Research Essay
Assignment 3
Submitted via Moodle – ZBUS8147 – Business of Managing Projects
Z5021908 Steven Shi
Abstract
This essay discusses various views of how project success is measured. Crawford
(2000) highlighted that the method of measuring project success could be divided into
two major concerns – how success is judged (success criteria) and the factors that
contribute to the success of projects (success factors). In light of the introduction of
this concept, this essay focuses on both of these concerns and attempts to address the
major areas of obstruction that prevent organisations achieving project success by
considering various sub categories. The determination of this essay pertains to the
joint employment of these sub categories with the traditional success criteria for
project success.
Introduction
Traditional definitions of project success have been very narrow, leading to models of
project management performance that would focus exclusively on activities that were
managed to time, budget and specifications. Recent developments in the project
management discipline suggest that new models should reflect the multi faceted
dimensions concerning quality, stakeholder and operating environments (Bryde, 2003,
pg. 230). Atkinson (1999, pg. 337) shared these views and postulated that cost, time
and quality (The Iron Triangle) has over the last 50 years become intimately linked to
the measurement of project success. Historically projects were managed as technical
systems rather than behavioural systems (Belout and Gauvreau, 2004, pg. 2). This
suggests that projects were results focused with the main objective being the meeting
of target dates, controlling the final quality and achieving financial milestones. For
organisational effectiveness, these ideals require project focus, but also balance.
Mintzberg (1991, pg. 66) presented a method of measuring effectiveness using a more
mathematical approach he refers to as “contradiction.” This approach is about the
balance of all forces acting within an organisation.
In some instances, different success criteria exist where one or more component of
The Iron Triangle is preferred. Some customers are more interested in the
achievement of high technical performance rather than maintaining a project on
schedule and without cost overrun (Zwikael and Globerson, 2006, pg. 693).
Organisations that fall into this category were observed to have high customer
satisfaction and technical performance but performed relatively poorly on cost and
schedule.
Kerzner (2013, pg. 68) parallels these archetypes and defines excellence in project
management when an organisation is able to create an environment in which exists a
continuous stream of successfully managed projects. Success is measured by what is
in the best interest of the project and the organisation. Delivering projects on time,
within cost and with the required specifications is the primary success factor under the
traditional definition. Scope change has been seen on multiple occasions and can be
attributed to either technical or business factors (Kerzner, 2013, pg. 1148). Proper
planning will mitigate against this.
Project Planning
Studies conducted by Zwikael and Globerson (2006, pg. 689) have shown that
planning is one of the critical success factors in project conduct. High quality
planning greatly increases the proper execution of the project with responsibility lying
with the project manager. The project manager as the integration manager (Kerzner,
2013, pg. 14) ensures the project is carried out correctly and to the satisfaction of all
stakeholders.
The employment of effective project planning is not consistent amongst different
industries with the deviation being attributed to the nature of operation. An example
of this is with industries involved with construction and engineering (thus project
oriented) were the best at maintaining project success (Zwikael and Globerson, 2006,
pg. 698). Production and maintenance organisations engaged in less project planning
due to their perceived effort with maintaining the tempo of day-to-day operations.
With regards to the project success analysis conducted, organisations that utilised
successful project planning were able to make savings on cost overruns. Conversely,
those without successful planning methods quoted spending of up to 400 percent more
than the original budget (Zwikael and Globerson, 2006, pg. 692). With schedule
overruns, similar results were presented ranging from well ahead of time for project
completion, to schedule overruns of over 300 percent. Hence there is a direct
correlation between the quality of planning and success.
