology, we developed a new method for running Coopilot on smartphones and we are currently recruiting teams for large-scale testing. meetings to put everyone back on the same page. For example, Annes remark illustrates a CG breakdown related to joint objectives and Cliffs remark shows a CG breakdown concerning joint resources. Our model can assist Bob during his meetings by helping him identify where the CG breakdowns are so that he can repair them in real time through use of the sample questions. PMs who had used Coopilot from the beginning could address most of these perception gaps during meetings (Proposition 1), and Bobs project would now be in better shape and benefit from a greater potential for success (Proposition 2). The current version of our conceptual model was implemented and evaluated in three case studies. The PMs concerned were involved on a voluntary basis. For the present study, the period of analysis was four months. Future research is needed to corroborate