1
Exploring Project Success
Erling S. Andersen
Professor, Norwegian School of Management BI
NO-0442 Oslo, Norway
erling.s.andersen@bi.no
David Birchall
Professor, Henley Management College
Greenlands, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, RG9 3AU, England
david.birchall@henleymc.ac.uk
Svein Arne Jessen
Professor, Norwegian School of Management BI
NO-0442 Oslo, Norway
svein.a.jessen@bi.no
Arthur H. Money
Professor, Henley Management College
Greenlands, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire, RG9 3AU, England
arthur.money@henleymc.ac.uk
2
Erling S. Andersen is professor of Information Systems and Project Management at
Norwegian School of Management BI, Oslo, Norway. His school is running an MBA
programme in Change management in China in co-operation with Fudan University,
Shanghai and several large multinational companies. Professor Andersen serves as Dean
of China programs. He has published several books and articles on information
technology, systems development, project management and management in general. The
third edition of his book Goal Directed Project Management – co-authored with
Kristoffer Grude and Tor Haug – was published by Kogan Page in 2005 and has also
been translated into several languages.
David Birchall is Director of the School of Management Knowledge and Learning and
Director of Henley Learning Advisory Services at Henley Management College, Henleyon-Thames, England. Professor Birchall is a regular speaker on innovation, knowledge
project management, IT and learning and new forms of organisation and has designed
management development programmes at all levels. He currently directs projects funded
by the European Union including multi-national partnerships, UK Government
Department and several commercial organisations; moreover, he regularly presents
research findings at conferences and seminars worldwide. His latest book Capabilities for
strategic advantage: Leading Through Technological Innovation – co-authored with
George Tovstiga – was published by Palgrave in May 2005.
Svein Arne Jessen is professor of Project Management at the Norwegian School of
Management BI, Oslo, Norway. His PhD in Project Management is from USC,
University of Southern California (USC) in LA, USA, in cooperation with Henley School
of Management, UK. He is an adjunct professor at University of Tromsø and on the guest
faculty at Henley School of Management,England, SUPAERO Technical University in
Toulouse, France, Hautes Ecoles Commerciale in Paris, France, and CERAM in Sophia
Antipolis, Nice, France. He has a broad background from international consulting and
execution of projects both in Asia, Europe and Latin America. For the time being he is
lecturing in countries like China, Singapore, Lithuania, besides France and the UK.
Arthur H. Money is Professor and School Director: Projects, Processes and Systems at
Henley Management College, Henley on Thames, England. Additionally, he is Director
of the Henley Research Development Fund. He has on two occasions served as a
Governor of the College. Professor Money received his PhD degree in Mathematical
Statistics from the University of Cape Town. He is the author of over 100 journal articles,
working papers, book chapters, co-author of nine books and co-editor of two books,
Professor Money focuses his research on statistics, management science and applications
in the areas of information systems, finance and marketing. He has extensive consulting
experience in the marketing research area.
3
Exploring Project Success
Abstract
Purpose – The paper studies the relationship between project success factors and actual
project success. It reports an investigation into those factors within the direct influence of
project managers that can make a real difference to the outcome of project endeavours.
Methodology/Approach – Using Principal Components Analysis on 60 questions about
actual project work performance collected from four culturally different regions (UK,
France, Norway and China), nine distinctively different critical success factors were
found. Similarly, using PCA on 10 project success items, three distinctively different
project success criteria were extracted.
Findings – The most important factors in improving managerial ability to deliver results
in time and at cost were strong project commitment, early stakeholder influence,
stakeholder endorsement of project plans and rich project communications. To secure
project impact, strong project commitment and rich project communications were the
main contributors. A well-structured and formal project approach and well understood
and accepted project purpose, implying high quality management, also scored high.
Captured experience was best supported by a well-structured and formal project
approach and rich project communications.
Practical implications – As the project approach increases as a means for implementing
strategic goals, project managers should devote increasing energies into rich
communication both within the project and towards the project environment.
Originality/value of paper – The study is cross-cultural. It shows that successful project
management, regardless of cultural differences, still depends on “hard features” such as
professional planning and cost control, but that “soft skills” such as rich communication
and learning from experience are prerequisites for project management to achieve
superior project success.
Keywords Project success, Critical Success Factors
Paper type Research paper
4
Introduction
More and more companies are using the project approach as the vehicle for creating
change in pursuit of organisational goals. Each project strives for excellence, yet is by
definition a unique task, normally subject to severe restrictions on budget and time; it is
widely recognised that projects involve a complex set of processes which helps explain
why so many fail to achieve the initial overall aims. The increasing turbulence in the
modern business environment also thwarts the rate of success for many projects.
However, in relation to the actual execution of projects, there is a long held assumption
that both line and project managers could improve their performance if they had a better
understanding of what constitutes project success and how the factors under their control
impact on outcomes. Despite this there is only limited prior empirical research aimed at
understanding the relationship between project success factors and actual project success.
Much prior research has also tended to focus on success as measured in operational terms
whereas emphasis is now often placed on a broader set of impact measures. This paper
sets out to redress this issue by reporting exploratory research into the impact of success
factors on a range of project success criteria.
