Literature Review & Critique on 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
Understanding Temporary Organisations and Project Stakeholders
Literature Review and Critique
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

The investigation of factors that lead to better project performance and success is increasingly gaining currency among scholars and practitioners, especially after the realization that project management provides organisations with the means to be efficient, effective, and competitive in a changing, complex, and unpredictable environment (Ika 2009; Tabish & Jha 2012).

Interestingly enough, according to Srivannaboon (2006), the recognition of the strategic importance of projects is rapidly accelerating as organisations attempt to enhance their innovative capacity, facilitate swift changes, and promote their adaptive capabilities.

A prominent corollary of this claim is the strongly held belief by business practitioners and academics that aligning project management with the strategic objectives of the organisation can substantially raise the bar for achieving project success and competitive advantage (Crawford et al 2006), as well as increasing the chances of fulfilling set organisational goals, strategies and performance (Srivannaboon 2006; Patanakul et al 2010).

This paper assesses and critiques current literature on project management, with the view to identifying and discussing how varied stakeholders within a temporary organisation may perceive the concept of project success.

Understanding Temporary Organisations and Project Stakeholders

Extant management literature demonstrates that temporary organisations, such as projects, programs and special task forces, are a common component of today’s organisational life though they last only for the duration that different stakeholders are working together on the projects or programs to make them fully operational, at the end of which the stakeholders separate (Lizzarralde et al. 2011; Jacobsson et al 2013).

Representing a particular typology of temporary organisations, projects have become common vehicles for organisational change as they deliver strategic objectives and enhance the capacity for organisations to implement their strategies (Andersen 2006).

Lizzarralde (2001, p. 21) suggests that project stakeholders include “agents of the steering team, peripheral stakeholders, indifferent stakeholders [and] confronting stakeholders.”

This review draws upon the works of Yong and Mustaffa (2012) and Turner and Zolin (2012) to argue that the major project stakeholders include clients (organisations, owner), project team leaders, shareholders, board, sponsors, consumers, operators, and project consultants/contractors.

Literature Review and Critique

In his theorising on project success, Andersen (2006) rejects the self-interest of the project as the domineering viewpoint and focuses attention to the interplay between the project and the parent organisation, with the view to clarifying what is meant by project success.

This author disagrees with the view taken by traditional project management scholars that project success is measured by variables such as timely delivery, budgetary efficiency and capacity to meet set specifications.

Andersen (2006, p. 17) defines project success “as the combination of project management success and project product success.”

While project management success is directly linked to the objectives of the project, which invariably express what the project should be able to deliver at what time and at what cost, project product success deals with the effects of the deliverables and is dependent on the sustained efforts of the parent organisation.

The relationship between project management success and project product success, according to Andersen (2006), underlines the importance of aligning the project with the strategic objectives of the organisation to achieve success.

From this theorising, it is evident that project management success can only be determined at the end of the project assignment, and that stakeholders can determine if the project is successful or not by assessing how the base organisation makes use of the deliverables.

In their study, Liu and Seddon (2009) argue that the concept of project success should be evaluated in terms of critical success factors (CSFs), such as top management commitment and support, achievement of a functional fit between project and strategic objectives of the base organisation, capacity to change the organisation, and other project management variables including implementation strategy and timeframe, effectiveness of project teams, as well as troubleshooting and crises management.

In the attainment of functional fit, Basten et al (2011) are of the opinion that an agent of the steering team involved in the implementation of a particular project should ensure that the functional capabilities embedded within the project match the functionality that the base organisation requires to operate effectively and efficiently.

Based on the ideas of Liu and Seddon (2009), it is evident that project success is also directly linked to visioning and planning, which includes delineating an unambiguous project objective and scope, matching business and organisational strategies with project objectives, incorporating risk and quality management, and benchmarking internal and external best practices for project implementation planning.

Yong and Mustaffa (2012) employ a questionnaire survey not only to determine the principal factors that are critical to the success of a construction project in Malaysia, but also to evaluate the relative significance of these factors as demonstrated by the study participants.

They find that project success from the client’s perspective is determined by the following factors ranked by relative importance:

financial capability,
delay of progress payment to consultant and contractors,
excessive demand and variation during project implementation,
capacity to brief the project objectives clearly,
top management support.

From the project team leader perspective, project success is determined by

competence,
commitment,
early and continuous involvement in the project involvement,
relationship with other project stakeholders,
adaptability to shifts in the project plan.

