Project success: success factor and success criteria Essay

1.Since the 1960s there have been an increasing number of toil concernscholars that have expressed concerns regarding the ways to sleep with the winner or harm of a forge. Crawford (2000) theorised that there are deuce major avenues of thought in this area being how victory is judged and the factors that contribute to the success. These dickens avenues were later crowned success factors and success criteria respectively of which both will be discussed in depth during this essay to provide an insight for future forecast perplexity scholars.SUCCESS CRITERIA2.The way by which a pop is judged as to whether it is successful or not haslong since been deliberated by many assure Management scholars. Crawfords (2000) efforts to detail these criteria has careed however a better understanding is required such that each confuse manager or key stakeholder puke rent as to what criterion will defined whether the project is a success or failure. This section will elaborate on Crawfor ds (2000) studies by mechanical drawing on one of her principle advisers, Atkinson. Atkinson uses the Iron trilateral as the foundation of the work and then building on it to develop a robust methodology for success.2Figure 1 Iron Triangle (Atkinson, 1999)3.Iron Triangle. Oilsen (1971) all over fifty years ago stated that the Iron Triangle(Atkinson, 1999) of Time, Cost and graphic symbol were the key success criteria for any project. This triangle was reduced to just time and bud own by W even off (1997) however 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 not exclusively. Temporary use of criteria can be used during certain parts of the project to ascertain whether or not a project is going to plan. An example of temporary criteria that was used by Meyer (1994) was the earned value method.The Earned value method in a project can demonstrate it the project is on track, specifically when earned value (what the project is worth at that time) is less than actual costs it kernel the project is over cypher. This is countered however by deWitt (1988) that states when costs are used as a control they manage progress rather than project success. Atkinson (1999) adds that some projects may command to be bound by time he uses a Millennium project (e.g. a computer system with a potential year 2000, Y2K, bug) as an example, if the project doesnt meet the time constraint it could have catastrophic consequences.4.Alter (1996) considers process and organisational goals as another measure,utilising the concept of did they do it right and did they get it right this gives rise to the concept of measuring success both during and after the project. Atkinson (1999) reflects this concept by the introduction of the Square Root, which proposes triplet additional criteria to the IronTriangle. The three additional criteria for de termining project success are the technical strength of the resultant system, the benefits to the3resultant organisation (direct benefits) and the benefits to the wider stakeholder companionship (indirect benefits). A detailed dislocation of the Square Root is explained in table 1.IronInformationBenefitsBenefitsTrianglesystem(organisation)(stakeholder community)Cost,Maintainability,Improved efficiency,Satisfied users, Social andQuality,Reliability,Improved effectiveness,Environmental impact.TimeValidity,increase profits,Personal development,InformationStrategic goals,Professional learning, andquality useOrganisational-learning,contractors profits.Reduced wasteCapital suppliers, contentproject team, economicimpact to surroundingcommunity. send back 1 The Square Root (Atkinson, 1999)Figure 2 The Square Root (Atkinson, 1999)5.The Information System. Whilst Atkinson (1999) doesnt detail the info system success criteria other than what is expound in the table it is reasonable to sugge st he was concerned with the ilities of the project. essentially Atkinson was considering the maintenance of the project to warrant that it was not only resourced but also governed that the information would support its continued success.46.Organisational Benefits. Success of a project must not only be consideredfrom an unmarried perspective, rather it must look at how it will also benefit the organisation. Table 1 presents these areas however there are two areas that must be considered someonely, namely efficiency and effectiveness. Success of a project is not necessarily guaranteed due to efficiency, reducing the amount of workload due to shortening of processing wont necessarily help without the contemplation of effectiveness. Effectiveness considers whether or not the goals are being achieved thus when placed with efficiency it ensures that the goals are being achieve quickly and in full.7.Stakeholder Community Benefits. The final exam area of the Square Root thatAtkinson c onsiders is the success criterion that benefits the stakeholder community. These criterion consider the wider benefits of not just the direct outcomes of the project rather this area considers the stakeholder satisfaction and the loving and environmental impacts that the project provides. These areas in a house project for example are criteria thatimprove the socioeconomic factors of the community around the actual house.Thus this project could use improved gardens or visual impacts of the housing project that will improve the communitys view of the suburb rather than just that particular site. These secondary and tertiary impacts provide success criteria for the project. Furthermore in the acquisition of a new-made aircraft for military the stakeholder community benefits that could be used as success criteria could be the level of host nation employment or involvement to improve their knowledge base. Thus whilst it may not improve the actual new aircraft it will allow the host n ation to build the aircraft themselves next time that that nation wishes to procure a new aircraft.SUCCESS FACTORS8.Since the late 1960s Project Management scholars have been trying to establishthe factors that petabit to project success (bread maker, 1988) (Pinto, 1988) (Lechler, 1988), which have led to conclusions being published for project direction practitioners. Despite decades of investigate and countless articles being written (Kloppenborg, 2000) (Morris, 1994) projects continue to disappoint stakeholders (OConnor and Reinsborough 1992) (Standish Group, 1995) (Cooke-Davies, 2000). So what factors actually lead to successful projects? Cooke-Davies (2002) states that project success5factors are based upon answering three separate questions What factors are critical to project focal point success?, What factors a critical to individual success on a project? and What factors lead to consistently successful projects? 