Based on a questionnaire survey adopting an established instrument (the Project
Evaluation Scheme, see (Andersen and Jessen, 2000)for details), data were collected
from projects undertaken in four national settings. In this paper the authors identify
factors of upper-most importance in achieving project success. Here, Project success
criteria are the measures by which the success of the project is judged. Critical success
factors are then those elements within the project that can be influenced directly by
project management so as to increase the chance of achieving success. The paper will
explore the possible relationship between a set of project success criteria and a range of
project critical success factors.
Project success criteria
Project success can be viewed narrowly as achievement of intended outcomes in terms of
specification, time and budget. Whilst this was widely accepted as appropriate in early
writings on project management the project context has shifted and it is now recognised
that a broader set of outcome measures is now generally needed (Atkinson, 1999; Pinto
and Slevin, 1988; Wateridge, 1998).
Factors which have led to this view, in part, result from a broader strategic perspective
being required by the many project stakeholders. Such influences include the growing
concern to ensure maximisation of the lifetime value of the project endeavour (Bonnal et
al., 2002; Jaafari, 2000; Leach, 1999), the notion of the sustainable enterprise (Lidow,
1999; Saeed, 1998), the growth in interest in knowledge as the source of competitive
advantage (Drucker, 1993; Ruggles, 1997), the importance of motivation as a source for
better project execution (Graham, 1987; Steers et al., 1996), the idea of evaluation led
project or program endeavours (Gareis and Hueman, 2000; Pellegrinelli, 2002), and the
general turbulence of the business environment as mentioned earlier. So projects are
viewed less as isolated sequences of events aimed at a short-term goal and having limited
impact and rather more as long term strategic interventions which, to be accepted, have to
5
enhance the economic, social and environmental well being of the various project
stakeholders (Lim and Mohamed, 1999; Turner, 2002; Wateridge, 1998). Within
knowledge-based enterprises projects are also being considered as an arena for learning;
the uniqueness of projects makes each rich in opportunities for personal and
organisational learning (Ays, 1996; Keegan and Turner, 2001; Lundin and Midler, 1998).
(Munns and Bjeirmi, 1996) use the concept project management success. This is the
traditional view with a focus on the successful accomplishment of cost, time, and quality
objectives and the quality of the project processes or work. These matters are regarded as
the responsibilities of project management and a successful outcome on these would be
considered a project management success. (Baccarini, 1999) adopts a somewhat different
approach and uses the descriptor, product success, to illicit the impact of a project when
its execution is finished, such as; meeting the project owner’s strategic organisational
objectives, satisfaction of users’ need, and satisfaction of stakeholders’ need where they
relate to the product. We might also include criteria such as knowledge creation and
dissemination, which today many project owners include as factors that determine if the
project is successful or not (Fusco, 1997).
We regard overall project success as the broader concept, which deals with the wider and
longer term impact of the project, i.e. both project management success and the project
product success. Project management success can be determined at the end of the project.
Expanding the success criteria as the concept overall project success indicates will
necessarily postpone the final judgement on the project. The performance on some of
these success criteria will be finally decided months or years after the termination of the
project.
The two different success concepts should enlighten the debate on whether a project is a
success or not. A project might in one sense (project management success) be regarded as
a success, but in another (product success) be regarded as a failure, and even the vice
versa situation might occur.
Given this broader set of expected outcomes it seems reasonable to deduce that project
management needs to respond rather differently than as in the case of the more traditional
view. Questions of particular interest in this research relate to those factors within the
control or direct influence of project management which contribute to wider measures of
success and also how these factors interact to influence these outcomes (Globerson and
Zwikael, 2002). Our focus is on those elements under the control of project management
once the broad parameters of the project have been determined. The benefit to both
policy makers and project managers is in understanding the inter-relationship of factors
that need particular attention in order to achieve these outcomes and the eventual
establishment of performance indicators for the management of project managers.
In our research we include a range of success criteria, ten all together, including the
traditional success criteria (time, costs and quality), the business achievements, the
appreciation of the stakeholders, and the knowledge gained from project work.
6
Critical Success Factors
Critical success factors are those features of projects which have been identified as
necessary to be achieved in order to create excellent results: if the critical success factors
are not present or taken into consideration, one can largely expect that problems will be
experienced which act as barriers to overall successful outcomes (Rockart, 1979). Project
management, given the unique nature of each individual project, is an area seen as
benefiting from focusing management’s attention on such critical success factors.
Pinto and Slevin (Pinto and Slevin, 1987; Slevin and Pinto, 1987) have, with their Project
Implementation Profile (PIP) made a valuable contribution to the field of project
management insofar as they have demonstrated how to use critical success factors to
diagnose a project’s status. They used as critical success factors: Project mission (clarity
of goals and general direction), Top management support, Project schedule/plans, Client
consultation, Personnel (recruitment, selection, and training), Technical tasks (availability
of the required technology and expertise), Client acceptance, Monitoring and feedback,
Communication, and Trouble shooting (ability to handle unexpected crises and deviations
from plan).