Lastly, from the project consultant perspective, project success is determined by

competence,
cooperation in solving problems,
commitment,
communication among project stakeholders,
feedback between project stakeholders (Yong & Mustaffa 2012).

It is important to note that the authors rank the factors by their level of importance to a particular stakeholder group.

A strand of existing literature (e.g., Little 2011; Nixon 2012) suggests that careful planning, skilful management, stakeholder satisfaction, team development, and effective leadership skills are effective ingredients in achieving project success.

To facilitate and reinforce project success, Little (2011, p. 36) argues that project managers and leaders should “define, plan and control projects, recognise the role(s) they play and define other people’s contribution to the project-management process, recognise and reduce risks in all types of project work, and use a range of tools related to project management.”

In their contribution, Nixon et al (2012) acknowledge that there has been a broadening of project success measures from simply time, cost (on budget), and functionality improvements predominant in the 1970s to a more quality-based focus in the new millennium, which embraces stakeholder satisfaction, product success, business and enterprise benefit, and project team development as critical measures of project success.

A number of leadership studies demonstrate that leadership traits and styles are directly linked to project success or failure.

In concluding their study, Nixon et al (2012, p. 214) argue that “since leadership style is an effective tool used by project managers to influence a project outcome, it can be established that a lack of leadership performance monitoring can be directly associated with project failure.”

Geoghegan & Dulewicz (2008) uncover the specific leadership dimensions that are positively correlated to project success, such as managing resources, empowering, developing, motivation, sensitivity, self-awareness, and influence.

The concept of aligning the project with the strategic objectives of the organisation has been well documented in the literature, with a number of scholars suggesting that project success depends on the effectiveness and efficiency of this alignment.

Longman and Mullins (2004, p. 57) argue that “an organisation’s strategy should provide the boundaries for projects; goals and results must flow from an organisation’s future direction.”

This assertion implies that to achieve project success in the long-term, project leaders and senior management must come up with clear project objectives and also demonstrate how the intended project will support the achievement of the business strategies as set out by the organisation.

Cicmil (1997) brings in a new perspective by suggesting that the implementation of strategic management through projects – rather than aligning projects with the strategic objectives of the organisation – makes the attainment of optimum business returns and utilisation of scarce organisational resources more realistic.

In continuing with the alignment literature, Srivannaboon (2006) acknowledges that project success should be determined primarily by how the project is able to efficiently and effectively support the execution of an organisation’s competitive strategy aimed at delivering a much-anticipated business outcome.

Crawford et al. (2006) emphasise this assertion by suggesting that project success should be determined by the project’s capability to deliver the organisation’s strategic intent, hence the importance of facilitating the alignment of project management capability with corporate strategy.

These authors also argue that project success is achieved by “balancing the project portfolio to ensure alignment with organisational strategy, coordinating interfaces between projects, and sharing resources to enable the sponsoring organisation to achieve its strategic objectives” (p. 40).

Dvir et al. (2006) introduce a new paradigm by suggesting that the fit between project manager’s personality and management style and the types of project they manage is fundamentally important in determining if the project portfolio is holistically aligned with the strategic objectives of the organisation, which then determines project’s success.

In their study, Tabish and Jha (2012) argue that project success should be determined largely by the capacity of the project to deliver to the parent organisation desired new capabilities and business objectives, rather than being measured using traditional paradigms of time efficiency, budgetary costs as well as quality.

This view is reinforced by Turner and Zolin (2012, p. 87-88), who argue that project success is evaluated “not just by completion of the scope of the work to time, cost, and quality, but also by performance of the project’s outputs, outcomes, and impacts, and thereby the achievement of the desired business objectives, as assessed by different stakeholders over different timescales.”

Citing Turner (2009), these authors are of the opinion that while project participants (e.g., project manager, the project team, and suppliers) evaluate project success on completion of the project, the operators of the project’s output and the consumers of the product it generates evaluate success in the months following the conclusion of the project based on how well it is able to attain its immediate business objectives.

Going forward, shareholders may measure the success of a project based on whether it is able to enhance the shareholder value of the parent organisation, while the board may evaluate the project based on its capacity to generate profit over time.

Similarly, project sponsors may measure success by assessing if the project provides the desired performance improvement over a period of time, while the project team may measure success by assessing if they have had a satisfactory experience working on the project and if it met their needs by the time of its completion.

