1. Since the 1960s there have been an increasing figure of Project Management

bookmans that have expressed concerns sing the ways to pull off the success or failure of a undertaking. Crawford ( 2000 ) theorised that there are two major avenues of idea in this country being: how success is judged and the factors that contribute to the success. These two avenues were subsequently crowned ‘success factors’ and ‘success criteria’ severally of which both will be discussed in deepness during this essay to supply an penetration for future undertaking direction bookmans.

There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay.
Tell us what you need to have done now!

order now

2. The manner by which a undertaking is judged as to whether it is successful or non has

long since been deliberated by many Project Management bookmans. Crawford’s ( 2000 ) attempts to detail these standards has helped nevertheless a better apprehension is required such that each undertaking director or cardinal stakeholder can take as to what standard will specify whether the undertaking is a success or failure. This subdivision will lucubrate on Crawford’s ( 2000 ) surveies by pulling on one of her rule advisors. Atkinson. Atkinson uses the Iron Triangle as the foundation of the work and so constructing on it to develop a robust methodological analysis for success.


Figure 1: Iron Triangle ( Atkinson. 1999 )


Iron Triangle. Oilsen ( 1971 ) over 50 old ages ago stated that the Iron Triangle

( Atkinson. 1999 ) of Time. Cost and Quality were the cardinal success standards for any undertaking. This trigon was reduced to merely clip and budget by Wright ( 1997 ) nevertheless Turner ( 1993 ) . Morris ( 1987 ) . Wateridge ( 1998 ) . deWit ( 1988 ) . McCoy ( 1987 ) . Pinto and Slevin ( 1988 ) . Saarinen ( 1990 ) . and Ballantine ( 1996 ) all agree that the Iron Triangle should be used albeit non entirely. Temporary usage of standards can be used during certain parts of the undertaking to determine whether or non a undertaking is traveling to be after. An illustration of impermanent standards that was used by Meyer ( 1994 ) was the earned value method.

The Earned value method in a undertaking can show it the undertaking is on path. specifically when earned value ( what the undertaking is deserving at that clip ) is less than existent costs it means the undertaking is over budget. This is countered nevertheless by deWitt ( 1988 ) that states when costs are used as a control they manage advancement instead than undertaking success. Atkinson ( 1999 ) adds that some undertakings may necessitate to be bound by clip ; he uses a Millennium undertaking ( e. g. a computing machine system with a possible twelvemonth 2000. Y2K. bug ) as an illustration. if the undertaking doesn’t run into the clip restraint it could hold ruinous effects.


Alter ( 1996 ) considers procedure and organizational ends as another step.

using the construct of ‘did they do it right’ and ‘did they acquire it right’ ; this gives rise to the construct of mensurating success both during and after the undertaking. Atkinson ( 1999 ) reflects this construct by the debut of the ‘Square Root. ’ which proposes three extra standards to the Iron
Triangle. The three extra standards for finding undertaking success are: the proficient strength of the end point system. the benefits to the

attendant administration ( direct benefits ) and the benefits to the wider stakeholder community ( indirect benefits ) . A elaborate dislocation of the Square Root is explained in table 1.







( administration )

( stakeholder community )



Improved efficiency.

Satisfied users. Social and



Improved effectivity.

Environmental impact.



Increased net incomes.

Personal development.


Strategic ends.

Professional acquisition. and

quality usage


contractors’ net incomes.

Reduced waste

Capital providers. content
undertaking squad. economic
impact to environing

Table 1: The Square Root ( Atkinson. 1999 )

Figure 2: The Square Root ( Atkinson. 1999 )


The Information System. Whilst Atkinson ( 1999 ) doesn’t detail the

information system success criteria other than what is described in the tabular array it is sensible to propose he was concerned with the ‘ilities’ of the undertaking. Essentially Atkinson was sing the care of the undertaking to guarantee that it was non merely resourced but besides governed that the information would back up its continued success.


Organizational Benefits. Success of a undertaking must non merely be considered

from an single position. instead it must look at how it will besides profit the administration. Table 1 nowadayss these countries nevertheless there are two countries that must be considered separately. viz. efficiency and effectivity. Success of a undertaking is non needfully guaranteed due to efficiency. cut downing the sum of work load due to shortening of treating won’t needfully assist without the consideration of effectivity. Effectiveness considers whether or non the ends are being achieved therefore when placed with efficiency it ensures that the ends are being achieve rapidly and in full.