Later writers have added to this list. More recently writers have overviewed critical
success factors (for examples see (Belassi and Tukel, 1996) and (Westerveld, 2002)). It is
difficult to identify a unifying framework. Belassi and Tukel group the factors into four
areas: factors related to the project (i.e. size, uniqueness, urgency), the project manager
and the team members (i.e. skills, background), the organisation (i.e. management
support, structure), and the external environment (i.e. political, technological).
Westerveld uses the European Foundation for Quality Management (EFQM) model as his
approach for categorising the different critical success factors. A Project Excellence
Model is presented with the following critical success factors: leadership and team,
policy and strategy, stakeholder management, resources, contracting, and project
management. Obviously there are different opinions as to which factors are critical for
project success.
Our framework (Andersen and Jessen, 2000) is based on a somewhat different approach
to earlier writers using critical success factors based on a step-wise structure, reflecting
progression through a project. In that way all aspects of project work identified from
earlier research into success factors has been systematically included, supplemented by
factors derived from practice. Hard (technically focussed) and soft (behavioural) issues
are taken into account. The following aspects of project work are covered:
1. Scope: Project mission and goals, Terms of reference;
2. Planning: Planning global level, Planning detail level;
3. Organisation: Formal organisation, Informal organisation;
4. Execution: Activities, Decisions;
5. Control: Financial and technical control, Internal and external
communications.
7
The research approach
This is a cross-national study involving a wide range of project types and respondents
with different stakeholder perspectives. The research adopts a quantitative approach with
the overall objective of examining the relationship between a series of predictors (project
success factors) and criterion variables (project success criteria) representing outcomes of
a project.
Questions of particular interest in this research are:
 Which success factors within the control or direct influence of project
management contribute to the wider measures of success?
 How do these success factors contribute to the success of the project?
The review of the literature demonstrated that the number of desirable outcomes expected
from a project is continually increasing. So, it seems reasonable to deduce that project
management will now need to have more ‘know how’ to be able to respond differently,
and appropriately, than was the case in the more restricted traditional environment in
which they operated previously.
A quantitative approach to answering the research questions is followed. To achieve the
overall objective two separate, but sequentially related, stages of analysis were carried
out:
Stage 1: Exploratory factor analyses, using principal component analysis (PCA) with
varimax rotation, were performed on the responses to the sections of the PEVSquestionnaire relating to:

The 60 statements covering the features of projects that are generally considered to
be critical to a project’s success, and

The 10 statements on criteria that are proposed for use in evaluating a project’s
success
This results in the identification of two sets of factors, or constructs as often referred to,
that summarise the original statements into a ‘manageable’ few categories of success
factors and success criteria. We refer to these, collectively, as project success factors (X)
and project success criteria (Y), respectively.
Each of the categories comprising X and Y were then named according to those items
that load ‘significantly’ on the category. Computing a composite factor score for each of
the categories followed this. These uncorrelated factor scores were then used in the
regression analysis in Stage 2.
Stage 2: A regression of the project success factors (X) on the project success criteria
(Y) was performed. This analysis allowed us to establish the nature and magnitude of the
impact of the different categories of success factors on the categories of success criteria.
8
Data
This research is based on data collected from subjects all of whom attended different
project management courses given by the authors in the respective countries during the
period 1999-2002. All students were in positions of some authority in relation to projects
- as project manager, in a support function, as project champion or as the client. It
includes a total of 529 respondents with 67% from Norway, 22% from China as well as
8% from France and 3% from the UK. The respondents would be recognised as
experienced practitioners within the direct field of the study. They responded individually
to the questionnaire. The questionnaire was handed out towards the end of the course,
which gave the lecturers the opportunity to discuss the different aspects covered by the
questions. That should ensure that the respondents had the same understanding of all
questions.
Data were collected about personal circumstances as well as project position. Also the
nature of the projects varied in terms of scale in relation to their employer’s experiences
and focus (52% construction/production related, 21% R&D and 20% decision support).
It was assumed that a universal approach has emerged for managing projects and that
certain elements are evident regardless of the context and that by aggregating data from a
wide range of project types and environments a generally acceptable set of success
predictors would be derived. However, it is recognised that the means for achieving this
performance will vary across project types. As an illustrative example we would
highlight the need in large infrastructure projects for clearly specified goals (Morris and
Hough, 1987) but recognise that processes by which goals are specified and agreed will
differ across industries.
The sample provided respondents with the following characteristics: 39% working on
large projects, 38% medium, 22% small; 69% male, 31% female; 10% 50 years and
older, 25% 40-49 years old, 45% 30-39 years old, 20% under 30 years old; 39% project
managers, 35% team members, 14% steering or advisory board members, 5% project
owners, 11% end-users.
The purpose of the study was to identify possible universal approaches to project
management, regardless of nationalities and cultures. We accept that such differences
exist, but the data material did not allow for studying the specific differences.
Analysis and results
The data were subject to analysis using SPSS Version 10. Prior to applying exploratory
factor and regression analysis the data were examined to ensure that they were amenable
to the use of these techniques. This involved examining the responses to each question
for invalid responses, missing values, for conformity to the normal distribution and for
outliers.