9.What factors are critical to project management success ? Cooke-Davies(2002) analysed a selection of 136 mainly European projects which varied in size and mise en scene however had an average of $16M over a period of two years, adetailed breakdown is at (Cooke-Davies, 2000). The analysis found a surprising specialism between the correlation of schedule delay and cost escalation, only a small amount of cost escalation was accounted for schedule delay. This analysis found that when adequacy and due date specific project management practices are compared with the performance of each criterion then different practices are found to cor bring up significantly.This correlation relates to nine factors (the starting line nine factors depicted at Table 1). The analysis for Adequacy of documentation of organisational responsibilities on the project is depicted at figure 1 with the vertical axis of rotation showing the 95% confidence interval of time predictability and the horizontal axis showing not at all adequate(1) to fully adequate(4). Esse ntially it shows that the more adequate the factor the more confidence can be shown that the project will achieve its schedule target.Figure 3 Adequacy of project documentation improving schedule confidence (Cooke-Davies, 2002)610.What factors are critical to the success of an individual project? Cooke-Davies (2002) suggests that there is a single factor which leads to individual project success. He states that the existence of an effective benefits delivery and management process that involves the mutual co-operation of project management and line management functions (Table 2, figure 9). Without this factor an individual project is likely to singularly fail. Essentially this factor requires a process to which the project outcome is delivered and managed. This factor further requires the cooperation of a project team with a single goal to achieve this project benefit outcome. 11.What factors lead to consistently successful projects? Cooke-Davies (2002)now moves away from the indiv idual project and considers that embodiedfunctions that enable a project to succeed. Whilst this analysis was complex to derive from analysis it was found via extensive questionnaires three main factors corporate influenced the factors for project success. These three factors are identified at Table 2 ( parts 10-12) however directly relate to resourcing, feedback loops and learning from experience.12.Resourcing (Table 2, constituent 10) being governed by corporate is essential toproject success, for if a project is not able to have the right people or assets at the right time a project is unlikely to succeed. If a project management confederation sets up the correct plans, processes and procedures to ensure that each one of its subsidiary projects are adequately resourced, Davies-Cooke (2002) envisages that it is set up for success. An example of this is the development of Standard Operating Procedures for purchase of support equipment in a large-scale acquisition project. The sta ndardisation of this resource alignment by corporate enables the factors for success later in the project.13.Feedback loops (Table 2, fixings 11) are essential to a line manager knowing ifwhat they are doing is appropriate and in line with the project manager and the stakeholders perceptions of what the project needs to succeed. Whilst it is hold that if a feedback loop is too short it will tend to misguide a line manager rather than improve the chances of success. This is the job of the project till to ensure that the loop is correct for the particular project, for example a long lead time project is suited to a larger feedback loop whereas a rapid prototype project7needs to have potentially daily feedback to key line managers to ensure the project is going in the right direction given the potentially fastinnovations in technology. Cooke-Davies (2002) finally proposes the success factor of learning from experience (Table 2, Factor 12). Corporations should in order to succeed ca rry through plans, course of studys, and procedures to ensure that the lessons learnt from previous projects are not re-learnt the hard way.Constantly (Pinto, 1990) (Robertson, 2006) (Baker, 1988) (Atkinson, 1999) when project scholars analyse how a project has performed it is recognised that a lot of issues that cause failure are not ground breaking rather they are just repeated with a delay loop. Thus project management corporations should endeavour to ensure that as a project is finding solutions to problems they are documented to ensure that in the next project they are not realised again. 14.These three questions relate directly back to a vicious oval of influences asdepicted by Cooke-Davies (2002) of four key elements (Figure 4). These influences from a project management, individual project and corporate area all play out to enable success of a project.Figure 4 Corporate Project Success Model (Cooke-Davies, 2002)8FactorF1F2F3F4F5F6F7F8F9Factor TypeProjectManagementSuccess Fa ctorProjectManagementSuccess FactorProjectManagementSuccess FactorProjectManagementSuccess FactorProjectManagementSuccess FactorProjectManagementSuccess FactorProjectManagementSuccess FactorProjectManagementSuccess FactorIndividualProject SuccessfactorF10Corporatesuccess factorsF11Corporatesuccess factorsF12Corporatesuccess factors expositionAdequacy of company-wide education onthe concepts of risk management.NoteFactor that correlates to ontime performanceMaturity of an organisations processesfor assigning ownership of risks.Factor that correlates to ontime