Stakeholder Community Benefits. The concluding country of the Square Root that

Atkinson considers is the success standard that benefits the stakeholder community. These standard consider the wider benefits of non merely the direct results of the undertaking instead this country considers the stakeholder satisfaction and the societal and environmental impacts that the undertaking provides. These countries in a house undertaking for illustration are standards that improve the socioeconomic factors of the community around the existent house.

Therefore this undertaking could utilize improved gardens or ocular impacts of the lodging undertaking that will better the community’s position of the suburb instead than merely that peculiar site. These secondary and third impacts provide success standards for the undertaking. Furthermore in the acquisition of a new aircraft for military the stakeholder community benefits that could be used as success standards could be the degree of host state employment or engagement to better their cognition base. Therefore whilst it may non better the existent new aircraft it will let the host state to construct the aircraft themselves following clip that that state wishes to buy a new aircraft.


Since the late 1960’s Project Management bookmans have been seeking to set up

the factors that lead to project success ( Baker. 1988 ) ( Pinto. 1988 ) ( Lechler. 1988 ) . which have led to decisions being published for undertaking direction practicians. Despite decennaries of research and countless articles being written ( Kloppenborg. 2000 ) ( Morris. 1994 ) undertakings continue to let down stakeholders ( O’Connor and Reinsborough 1992 ) ( Standish Group. 1995 ) ( Cooke-Davies. 2000 ) . So what factors really lead to successful undertakings? Cooke-Davies ( 2002 ) states that undertaking success

factors are based upon replying three separate inquiries: “What factors are critical to project direction success? ” . “What factors a critical to single success on a undertaking? ” and “What factors lead to systematically successful undertakings? ” 9.

What factors are critical to project direction success? Cooke-Davies

( 2002 ) analysed a choice of 136 mainly European undertakings which varied in size and range nevertheless had an norm of $ 16M over a period of two old ages. a elaborate dislocation is at ( Cooke-Davies. 2000 ) . The analysis found a surprising distinction between the correlativity of agenda hold and cost escalation. merely a little sum of cost escalation was accounted for agenda hold. This analysis found that when adequateness and adulthood particular undertaking direction patterns are compared with the public presentation of each standard so different patterns are found to correlate significantly.

This correlativity relates to nine factors ( the first nine factors depicted at Table 1 ) . The analysis for “Adequacy of certification of organizational duties on the project” is depicted at figure 1 with the perpendicular axis demoing the 95 % assurance interval of clip predictability and the horizontal axis demoing ‘not at all adequate’ ( 1 ) to ‘fully adequate’ ( 4 ) . Basically it shows that the more equal the factor the more assurance can be shown that the undertaking will accomplish its agenda mark.

Figure 3: Adequacy of undertaking certification bettering agenda assurance ( Cooke-Davies. 2002 )


What factors are critical to the success of an person undertaking? Cooke-

Davies ( 2002 ) suggests that there is a individual factor ; which leads to single undertaking success. He states that the being of an effectual benefits bringing and direction procedure that involves the common co-operation of undertaking direction and line direction maps ( Table 2. Factor 9 ) . Without this factor an person undertaking is likely to singularly neglect. Basically this factor requires a procedure to which the undertaking result is delivered and managed. This factor farther requires the cooperation of a undertaking squad with a individual end to accomplish this undertaking benefit result. 11.

What factors lead to systematically successful undertakings? Cooke-Davies ( 2002 )

now moves off from the person undertaking and considers that corporate
maps that enable a undertaking to win. Whilst this analysis was complex to deduce from analysis it was found via extended questionnaires three chief factors corporate influenced the factors for undertaking success. These three factors are identified at Table 2 ( Factors 10-12 ) nevertheless straight relate to resourcing. feedback cringle and larning from experience.


Resourcing ( Table 2. Factor 10 ) being governed by corporate is indispensable to

undertaking success. for if a undertaking is non able to hold the right people or assets at the right clip a undertaking is improbable to win. If a undertaking direction corporation sets up the right programs. procedures and processs to guarantee that each one of its subordinate undertakings are adequately resourced. Davies-Cooke ( 2002 ) envisages that it is set up for success. An illustration of this is the development of Standard Operating Procedures for purchase of support equipment in a large-scale acquisition undertaking. The standardization of this resource alliance by corporate enables the factors for success subsequently in the undertaking.