In checking the distributions of the responses, use was made of visual checks histograms, box-plots - and the numerical summaries of skewness and kurtosis. Both the
9
sample skewness and kurtosis coefficients had to be within three standard errors of zero
before the distribution of responses to a question could be deemed normally distributed.
Achieving ‘normality’ required the identification and removal of cases that were
‘outlying’. This resulted in a multivariate data set that could be subjected to factor and
regression analysis with confidence.
Factor Analysis to elicit underlying factors
For each set of items – 60 project success factor items and the 10 project success criteria
items – only cases with complete data were retained. The 60 project success factor items
had 265 cases with complete data and the 10 project success criteria items had 365 cases
with complete data. The sample sizes, being of the order of 300, are large enough for us,
to have confidence in the reliability of the factor solution (Field, 2000), p. 443).
Factors retained for further analysis were those that satisfied the ‘eigen-value greater than
one rule’. Additionally, before the application of factor analysis was considered to be
able to result in an appropriate factor structure it had to have a Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
(KMO) measure of sampling adequacy of at least 0.7 (Field, 2000), p. 459). In order to
achieve a satisfactory KMO the factor structure was improved by identifying variables to
be removed from the analysis. After removal of such variables subsequent factor analyses
were run until an appropriate factor structure was obtained.
In interpreting and naming the factors, a loading of 0.40 for an item is considered
important in the make-up of the factor (Hair et al., 1998), p. 111). Where an unacceptable
KMO was achieved the factor loadings provide the basis for removing variables from the
analysis. Variables with a loading of less than 0.4 on all factors were omitted from the
subsequent PCA. Also, variables that loaded 0.40 or higher on two or more factors were
omitted.
Project success factors (X)
The final PCA after varimax rotation on the critical success factors items extracted 9
factors with eigen-values greater than one from the data, accounting for 62.3% of the
total variance. All 9 of the factors were interpretable. These factors and the items loading
on them are presented in Table 1. The table includes the label attached to each factor, the
statements as they appear in the questionnaire (Column 1), and the ‘significant’ factor
loadings (Columns 2-10). Only loadings of 0.45 or higher are listed in the table. A KMO
measure of 0.891 was achieved. Also we report the percentage variance extracted by
each factor.
---------Table 1 in about here
----------
10
Project success criteria (Y)
The final PCA after varimax rotation, on the project success criteria items, extracted three
factors with eigen-values greater than one from the data, accounting for 59% of the total
variance. All factors were interpretable. These factors and the items loading on them are
in Table 2. The table includes the label attached to each factor, the statements as they
appear in the questionnaire (Column 1), and the ‘significant’ factor loadings (Columns 24). Only loadings of 0.45 or higher are listed in the table. A KMO measure of 0.819 was
achieved. Also to be found in the table is the percentage variance extracted by each
factor.
---------Table 2 in about here
----------
Analysis and results – relationship between critical success factors and
success criteria
Then in order to identify particular success predictors, Pearson Product Moment
Correlations were computed between the predictor (X) and criterion variables (Y). After
selecting factors satisfactorily correlating with the criterion variables, linear regression
analyses were undertaken with each outcome variable. In Table 3 the Pearson Product
Moment Correlations between the predictor and criterion variables is presented.
---------Table 3 in about here
---------Each predictor correlates significantly with at least one of the criterion variables with
several correlating with more than one. So no clear pattern emerges to support the notion
that a different set of predictors will impact on each of the success measures and the data
suggest that a complex interaction is taking place. However, Rich project
communications is significantly correlated with all three success factors.
Y3 Managerial ability to deliver correlates strongly with X4 Strong project commitment,
X5 Early stakeholder influence, X2 Stakeholder endorsement of project plans, and to a
lesser degree, X7 Clear project constraints and X1 Rich project communications. Y1
Project impact correlates strongly with X1 Rich project communications, X4 Strong
project commitment, X9 Influence over on-going project processes, X6 Well understood
and accepted project purpose, and to a lesser extent with X8 Project execution flexibility,
X3 Well structured and formal project approach. Y2 Captured experience correlates with
fewer predictor variables – X3 Well structured and formal project approach, X1 Rich
project communications and to a lesser extent with X5 Early stakeholder influence and
X7 Clear project constraints.
The results of the regression analysis are presented in Table 4.
11
---------Table 4 in about here
---------Project impact is explained in major part by the factor, Rich project communications,
which is based on six variables:
1. Project participants have an open and efficient way of informing each
other as necessary
2. In project meetings there is a good and efficient flow of information
3. The project has well established information and communication routines
4. All key project information is gathered and distributed efficiently
5. The project has a clear and well-planned agenda of meetings for all
participants
6. Project stakeholders are well informed on project progress as necessary
Keeping stakeholders and participants well informed seems to be the key contributor to
the recognition of Project impact in project settings. The beta loadings indicate the
importance of three other factors, Strong project commitment, Well understood and
accepted project purpose and Influence over on-going project processes which account
for 6%, 5% and 5% of the residual variance respectively.
Well-structured and formal project approach and Rich project communications
contribute the most significant amount to the variance in Captured experience. The
combination of communications and a formal approach to managing the project seem to
relate to the degree to which the potential for explicit learning has been put in place.