Risk Management
Risk management, in the context of managerial activities, is another success factor,
and can be seen as an independent variable with project success as the dependent
variable (Raz, Shenhar and Dvir, 2002, pg. 108). With this in mind, it is then to the
greater benefit of organisations to maximize the ability to be risk averse by employing
a robust risk management process (Kerzner, 2013, pg. 883). Risk Management
Planning (RMP) can be justified for almost all projects. Some elements of risk
management planning are applicable to all programs and projects of up to medium
complexity. Full RMP need only be considered for projects that are constantly
shifting with the technological environment in a dynamic manner. Equally as
important is the existence of suitable behavioural and organisational considerations to
facilitate implementation (Kerzner, 2013, pg. 920). The full usefulness of RMP is in
avoiding overruns often concerned with time and budget. It is less effective in
assisting to achieve better performance outcomes and product specifications.
According to Raz et al (2002, pg. 101), risk management practices were not widely
used in industry. A limited number of projects in their study employed risk
management practices and it was seen that once used, there was a direct relation to
project success. Organisations that cannot achieve success suffer from the major
weakness of poor employment of risk planning (Zwikael and Globerson, 2006, pg.
698). These weak organisations assume project success, and in doing so, fail to
consider and analyse risks to their project, and do not conduct preparation.
Within the current view of project management as a life cycle process (Kerzner, 2013,
pg. 78), risk management planning is carried through project definition, planning,
execution and control and closure (Raz et al, 2002, pg. 102). The primary purpose of
employing project risk management was previously discussed as directly correlating
with meeting time and budget goals. A possible reason that this success factor
behaves in such a way may be that organisational attitudes towards the project risk
and the specific techniques employed for risk management may both be directed
towards the risk of failing to meet time and budget aspects, rather than considering all
aspects (Raz et al, 2002, pg. 105).
Project Management Performance and Project Performance
The success factors that contribute to project success can be considered in terms of the
interaction between project management performance and project performance. Bryde
(2003, pg. 238) was able to relate these two success factors into the formulation of six
success criteria in the Project Management Performance Assessment (PMPA) model.
The first criteria presented was Project Manager leadership. With this criteria, it was
demonstrated that there was widespread agreement that a project is perceived as a
pertinent vessel for managing all types of business – related change and that
leadership was influenced by a subject’s involvement in project work (Bryde, 2003,
pg. 238). A well-trained project manager with an effective leadership style was a key
factor linked with project success. This is because as a team builder, he/she can create
an effective team (Todryk, 1990, pg. 19). Kerzner (2013) mirrors both the
observations made by Todryk and Bryde. The Project Management Maturity Model
he developed stated that project success could be achieved in five steps. In summary,
the steps were: 1) common project management language; 2) common processes
assisting the development of a culture that supports project management; 3)
consistency in project execution; 4) benchmarking for process improvements; and, 5)
lessons learnt are captured and used in continuous improvement (Kerzner, 2001, pg.
42).
Following on from this and directly associated was the second criteria – Project
Management staff. The findings regarding this criteria were that organisations were
able to increase their project management capability through the development of their
team members. Project members who worked in an environment which rewarded and
recognized effective project work greatly assisted this (Bryde, 2003, pg. 239).
Considering the joint operation of the first two success criteria resulted in Project
Management Policy and Strategy as the third success criteria. Organisations with a
greater deal of project management experience, and hence a higher degree of
developing it in a formal fashion, had a higher perception of successful projects
(Bryde, 2003, pg. 240). A study by Belout and Gauvreau (2004, pg. 7) revealed that
Management Support and Trouble – Shooting variables were significantly correlated
with success, regardless of the organisational structure type. In all instances, top
management support and problem identification were critical success factors (Belout
and Gauvreau, 2004, pg. 7). Being able to maintain success is a long-term strategy
through maturity and excellence (Kerzner, 2013, pg. 68). The executive committee
must manifest this goal through monitoring and guiding the process. Additional
guidance can be provided from a Functional Project Office working with a Strategic
Project Office (Kerzner, 2013, pg. 1100). The focus of this team should be on the
successes and areas for improvement concerned with augmenting the strategies
introduced. Departmental overlaps that exist within organisations are able to work
together effectively until the point where success becomes normality.