Feedback cringles ( Table 2. Factor 11 ) are indispensable to a line director cognizing if

what they are making is appropriate and in line with the undertaking director and the stakeholder’s perceptual experiences of what the undertaking needs to win. Whilst it is acknowledged that if a feedback cringle is excessively short it will be given to mislead a line director instead than better the opportunities of success. This is the occupation of the undertaking trough to guarantee that the cringle is right for the peculiar undertaking. for illustration a long lead clip undertaking is suited to a larger feedback cringle whereas a rapid paradigm undertaking

demands to hold potentially day-to-day feedback to identify line directors to guarantee the undertaking is traveling in the right way given the potentially fast inventions in engineering. Cooke-Davies ( 2002 ) eventually proposes the success factor of larning from experience ( Table 2. Factor 12 ) . Corporations should in order to win implement programs. programmes. and processs to guarantee that the lessons learnt from old undertakings are non re-learnt the difficult manner.

Constantly ( Pinto. 1990 ) ( Robertson. 2006 ) ( Baker. 1988 ) ( Atkinson. 1999 ) when undertaking scholars analyze how a undertaking has performed it is recognised that a batch of issues that cause failure are non ground interrupting instead they are merely repeated with a hold cringle. Thus undertaking direction corporations should endeavor to guarantee that as a undertaking is happening solutions to jobs they are documented to guarantee that in the following undertaking they are non realised once more. 14.

These three inquiries relate straight back to a barbarous ‘oval’ of influences as

depicted by Cooke-Davies ( 2002 ) of four cardinal elements ( Figure 4 ) . These influences from a undertaking direction. single undertaking and corporate country all play out to enable success of a undertaking.

Figure 4: Corporate Undertaking Success Model ( Cooke-Davies. 2002 )










Factor Type
Success Factor
Success Factor
Success Factor
Success Factor
Success Factor
Success Factor
Success Factor
Success Factor
Undertaking Success


success factors


success factors


success factors

Adequacy of company-wide instruction on
the constructs of hazard direction.

Factor that correlates to on
clip public presentation

Maturity of an organisation’s procedures
for delegating ownership of hazards.

Factor that correlates to on
clip public presentation

Adequacy with which a seeable hazards
registry is maintained.

Factor that correlates to on
clip public presentation

Adequacy of an up-to-date hazard
direction program.

Factor that correlates to on
clip public presentation

Adequacy of certification of
organizational duties on the
Keep undertaking ( or undertaking phase continuance ) as
far below 3 old ages as possible ( 1 twelvemonth is
better ) .
Allow alterations to scope merely through a
mature range alteration control procedure.

Factor that correlates to on
clip public presentation

Keep the unity of the public presentation
measurement baseline.

Factor that correlates to on
budget public presentation

Factor that correlates to on
clip public presentation
Factor that correlates to on
budget public presentation

The being of an effectual benefits
bringing and direction procedure that
involves the common co-operation of
undertaking direction and line
direction functions”
Portfolio and programme direction
patterns that allow the endeavor to
resource to the full a suite of undertakings that are
thoughtfully and dynamically matched to
the corporate scheme and concern
A suite of undertaking. programme and
portfolio prosodies that provides direct
‘‘line of sight’’ feedback on current
undertaking public presentation. and awaited
future success. so that undertaking. portfolio
and corporate determinations can be aligned.
An effectual agencies of ‘‘learning from
experience’’ on undertakings. that combines
explicit cognition with tacit cognition
in a manner that encourages people to larn
and to implant that larning into
uninterrupted betterment of undertaking
direction procedures and patterns.

Table 2: Success Factors ( Cooke-Davies. 2002 )


This essay has discussed the ways to pull off success of a undertaking via two agencies

being how it is judged and the factors that contribute to its success. The success standards have been shown to be broad and varied nevertheless they finally boil down to the Iron trigon. the information system. organizational benefits. stakeholder community benefits. Furthermore the factors that lead to this success are multiple nevertheless they are largely governed on the undertaking mangers competency to guarantee that the undertaking is maintained within the trigon of clip. cost and range.


Alter S. Information Systems a direction position. 2nd erectile dysfunction. Benjamin and Cummings. California. 1996.
Atkinson RW. Effective Organisations. Re-framing the Thinking for Information Systems Projects Success. 13–16. Cassell. London. 1997.
Atkinson. R. . Undertaking direction: cost. clip and quality. two best conjectures and a phenomenon. its clip to accept other success standards. International Journal of Project Management. Volume 17. Issue 6. December 1999. Pages 337-342. retrieved from: hypertext transfer protocol: //dx. Department of the Interior. org/10. 1016/S0263-7863 ( 98 ) 00069-6.