We can see that Strong project commitment is the factor, which explains most of the
variance explained in relation to Managerial ability to deliver. This factor comprises five
items:
1. Project executors keep within quality parameters in all activities
2. All end user needs and desires are discussed with and agreed by the project's
key executors
3. The project is part of a well documented or understood strategy
4. Project activities are carried out exactly as planned
5. Project executors conform to the planned cost schedule for all activities
The other factor, which relates significantly to Managerial ability to deliver and explains
a reasonable amount of the additional variance, is Early stakeholder influence
comprising:
1. All key participants have been engaged in producing the master plan, or have
had the opportunity to influence it.
2. All participants have been given the opportunity to air their views on the
project's goal or mission.
3. All key people engaged in the project know who has decided its terms of
references.
12
The pattern of beta loadings indicates the relative impact of each component. But from
this analysis it is clear that aspects of involving major stakeholders throughout the project
life cycle has a strong relationship to Managerial ability to deliver.
We can see from this analysis that the pattern of component factors impacting on each of
the outcome variables differs in ways which would suggest that project effort should be
directed differently depending upon which set of outcome variables is considered most
important by the key stakeholders as a measure of success. However one key variable
impacting success on the three dimensions is one of the predominantly softer factors,
Rich project communications, although its impact is greater on both Project impact and
Captured experience.
Implications
Success Criteria
The success criteria identified in this research reflect the immediate short term,
predefined project goals (completion on time and to budget) as well as the longer-term
contribution to ‘organisational health’ in the form of strategic and personal success as
well as captured experience. The latter results from the project’s on-going contribution to
organisational success as well as through documentation to be the basis of a knowledge
management system and support later capability development. The strongest dimension,
however, Project impact, is a dimension representing the potential for the longer-term
impact of the project endeavour. This criterion relates more to the extent to which the
project contributes to achieving strategic aims and the project managers are then
motivated for future projects. The latter take their new tacit knowledge on to future
projects. Much of this high level success is based on rich project communications which
may be seen as making a significant contribution to building trust amongst the key
players and hence effective and sustainable working relationships.
The 3 success criteria appear to offer a good balance between the predetermined
intention, the immediate benefits of project success and the longer-term contribution to
the health of the organisation.
The 3 success criteria appear to offer a good balance between the predetermined
intention, the immediate benefits of project success and the longer-term contribution to
the health of the organisation.
Managerial ability to deliver
1. The application of project management methodologies which are factors widely
recognised as contributing to achievement of project goals (PMI, 2000; Wideman,
1988) strongly emerged as differentiators of the more and less successful projects
(Strong project commitment and Clear project constraints).
13
2. Involvement of stakeholders in the early planning of projects is widely recognised as
a means for gaining commitment to project endeavours and this factor emerged in our
research. This factor is widely recognised in the change management literature as a
strategy for gaining acceptance to certain types of change where one cannot plan the
change process in the same way as those with physical outputs (Cummings and
Woley, 2001; Yukl and Falbe, 1990).
3. Additionally, consistency of support from higher organisational levels in the form of
Stakeholder endorsement of project plans emerged as a differentiator in relation to the
achievement of overall project aims. Again this is evident in other research (Hollis,
1996; Sounder, 1983).
4. The factors that did not emerge as being significantly related to project management
success are of particular interest. Whereas much of the project management literature
prescribes tight project organisation and control, this was not found as a major
contributor to project management success. Neither was a broad understanding of the
project’s strategic purpose significant, nor having influence over on-going project
processes. These factors may well be contingent on the particular national and
business context in which the project is being executed as well as the nature of the
project endeavour.
5. The area least expected to be a differentiator of successful outcomes is that of Rich
project communications. This result contributes relatively little to the explanation of
overall variance even though significant. But it does hint at the possibility that more
communication with stakeholders and actors could benefit many projects in terms of
the achievement of immediate outcomes. This combined with the other factors
relating to stakeholder involvement implies a broadening of the basic project
management role to encompass more involvement with a range of stakeholders in the
tactical decision-making relating to overall project goals.
6. One area not generally identified in earlier studies is the degree of stakeholder
influence over project processes. We are not aware of it being highlighted in the
mainstream project management literature.
Project impact
As indicated at the beginning of the paper, the evaluation of projects is increasingly
including longer-term benefits. This success criterion reflects this concern to the extent to
which the project meets the plans and the needs of a range of stakeholders but it also
includes individual learning, which will aid future project endeavours.
1. Rich project communications is the major contributor to this outcome. Many of the
factors making up this success criterion are of a ‘soft’ nature and hence do not lend
themselves easily to measurement and benchmarking. The richness in communicating
within and outside projects seems to be, on the face of it, an essential aspect of
ensuring stakeholders take a positive view of the longer-term benefits (Kreiner,
1995). Whilst propensity to information sharing may well relate to personality (Might
and Fisher, 1985; Palmer, 1991), evidence is inconclusive and more research has been
called for (Sveiby, 1996; Szulanski, 1996). But processes and procedures can be put
in place to support the activity and training can also have a positive impact on
behaviour.
14
2. Strong project commitment features here as well as in relation to project management
success, but clear project constraints does not explain success in this case. So clear
predetermined targets for completion seem less important in terms of the overall
project and personal outcomes than efforts to conform to more flexible targets, which
reflect the realities of the environmental influences. However, well-understood and
accepted project purpose relates to a good understanding of the strategic intent.
3. Early stakeholder influence does not seem to impact on this success criterion. Again
the influence may be contingent on other factors which impact on some but not all
projects. It may be that in looking at longer-term impact the early involvement has
been overtaken by events.
4. Well-structured and formal project approach implies high quality management. One
would anticipate that stakeholders not directly participating in the project process
would find this particularly satisfactory and confidence building. For those
participating directly this structure would make clear the role expectations,
performance standards and then progress against targets (PMI, 2000).
Captured experience
This factor reflects the growing interest in knowledge management and the need to find
new ways of working for the ‘knowledge economy’ as business activities approach what
Ruggles describes as the ‘speed of light’ (Ruggles, 1997). Increasingly it is being
recognised that competitive advantage is to be gained through superior knowledge
management, capturing experience is a keystone of this.
1. Well-structured and formal project approach implies a level of 'personal safety',
which any manager needs in order to dare to use personal ability and creativity in the
best way. Combined with Rich project communications this would lead to the
adoption of best project management practice and may well result in increased
learning where projects are well executed. The learning aspect in this process is well
documented as a contributor to managerial motivation.
2. Rich project communications was not unexpected in this perspective. Learning and
understanding is in part the result of good communication and the greater the quality
of information sharing the more organisational learning is enabled. Systems being in
place to capture the learning and share it is an essential part of the knowledge
management process (Lundin and Söderholm, 1994).
3. Absent in explaining this outcome are the broader aspects of stakeholder involvement
and influence as well as understanding of the wider strategic purposes. Captured
experience is a factor more centred around project closedown.
Conclusions
This research set out to explore the relative importance in explaining project success of a
range of project critical success factors amenable to action on the part of project
management. Three project success scales were adapted to cover managerial ability to
deliver, project impact and captured experience.
Nine critical success factors were derived from an analysis adopting Principal
Components Analysis. The factors explaining differences in performance were found to
15
vary between the different success factors. Whilst strong project commitment and early
stakeholder involvement in large part explained managerial ability to deliver, rich project
communications supported both product and personal success as well as captured
experience. A well-structured and formal approach also supported captured experience.
So differences were found between the combinations of factors impacting on each
success factor.
From this research managerial ability to deliver appears strongly related to the application
of strong project management based on planning and cost control methodologies, “hard
skills”, whereas project impact as well as captured experience both benefit from rich
project communications, a factor which is less based on project management
methodologies and more dependent upon the application of ‘softer’ skills.
These findings would suggest that as the project approach increases in use as a means for
implementing strategic goals and hence success is measured more on long-term benefits
and impacts, project managers should devote increasing energies into rich
communication both within the project and towards the project environment. This implies
a stronger stakeholder orientation as a means for ensuring project success whether the
stakeholder is internal or external to the organisation.
This was an exploratory study and it would now seem appropriate to undertake
confirmatory studies using a wider sample including project participants from a greater
number of countries and cultures. Further analysis could also be undertaken to test for
differences, between national cultures, project types, size and duration. We encourage
similar studies to be carried out in the Baltic countries.
References
Andersen, E. S. and Jessen, S. A. (2000) "Project Evaluation Scheme", Project
Management, Vol 6 No 1, pp.61-69.
Atkinson, R. (1999) "Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a
phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria", International Journal of
Project Management, Vol 17 No 6, pp.337-42.
Ays, K. (1996) "Professional project management: a shift towards learning and a
knowledge creating structure", International Journal of Project Management, Vol 14
No 3, pp.131-36.
Baccarini, D. (1999) "The logical framework method for defining project success",
Project Management Journal, Vol 30 No 4, pp.25-32.
Belassi, W. and Tukel, O. I. (1996) "A new framework for determining critical
success/failure factors in projects", International Journal of Project Management,
Vol 14 No 3, pp.141-51.
Bonnal, P., Gourc, D., and Lacoste, G. (2002) "The life cycle of technical projects",
Project Management Journal, Vol 33 No 1, pp.12-19.
Cummings, T. G. and Woley, C. G. (2001), Organizational development and change,(7th
ed.), South-Western College Publ., Cincinnati, Ohio.
Drucker, P. F. (1993), Post-capitalist society, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
16
Field, A. (2000), Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows, ISM, London.
Fusco, J. C. (1997) "Better policies provide the key to implementing project
management", Project Management Journal, Vol 28 No 3, pp.37-43.
Gareis, R. and Hueman, M. (2000), "Project management competences in the projectoriented organization," in Gower handbook of project management, J. R. Turner
and S. J. Sinister, Eds. Third ed. Gower, Aldershot.
Globerson, S. and Zwikael, O. (2002) "The impact of the project manager on project
management processes", Project Management Journal, Vol 33 No 3, pp.58-64.
Graham, R. J. (1987), Project Management as if People Mattered, Primavera Press, Bala
Cynwyd, Pa.
Hair, J. F. J., Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R., and Black, W. (1998), Multivariate data
analysis,(5th ed.), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N.J.
Hollis, J. G. (1996), Project Practice: An elaboration of the factors affecting the level of
motivation of project staff, Henley Management College.
Jaafari, A. (2000) "Life-cycle project management: A proposed theoretical model for
development and implementation of capital projects", Project Management Journal,
Vol 31 No 1, pp.44-52.
Keegan, A. and Turner, J. R. (2001) "Quantity versus quality in project-based learning
practices", Management Learning, Vol 32 No 1, pp.77-98.
Kreiner, K. (1995) "In search of relevance: project management in drifting
environments", Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol 11 No 4, pp.335-46.
Leach, L. P. (1999) "Critical chain project management improves project performance",
Project Management Journal, Vol 30 No 2, pp.39-52.
Lidow, D. (1999) "Duck alignment theory: Going beyond classic project management to
maximize project success", Project Management Journal, Vol 30 No 4, pp.8-14.
Lim, C. S. and Mohamed, M. Z. (1999) "Criteria of project success: an exploratory reexamination", International Journal of Project Management, Vol 17 No 4, pp.24348.
Lundin, R. A. and Midler, C. Eds. (1998), Projects as arenas for renewal and learning
processes. Kluwer Academic, Boston.
Lundin, R. A. and Söderholm, A. (1994), "Conceptualization and learning - The black
environment of PM," in 25th Project Management Institute 1994 Annual Seminars
and Symposium. Vancouver, Canada.
Might, R. J. and Fisher, W. A. (1985) "The role of structural factors in determining
project management success", IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol
32 No 2, pp.71-77.
Morris, P. W. G. and Hough, G. H. (1987), The anatomy of major projects: a study of the
reality of project management, Wiley, Chicester.
Munns, A. K. and Bjeirmi, B. F. (1996) "The role of project management in achieving
success", International Journal of Project Management, Vol 14 No 2, pp.81-87.
Palmer, J. (1991) "Scientists and Information: II. Personal factors in information
behaviour", Journal of Documentation, Vol 3 No, pp.254-75.
Pellegrinelli, S. (2002) "Shaping context: the role and challenge for programmes",
International Journal of Project Management, Vol 20 No 3, pp.229-33.
17
Pinto, J. K. and Slevin, D. P. (1987) "Critical factors in successful project
implementation", IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol 34 No 1,
pp.22-27.
---- (1988) "Project success: Definitions and measurement techniques", Project
Management Journal, Vol 19 No 1, pp.67-71.
PMI (2000), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge,(2000 ed.), Project
Management Institute, Newton Square, Pa.
Rockart, J. F. (1979) "Chief executives define their own data needs", Harvard Business
Review, Vol 57 No 2, pp.81-93.
Ruggles, R. L. Ed. (1997), Knowledge management tools. Butterworth-Heinemann,
Boston.
Saeed, K. (1998), Towards sustainable development : essays on system analysis of
national policy,(2nd ed.), Ashgate, Aldershot.
Slevin, D. P. and Pinto, J. K. (1987) "Balancing strategy and tactics in project
implementation", Sloan Management Review, Vol 29 No 1, pp.33-41.
Sounder, W. E. (1983), "Project evaluation and selection," in Project management
handbook, David I. Cleland and William R. King, Eds. Van Nostrand Reinholt,
New York.
Steers, R. M., Porter, L. W., and Bigley, G. A. (1996), Motivation and leadership at work,
(6th ed.), McGraw-Hill, New York.
Sveiby, K. (1996) "Transfer of knowledge and the information processing professions",
European Management Journal, Vol 14 No 4, pp.379-88.
Szulanski, G. (1996) "Exploring internal stickiness: Impediments to the transfer of best
practice within the firm", Strategic Management Journal, Vol 17 No Winter Special
Issue, pp.27-43.
Turner, J. R. (2002) "Project success criteria", Project, No April, pp.32-33.
Wateridge, J. (1998) "How can IS/IT projects be measured for success?" International
Journal of Project Management, Vol 16 No 1, pp.59-63.
Westerveld, E. (2002), "The Project Excellence Model: A concept linking success criteria
and critical success factors," in IRNOP 5. Rotterdam.
Wideman, R. M. (1988), "The Basic for a Profession? The Project Management Body of
Knowledge," in 9th World Congress on Project Management. Glasgow.
Yukl, G. and Falbe, C. M. (1990) "Influence tactics and objectives in upward, downward
and lateral influence attempts", Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 75 No 2,
pp.132-40.