In instances where it may seem precarious that project success cannot be achieved,
success is possible but will require the recognition from the individual departments
within the organisation that the current situation is untenable. To correct this
circumstance, a firm commitment from all departments to move forward in a
organised manner is required. As mentioned, what is most important is the leadership
group shaping the strategic direction of the functional groups by clearly articulating
the value of the ‘project’ as a whole. Individual members who pose resistance need to
be realigned to the organisational culture. To mitigate and address resistance, change
managers are sought to assist top management in developing solutions (Kerzner,
2013, pg. 96). In line with this, the key objectives for top management would be to
develop, adopt and communicate the organisation’s strategic vision, demonstrate
commitment to the this and establish robust lines of communication to facilitate
collaboration and cooperation between staff. The nature of this successful
implementation results in quality planning as with strong contribution by manger
expertise and organisational culture (Zwikael and Globerson, 2006, pg. 695).
Selecting an appropriate project manager that fits the characteristics of the project is
paramount in achieving tactical support through the organisational culture and the
project office (Zwikael and Globerson, 2006, pg. 697).
The first three criteria of Bryde’s PMPA model are supported by recent literature
where engineering and construction organisations were found to have high maturity
levels and capabilities of performing project processes to success. The main reasons
for this were a direct result of strong leadership, information sharing and explicit
degrees of authorization for team members (Zwikael and Globerson, 2006, pg. 689).
Bryde (2003, pg. 240) intended the fourth criteria to relate to Project Management
Partnerships and Resources. In successful projects, a high proportion of situations in
the study showed that the existence of partnerships with customers had formally
defined relationships through written contracts.
The fifth component of the PMPA model was Project Life Cycle Management
Processes. Here, the survey showed identification of critical business processes had a
relationship to the management of the project life cycle typically being carried out in
organisations with a strong focus on project work. It was found that life cycle models
helped organisations develop a common project language, a culture of open
communications with stakeholders and an understanding of the critical project related
business processes. Project members regarded the existence of written procedures,
established to facilitate uniformity and consistency in carrying out key project
management related business processes very useful. The guidance provided by these
procedures, facilitated the management of the projects through their life cycle (Bryde,
2003, pg. 242).
Consideration was given to the final criteria as the Project Management Key
Performance Indicators (KPI) with the two most important KPI related to project
management being Client/customer perception and Meeting specified project
objectives. Organisations that enjoyed success managed these two KPI most
effectively and organisations that had no formal methods to manage these, had a
desire to introduce such an approach (Bryde, 2003, pg. 242).
Limitations to traditional success definitions
Current research supports the notion that both factors and criteria for success are
believed to be known. Most project management systems (such as methodologies,
tools, or knowledge) exhibit failed attempts in their employment due to the fact that
organisations consistently measured success against tried and failed criteria
(Atkinson, 1999, pg. 337). Continuing to use the traditional criteria as a measure of
success failed to reveal useful employment of project management systems. It has
already been mentioned that various authors defined the traditional measures for
success as limited to the criteria of The Iron Triangle. Project management continued
to fail because even if these criteria were achieved, it was simply a demonstration on
the chance of meeting two best guesses and a phenomena correctly. The Iron Triangle
should form part of success criteria, but not exclusively (Atkinson, 1999, pg. 338).
Another view on successful project management was the judgement of whether a
project was done right. This involved the conduct of a project that may be delivered
within cost, to some standard of quality and on time however, the evaluation of
perceived success in the organisation’s point of view may not consider the end
products use by the customer, nor the effectiveness or efficiency of the project
conduct (Atkinson, 1999, pg. 338). Opinions on The Iron Triangle point to cost,
quality or time being more heavily weighted for success. As an example, New years’
eve countdown and fireworks must fulfill the on time objective for success. Projects
such as these focus on the delivery phase, alternatively referred to as “doing
something right” (Atkinson, 1999, pg. 339). Projects that deal with safety critical
systems have the quality aspect as the dominant criteria with the focus on “getting
something right” (Atkinson, 1999, pg. 339). Kerzner (2013, pg. 445) states that proper
management technique which involves: established specifications; realistic schedules
and costing; avoidance of buy-ins; and, avoidance of over optimism will assist in the
dealings of The Iron Triangle.