Baker BN. Murphy DC. Fisher D. Factors impacting undertaking success. In: Cleland DI. King WR. editors. Project direction enchiridion. ( 2nd ed. ) . New York: John Wiley. 1988.
Ballantine. J. Bonner. M. Levy. M. Martin. A. Munro. I and Powell. PL. The 3-D theoretical account of information systems successes: the hunt for the dependant variable continues. Information Resources Management Journal. 1996. 9 ( 4 ) . 5-14. Cooke-Davies TJ. 2000. Towards improved undertaking direction pattern. PhD thesis. Leeds Metropolitan University.

Crawford. Lynn ( 2000 ) Profiling the Competent Project Manager. In: Undertaking Management Research at the Turn of the Millennium: Proceedings of PMI Research Conference. 21 – 24 June. 2000. Paris. France. pp. 3-15. Sylva. North carolina: Undertaking Management Institute

( file transfer protocol: //ns1. ystp. Ac. ir/YSTP/1/1/ROOT/DATA/PDF/MISC/PMI2000 % 20Research. pdf ) de Wit. A. Measurement of undertaking direction success. International Journal of Project Management. 1988. 6 ( 3 ) . 164-170.
Kloppenborg TJ. Opfer WA. Forty old ages of undertaking direction research: tendencies. readings and anticipations. Proceedings of PMI research conference Paris undertaking direction institute. Paris: Undertaking Management Institute. 2000. Lechler T. 1998. When it comes to project direction. it’s the people that affair: an empirical analysis of undertaking direction in Germany.

In: Hartman. F. . Jergeas. G. . Thomas. J. editors. IRNOP III. The nature and function of undertakings in the following 20 old ages: research issues and jobs. Calgary University of Calgary. pp. 205–15 McCoy FA. Measuring Success: Establishing and Keeping A Baseline. Project direction Institute Seminar/Symposium Montreal Canada. Sep. 1987. 47-52. Meyer C. How the right steps help squads excel. Harvard Business Review 1994. 95-103.

Morris PWG. Hough GH. The Anatomy of Major Projects. John Wiley. 1987. Morris PWG. The direction of undertakings. London: Thomas Telford. 1994. O’Connor MM. Reinsborough L. Quality undertakings in the ninetiess: a reappraisal of past undertakings and future tendencies. International Journal of Project Management 1992 ; 10 ( 2 ) :107–14.

Oilsen. RP. Can project direction be defined? Project Management Quarterly. 1971. 2 ( 1 ) . 12-14.
Pinto JK. Slevin DP. Critical success factors across the undertaking life rhythm. Project Management Journal 1988 ; 19 ( 3 ) :67–75.
Pinto. J. K. ; Mantel. S. J. . Jr. . “The causes of undertaking failure. ” Engineering Management. IEEE Transactions on. vol. 37. no. 4. pp. 269. 276. Nov 1990. hypertext transfer protocol: //ieeexplore. ieee. org/stamp/stamp. jsp? tp= & A ; arnumber=62322 & A ; isnumber=2268 Pinto. JK and Slevin. DP. Critical success factors across the undertaking lifecycle. Project Management Journal. 1988. XIX. 67-75.

Robertson. S. and Williams. T. Understanding undertaking failure: utilizing cognitive function in an insurance undertaking. Southampton. UK. University of Southampton. 43pp. University of Southampton Discussion Paper Series: Centre for Operational Research. Management Sciences and Information Systems. 2006.

Saarinen. T. Systems development methodological analysis and undertaking success. Information and Management. 1990. 19. 183-193.
Standish Group. 1995. Chaos. Available: hypertext transfer protocol: //standishgroup. com/ visitor/chaos. htm.
Terry Cooke-Davies. The “real” success factors on undertakings. International Journal of Project Management. Volume 20. Issue 3. April 2002. Pages 185-190. ISSN 02637863. hypertext transfer protocol: //dx. Department of the Interior. org/10. 1016/S0263-7863 ( 01 ) 00067-9.
Turner JR. The Handbook of Project-based Management. McGraw-Hill. 1993. Wateridge. J. How can IS/IT undertakings be measured for success? International Journal of undertaking Management. 1998. 16 ( 1 ) . 59- 63.

Wright. JN. Time and budget: the duplicate jussive moods of a undertaking patron. International Journal of Project Management. 1997. 15 ( 3 ) . 181-186.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *