How to Define Project Success?

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The Points to Be Criticized
Project Success Definition
Scientific Guidelines
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Projects pose new opportunities and new challenges that are defined by their peculiarities. Projects as a phenomenon could be described by the following words: “limited, temporary, innovative, unique, and multidisciplinary” (Ika, 2009, p. 6). It is not surprising that a whole branch of management is nowadays devoted to this phenomenon. One of the related aspects that remain unsolved is that of project success and its assessment.

At the dawn of the project management, it was common to define the success with the help of the “iron triangle” which consists of time, quality, and costs. However, as the scientific and empirical material accumulated, it became evident that these three characteristics, important as they may be, are not enough, and the perspectives from which a project can be assessed are extremely numerous (Ika, 2009).

Apart from that, some factors of project success can be described as “implicit”, vague (such as, for example, customer’s satisfaction), and they are particularly difficult to assess (Ika, 2009). As a result, the question of defining projects’ success remains open.

According to Welch-Devine (2012), one of the main problems that prevent scientists from creating valid guidelines for project evaluation is the absence of a clear, consistent definition of success in general. The author proceeds to point out that most works attempting to define success remain vague. Ika (2009) describes similar difficulties and, in fact, proceeds to explain the reasons due to which success as a notion is so challenging to define.

At the same time, this problem does not appear to prevent researchers from attempting to suggest frameworks of project success assessment. In fact, recognizing the opinion that the notion of projects success leaves room for interpretation seems to be beneficial for studies: it encourages researchers to take into account a bigger scope of situations.

The position of Welch-Devine (2012) is understandable since the vagueness of terms is not appreciated by science, and project success could certainly be defined as a term. However, it should be admitted that the multidimensional, complex nature of the notion makes it especially difficult to provide a valid definition of success (Ika, 2009).

At the same time, defining success for particular projects seems to be a more manageable task. Definitely, the results of any project need to be studied from numerous points of view, but the scope of issues that is embraced by the general notion of success is much more extensive and much less assessable. It could be therefore concluded that defining the process of project success measurement may turn out to be more manageable and important than defining the notion of project success in general.

The Points to Be Criticized

According to Ika (2009), it is not uncommon for project management researchers to assume that the meaning of the notion of success is obvious (p. 6). This means that the problem of its definition is simply ignored. Alternatively, it may be solved by bringing in the notion of “failure”, which appears to be just as vague and relative as that of success (Ika, 2009).

At the same time, it should be pointed out that in the context of project management both the ideas of success and failure are not always sufficient to describe the project’s outcome. This happens due to the fact that the success of a project should be regarded from different perspectives (Ika, 2009). The examples for this point of view will be provided further in the paper. Therefore, it is useless to deny that the notion of success is not defined and stays vague the time being.

It is also understandable that vagueness is not scientifically appreciated. However, it should also be pointed out that the notion of success is not the only vague term that is used in scientific studies. The attempts at defining the concept are definitely worth attention.

At the same time, the attempts at creating a framework for the assessment of the success of particular project can turn out to be just as useful, especially right now, when the general phenomenon is not completely defined. To prove that the studies of the process of project success assessment are just as challenging and important as those of the generalized notion of success, we are going to dwell on the relativity of the issue and the interrelation of the concepts of success and failure.

Project Success Definition

While the generalized notion of success is indeed extremely broad, the assessment of every project success cannot be limited to the “iron triangle” as well. Instead, it is a complicated issue that requires extensive research.

The Relativity of Failure and Success

One of the factors that complicate the process of defining any project’s success is the fact that it should be regarded from different perspectives. It is obvious that the various groups of stakeholders have different aims, and the research by Davis (2014) provides a consistent illustration to this fact.

According to this research, a project manager is first and foremost interested in the costs of the project, and only then in the quality, while it is of primary concern for the customer. Apart from that, according to the study, the levels of quality which can satisfy the managers do not necessary coincide with those expected by the customer. Besides, while the mentioned factors are the most important for the selected groups of stakeholders, they are not the only ones that matter.

For example, recent studies have underlined the importance of social and ecological outcomes which corresponds to the modern environmentalist trends and should be respected by a responsible company (Welch-Devine, 2012). Apart from that, it could be useful to mention the difference between project management success and that of the project itself.

Definitely, the two notions are interrelated, but the success of either does not immediately depend on or trigger the success of the other one (Bryde, 2003). Still, the success of project management is, in my opinion, one of the components of the overall projects success that needs to be taken into account. In order to provide the examples for this paper, Toyota Camry project is going to be described.

Even though in 2008 Toyota officially left General Motors behind, becoming the largest car company in the world, that very year the company recalled more than 4 million vehicles. In 2010, another 2.3 million cars were recalled, and the company admitted being in a crisis caused by the poor quality of its products (Andrews, Simon, Tian, & Zhao, 2011).