performanceAdequacy with which a visible risksregister is maintained.Factor that correlates to ontime performanceAdequacy of an up-to-date riskmanagement plan.Factor that correlates to ontime performanceAdequacy of documentation oforganisational responsibilities on theproject.Keep project (or project stage duration) asfar below 3 years as possible (1 year isbetter).Allow changes to scope only through amature scope change control process.Factor that correlates to ontime performanceMaintain the integrity of the performancemeasurement baseline.Factor that correlates to onbudget performanceFactor that correlates to ontime performanceFactor that correlates to onbudget performanceThe existence of an effective benefitsdelivery and management process thatinvolves the mutual co-operation ofproject management and linemanagement functionsPortfolio and programme managementpractices that allow the enterprise toresource fully a suite of projects that arethoughtfully and dynamically matched tothe corporate strategy and businessobjectivesA suite of project, programme andportfolio metrics that provides directline of sight feedback on currentproject performance, and anticipatedfuture success, so that project, portfolioand corporate decisions can be aligned.An effective means of learning fromexperience on projects, that combinesexplicit knowledge with tacit knowledgein a way that encourages people to learnand to embed that l earning into unvarying improvement of projectmanagement processes and practices.Table 2 Success Factors (Cooke-Davies, 2002)9CONCLUSION15.This essay has discussed the ways to manage success of a project via two meansbeing how it is judged and the factors that contribute to its success. The success criteria have been shown to be wide and varied however they ultimately boil down to the Iron triangle, the information system, organisational benefits, stakeholder community benefits. Furthermore the factors that lead to this success are multiple however they are mostly governed on the project mangers competence to ensure that the project is maintained inwardly the triangle of time, cost and scope.10BIBLIOGRAPHYAlter S. Information Systems a management perspective, 2nd ed. Benjamin and Cummings, California, 1996.Atkinson RW. Effective Organisations, Re-framing the Thinking for Information Systems Projects Success, 1316. Cassell, London, 1997.Atkinson, R., Project management cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria, International diary of Project Management, Volume 17, Issue 6, December 1999, Pages 337-342, retrieved from http//dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00069-6.Baker BN, Murphy DC, Fisher D. Factors affecting project success. In Cleland DI, King WR, editors. Project management handbook. (2nd ed.). New York John Wiley, 1988.Ballantine, J, Bonner, M, Levy, M, Martin, A, Munro, I and Powell, PL, The 3-D model of information systems successes the calculate for the dependent variable continues. Information Resources Management Journal, 1996, 9(4), 5-14. Cooke-Davies TJ. 2000. Towards improved project management practice, PhD thesis, Leeds Metropolitan University.Crawford, Lynn (2000) Profiling the Competent Project Manager. In Project Management look at the Turn of the Millennium Proceedings of PMI Research Conference, 21 24 June, 2000, Paris, France, pp. 3-15. Sylva, NC Project Management Institute(ft p//ns1.ystp.ac.ir/YSTP/1/1/ROOT/DATA/PDF/MISC/PMI2000%20Research.pdf) de Wit, A, cadence of project management success. International Journal of Project Management, 1988, 6(3), 164-170.Kloppenborg TJ, Opfer WA. Forty years of project management research trends, interpretations and predictions. Proceedings of PMI research conference paris project management institute. Paris Project Management Institute, 2000. Lechler T. 1998. When it comes to project management, its the people that matter an empirical analysis of project management in germany.InHartman, F., Jergeas, G., Thomas, J. editors. IRNOP III. The disposition and role of projects in the next 20 years research issues and problems. Calgary University of Calgary. pp.20515 McCoy FA. Measuring Success Establishing and Maintaining A Baseline, Project management Institute Seminar/Symposium Montreal Canada, Sep. 1987, 47-52. Meyer C. How the right measures help teams excel. Harvard Business Review 1994, 95-103.Morris PWG, Hough GH. The Anatomy of Major Projects. John Wiley, 1987. Morris PWG. The management of projects. London Thomas Telford, 1994. OConnor MM, Reinsborough L. Quality projects in the 1990s a review of ancient projects and future trends. International Journal of Project Management 199210(2)10714.11Oilsen, RP, Can project management be defined? Project Management Quarterly, 1971, 2(1), 12-14.Pinto JK, Slevin DP. Critical success factors crossways the project life cycle. Project Management Journal 198819(3)6775.Pinto, J.K. Mantel, S.J., Jr., The causes of project failure, Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions on , vol.37, no.4, pp.269,276, Nov 1990, http//ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=62322&isnumber=2268 Pinto, JK and Slevin, DP, Critical success factors across the project lifecycle. Project Management Journal, 1988, XIX, 67-75.Robertson, S. and Williams, T. Understanding project failure using cognitive mapping in an insurance project. Southampton, UK, University of Southam pton, 43pp. University of Southampton Discussion Paper Series join for Operational Research, Management Sciences and Information Systems,2006.Saarinen, T, Systems development methodology and project success. Information and Management, 1990, 19, 183-193.Standish Group. 1995. Chaos. Available http//standishgroup.com/ visitor/chaos.htm.Terry Cooke-Davies, The real success factors on projects, International Journal of Project Management, Volume 20, Issue 3, April 2002, Pages 185-190, ISSN 02637863, http//dx.doi.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 projects be measured for success? International Journal of project Management, 1998, 16(1), 59- 63.Wright, JN, Time and budget the twin imperatives of a project sponsor. International Journal of Project Management, 1997, 15(3), 181-186.