Less traditional views concerning other success criteria can be presented in the form
of multidimensional universal framework for considering success (Raz et al, 2002, pg.
104). The delivery phase discussed by Atkinson’s study is only concerned with
measuring project efficiency. Considering the post project delivery phase, the most
import success criteria were: impact on customer, measurable within a couple of
weeks of implementation; business success, measurable after one to two years; and,
preparing for the future, measurable after about four to five years (Atkinson, 1999, pg.
340). These timings are inline with the Kerzner maturity model.
Considering Atkinson’s post project phase success criteria and combining these with
the viewpoints presented by the other writers, the traditional classification of success
criteria can be developed further with the addition of three new categories. These can
be summarised into (Atkinson, 1999, pg. 341): technical strength of the resultant
system; benefits to the resultant organisation (“Direct Benefits”); and, benefits to the
wider stakeholder community (“Indirect benefits”), referred to as The Square Route.
Expanding further on this, the information system contains outcomes such as
maintainability, reliability. The direct benefits include improvements to efficiency,
effectiveness, profits, strategic goals and reduced waste. Indirect benefits include
satisfied users, good social and environmental impact, personal development and
good economic impact to surrounding community. These outcomes are not new but
quantify the research conducted by the Bryde, Zwikael and Globerson and Raz et al
where the consideration for critical success factors presented numerous lists and
models concerning project efficiency, customer impact, direct business success an
preparing for the future (Belout and Gauvreau, 2004, pg. 2).
Amongst the literature the general agreement concerns schedule and budget
performance alone being inaccurate measures of project success. Despite this, they are
still important components of the overall construct, forming integral components of
The Square Route. Project success as an entire article required that the quality of
success be linked with issues of performance in a technical environment,
specifications, and achievement of functional objectives (Prabhakar, 2008, pg. 2).
Project stakeholders will perceive the interaction of this achievement against success
criteria with the most variation.
Conclusion
The research essay discussed the contribution of success factors and success criteria to
overall project success. These components were further broken down into risk
management, project planning, project management performance and project
performance and limitations to traditional success definitions. By considering the sub
categories it was shown that traditional definitions of success criteria in the form of
cost, quality and time were no longer effective by themselves in current operating
environments. These criteria functioning in isolation resulted in poor project risk
management practices that left room for improvement and prevented efficient project
planning. This essay showed that due consideration given to project management
performance with project performance nested the best opportunity for measuring
project success in light of the sub categories.
References:
Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses
and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International journal of
project management, 17(6): 337-342.
Belout, A. and C. Gauvreau (2004). Factors influencing project success: the impact of
human resource management. International journal of project management, 22(1): 1-
11.
Bryde, D. J. (2003). Modelling project management performance. International
Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20(2): 229-254.
Kerzner, H. (2013). Project Management – A systems approach to Planning,
Scheduling and Controlling. Eleventh edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Kerzner, H. (2001). Strategic Planning for Project Management using a Project
Management Maturity Model. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Mintzberg, H. (1991). The Effective Organization: Forces and Forms. Sloan
Management Review, 32(2): 54-67.
Prabhakar, G.P. (2008). What is project success: a Literature review. International
Journal of Project Management, 3(9): 1-10.
Raz, T., Shenhar, A. J., and Dvir, D. (2002). Risk management, project success, and
technological uncertainty. R&D Management, 32(2):101-109.
Todryk, L. (1990). The project manager as a team builder: creating an effective team.
Project Management Journal, 16(4): 17–21.
Zwikael, O., and Globerson, S. (2006). Benchmarking of project planning and success
in selected industries. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 13(6): 688-700.