Technically, this crisis was caused by the mismanagement of a number of failed projects, for example, that of Toyota Camry, one of the models that were massively recalled because of acceleration problems. The first reports about these problems appeared in 1999, but the company denied being responsible for it. From the point of view of managers, at the time the project was a success: it was successfully carried out in accordance with the new cost-saving program (due to which the quality of the constituents was not exactly satisfying) and was being sold, bringing profit to the company (Andrews et al., 2011).

However, such a project assessment was valid only in the short-time perspective. From the point of view of the customers, a car with accelerating problems is a failure. Moreover, given the dangers connected to this particular kind of difficulties, it is evident that the trust of the customers was reducing, and the reputation of the company was getting damaged.

Later, Toyota further decreased customers’ satisfaction through a remarkably incompetent crisis management strategy. It appears, that the company refused to realize that while the success of a project can be assessed from the point of view of its management, other stages of a product’s life must also be taken into account.

The Interrelation of Failure and Success

While some of the aspects of the interrelation of failure and success have been mentioned in the previous section, there is more to be said in this respect.

The big picture. Taking into account the big picture does not presuppose an unjustified broadening of the studies’ limits. It is obvious that the contribution of the project to the company’s development is an important part of its success. The problem of Camry car project was neglected by Toyota for more than seven years mostly due to the fact that the company’s success made its managers overly optimistic (Andrews et al., 2011). The company is still recovering from the damage dealt to its reputation, partially because it failed to assess the level of successfulness of their products and compare the worrisome tendency to the big picture in a proper way.

A consolation prize: learning the lesson. Still, as we know, Toyota Camry has not disappeared from the market, and nor did other projects that proved to be unsuccessful from the point of view of the 2007 recall. Having learned its mistakes, Toyota pays more attention to the quality of its products and to the customers’ satisfaction.

It can be proved by the fact that last year Toyota recalled more than 6.5 m cars worldwide (Rankin, 2014, para. 2). Even though this does not sound like success, it should be pointed out that the vehicles were recalled because of the problems that have been detected by the company but that had not led to any kind of trouble.

To compare, General Motors also has to recall a number of cars, but this company’s negligence has allegedly caused 13 deaths (Rankin, 2014, para. 14). Toyota has obviously learned the lessons of its failures and implements the new knowledge for new projects. It should be pointed out that the analysis of a project success is particularly important from the point of view of gaining experience.

Scientific Guidelines

All the information presented above proves the fact that the notion of project success is an extremely relative and complex issue. At the same time, it does not mean that a project’s success cannot be measured. Quite the oppose: a project’s success can and should be measured; it is the notion of success as a whole that does not necessarily require a static definition in the context of a particular case study.

Such an approach could cause difficulties and vagueness which is never appreciated in the scientific circles. However, it does not prevent researchers from finding generalized and universal frameworks for project success.

For example, Todorović, Petrović, Mihić, Obradović, and Bushuyev (2015) suggest a framework that instructs a manager to take into account the key performance indicators that “represent a set of measurable data used for evaluating and measuring performances in implementation phase” (p. 774).

While the authors do provide the examples of such factors, they do not attempt to enumerate them or to define the level of success for them. The resulting framework is not vague; it is schematic indeed, but it offers a structure of assessment for almost any kind of project. Being very flexible, it provides guidelines without constricting the researcher and encourages open-minded thinking.

Conclusion

Upon criticizing certain tendencies in project success assessment, the following points have been presented in this paper. While the attempts at defining the notion of success have been made throughout the past decades, it appears that this problem has not been solved yet. Technically, the dichotomy of failure and success may be not a suitable framework for the assessment of a project’s results.

The assessment of every project’s success is a complex process that is supposed to incorporate the investigation of its results perceived from numerous perspectives. This does not mean that the success of a project cannot or should not be assessed.

Quite the opposite: a consistent analysis of a project’s success can provide the company with invaluable experience. It is obvious that if an existing framework is suitable for any particular case analysis, it should be used. Still, an analysis must not be limited to the usual guidelines. In case a company desires to learn and develop, its managers need to be open-minded about everything, including the assessment of project successfulness.

References

Andrews, A., Simon, J., Tian, F., & Zhao, J. (2011). The Toyota Crisis: an Economic, Operational and Strategic Analysis of the Massive Recall. Management Research Review, 34(10), 1064-1077. Web.

Bryde, D. (2003). Modelling Project Management Performance. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 20(2), 229-254. Web.

Davis, K. (2014). Different Stakeholder Groups and Their Perceptions of Project Success. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 189-201. Web.

Ika, L. (2009). Project Success as a Topic in Project Management Journals. Project Management Journal, 40(4), 6-19. Web.

Rankin, J. (2014). Toyota Recalls More Than 6.5m Cars over Steering and Seat Problems. The Guardian. Web.

Todorović, M., Petrović, D., Mihić, M., Obradović, V., & Bushuyev, S. (2015). Project Success Analysis Framework: a Knowledge-Based Approach in Project Management. International Journal of Project Management, 33(4), 772-783. Web.

Welch-Devine, M. (2012). Searching for Success: Defining Success in Co-Management. Human Organization, 71(4), 358-370. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!