The contractors as a major stakeholder may measure the success of a project based on whether they made a profit upon the completion of a project, while consumers may still do the same by assessing if the new asset produces a product or provides a service that they may want to buy for consecutive months or years following the completion of the project (Turner & Zolin 2009; Patanakul 2010).

Conclusion

This review has explored the concept of project success, with the view to demonstrating how varied stakeholders within a temporary organisation perceive the concept.

One major finding from the review is that varied stakeholders view the concept of project success differentially depending on their interactions with the project as well as the ensuing benefits and project deliverables.

It is also clear that varied stakeholders determine project success depending on timeframes, with the two main timeframes being immediately after the conclusion of the project and months or years following completion.

Overall, it is evident that project success is no longer measured by traditional attributes of schedule, cost, and quality compliances, but rather by more qualitative human factors and management actions, such as leadership skills, level of alignment of the project with strategic objectives of the organisation, capacity of base organisation and other stakeholders to make use of project deliverables, effectiveness of project teams, crises management, financial capability, competence, careful planning, skilful management, and stakeholder satisfaction.

Reference List

Andersen, ES 2006, ‘Toward a project management theory for renewal projects’, Project Management Journal, vol. 37 no. 4, pp. 15-30.

Basten, D, Joasten, D & Mellis, W 2011, ‘Managers perceptions of information system project success’, Journal of Computer Information Systems, vol. 52 no. 2, pp. 12-21.

Cicmil, SJK 1997, ‘Critical factors of effective project management’, The TQM Magazine, vol. 9 no. 6, pp. 390-396.

Crawford, L, Hobbs, B & Turner, JR 2006, ‘Aligning capability with strategy: Categorizing projects to do the right projects and do them right’, Project Management Journal, vol. 37 no. 2, pp. 38-50.

Dvir, D, Sadeh, A & Malach-Pines, A 2006, ‘Projects and project managers: The relationship between project managers’ personality, project types, and project success’, Project Management Journal, vol. 37 no. 5, pp. 36-48.

Geoghegan, L & Dulewicz, V 2008, ‘Do project managers’ leadership competencies contribute to project success? Project Management Journal, vol. 39 no. 4, pp. 58-67.

Ika, LA 2009, ‘Project success as a topic in project management journals’, Project Management Journal, vol. 40 no. 4, pp. 6-19.

Jacobsson, M, Burstrom, T, Thommie, W & Timothy, L 2013, ‘The role of transition in temporary organizations: Linking the temporary to the permanent’, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, vol. 6 no. 3, pp. 576-586.

Little, B 2011, The principles of successful project management’, Human Resource Management International Digest, vol. 19 no. 7, pp. 36-39.

Liu, AZ & Seddon, PB 2009, ‘Understanding how project critical success factors affect organizational benefits from enterprise systems’, Business Process Management Journal, vol. 15 no. 5, pp 716-743.

Lizzarralde, G, De Blois, M & Latunova, I 2011, ‘Structuring of temporary multi-organizations: Contingency theory in the building sector’, Project Management Journal, vol. 37 no. 5, pp. 88-96.

Longman, A & Mullins, J 2004, ‘Project management: Key tool for implementing strategy’, Journal of Business Strategy, vol. 25 no. 5, pp. 54-60.

Nixon, P, Harrington, M & Parker, D 2012, ‘Leadership performance is significant to project success or failure: A critical analysis’, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, vol. 61 no. 2, pp. 204-216.

Patanakul, P, Lewwongcharoen, B & Milosevic, C 2010, ‘An empirical study on the use of project management tools and techniques across project life-cycle and their impact on project success’, Journal of General Management, vol. 35 no. 3, pp. 41-65.

Srivannaboon, S 2006, ‘Linking project management with business strategy’, Project Management Journal, vol. 37 no. 5, pp. 88-96.

Tabish, SZS & Jha, KN 2012, ‘Success traits for a construction project’, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, vol. 138 no. 10, pp. 1131-1138.

Turner, R & Zolin, R 2012, ‘Forecasting success on large projects: Developing reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple timeframes’, Project Management Journal, vol. 43 no. 5, pp. 87-99.

Yong, YC & Mustaffa, NE 2012, ‘Analysis of factors critical to construction project success in Malaysia’, Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, vol. 19 no. 5, pp. 543-556.

Click Here To Order Now!