18
Table 1: Principal components analysis of project success factors (X - independents)
using Varimax Rotation (only variables with factor loading greater than 0.45 have been
listed)
% Variance
Project participants have an open and efficient
way of informing each other as necessary
In project meetings there is a good and efficient
flow of information
The project has well established information and
communication routines
All key project information is gathered and
distributed efficiently
The project has a clear and well-planned agenda
of meetings for all participants
Project stakeholders are well informed on project
progress as necessary
All the organisations involved in the project effort
have agreed to provide the project with sufficient
resources
The detailed project plans are understood and
accepted by all project team members
All key participants have participated in the
detailed project planning within their area of
expertise
The detailed plan clearly indicates the
responsibilities of each project participant
The project has its own handbook or manual for
control which is used in an appropriate way
The project has a formal organisational chart
covering the entire project
Project control is executed by good managerial or
technical methods
Planning tools or similar aids are used in an
effective way in project planning
Project executors conform to the planned cost
schedule for all activities
Project executors keep within quality parameters
in all activities
All end user needs and desires are discussed with
and agreed by the project's key executors
The project is part of a well documented or
understood strategy
Project activities are carried out exactly as
planned
All key participants have been engaged in
producing the master plan, or have had the
opportunity to influence it.
All participants have been given the opportunity to
air their views on the project's goal or mission.
28.5
5.96
5.21
4.52
4.26
0.76
0.75
0.71
0.65
0.58
0.49
0.74
0.61
0.58
0.53
0.77
0.71
0.68
0.6
0.72
0.65
0.59
0.52
0.46
0.72
0.69
3.98
3.74
3.17
X9 Influence over
on-going project
processes
X8 Project
execution
flexibility
X7 Clear project
constraints
X6 Well
understood and
accepted project
purpose
X5 Early
stakeholder
influence
X4 Strong project
commitment
X3 Well
structured and
formal project
approach
X2 Stakeholder
endorsement of
project plans
X1 Rich project
communications
Project success factors
2.98
19
All key people engaged in the project know who
has decided its terms of references.
If the project fulfils its goals the results will be of
great value to the end users
The project mission or purpose is clearly stated
0.59
The goal and the purpose of the project is
accepted by all those involved in the project effort
The final date of project completion is clearly
defined for this project.
The financial and time limits for the project are
clearly stated
The project is well described and co-ordinated
with other projects and activities
The project goal and its terms can be changed if
conditions make it necessary
Project superiors ( Top Management, Steering
Committee etc) are available to the key executors
as necessary
All participants can influence both decisionmaking and responsibility allocation in the project
All key people in the project can, if they so desire,
participate in and influence all important decisions
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
0.75
0.71
0.62
0.69
0.68
0.49
0.76
0.65
0.69
0.6
20
% variance explained
The project participants have learned a lot from this project
Y3 Managerial
ability to
deliver
Y2 Captured
experience
Y1 Project
impact
Table 2: Principal components analysis of project success criteria (Y - dependents) using
Varimax Rotation (only variables with factor loading greater than 0.45 have been listed.
37.47 11.19 10.31
0.81
The project participants will be highly motivated for future projects
0.76
when this project is finished (or they were highly motivated on
completion)
The project is or will be regarded as a success by all participants
0.64
The project's end product is already or will be made use of as
0.6
planned
or assigned
The experience gained through this project will be or has been
0.84
discussed in a special meeting or in a final evaluation report
The project organisation will be or has been dissolved professionally
0.68
on project termination
All relevant documents from this project are or will be compiled in a
0.61
separate end-of-project report or file
The project will finish or has been finished within budget
0.78
The project will finish or has been finished on time
0.77
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser
Normalization.
21
Y1 Project
impact
Y2 Captured
experience
Y3 Managerial
ability to deliver
Table 3: Pearson Product Moment Correlations between the predictor and criterion
variables
X1 Rich project communications
0.33**
0.28**
0.16*
X2 Stakeholder endorsement of project plans
0.11
0.05
0.23**
X3 Well structured and formal project approach
0.14*
0.31**
-0.07
X4 Strong project commitment
0.24**
0.03
0.33**
X5 Early stakeholder influence
-0.01
0.14*
0.26**
X6 Well understood and accepted project purpose
0.22**
0.09
0.02
X7 Clear project constraints
0
0.14*
0.18**
X8 Project execution flexibility
0.17**
0.08
0.1
X9 Influence over on-going project processes
0.23**
0
-0.05
22
0.34
0
0.11
2 Stakeholder endorsement of project plans
0.12
0.03
0.01
3 Well structured and formal project approach
0.16
0
0.02
4 Strong project commitment
0.26
0
0.06
5 Early stakeholder influence
6 Well understood and accepted project purpose
0.23
0
0.29
0.08
Sig.
R2 change
Y3 Managerial
ability to deliver
0.29
Standardized Beta
Coefficients
Sig.
R2 change
Y2 Captured
experience
1 Rich project communications
Standardized Beta
Coefficients
R2 change
Sig.
Standardized Beta
Coefficients
Y1 Project impact
Table 4: Relationship between project factors and success based on stepwise linear
regression (only significant relationships are shown)
0.18
0
0.03
0.24
0
0.06
0.32
0
0.09
0.34
0
0.11
0.14
0.01
0.02
0.27
0
0.07
0.17
0
0.03
0.2
0
0.04
0.11
0.04
0.01
0.05
7 Clear project constraints
8 Project execution flexibility
0.17
0
0.03
9 Influence over on-going project processes
0.23
0
0.05