The success factors in project management

Published Date: 23 Mar 2015

Late 1960's

At this era the main focus on the success factors in project management was investigated mainly on planning and controlling techniques (Bellasi and Tukel 1996). They claimed that improvement of scheduling techniques and development of monitoring and control tools would have positive reflection on project outcome. On the other hand Rubin and Seeling (1967) study success factors by examining the project manager's experience as major determinant of project success and failure. This study mainly discuss on the duration of experience on managing projects and scope of projects that were managed.

In contrast, Avots (1969) claimed that the project failures are mostly due to the wrong choice of project manager, unplanned project termination and unsupportive top management. In this study, his findings also focus on the strong plan, feedback system and project manager skills. His suggestion on extreme importance of top management encouragement latter has lead to several research and findings. Apart from that illustration of a support to detailed scheduling also studied in the paper and found that change management is the crucial for overall project outcome.

1970's

In the following decade scheduling, monitoring and feedback and control system is becoming a trend of dominant factors for successful project completion studied by Sayles and Chandler (1971). In spite of the fact that final set of factors seems to be a duplication of previous researches, they also introduce project manager's competence as a success factor. As a key person, project manager contributes the success of a project by demonstrating his/her skills and knowledge.

As claimed by previous researchers above, Martin (1976) also gives priority to the plan, control and review techniques, and general management support. However his study contributes to the success factors identification process such as project organizational philosophy, organizing authority, project team selection and resource allocation. Where the project team factor brings to a new view in which shifting the attention of planning techniques to human behaviour.

1980's

Cleland and King (1983) came out with a list of 13 factors affecting project success. This study points the important levers which grouped based on their relation to project area (project summary and project review), human area (client characteristics, training of executives, and manpower capabilities), and general management area (top management support, financial support, logistics requirements, and acquisitions). In addition researchers also consider information and communication channels as critical important factors in project positive outcome. At the same year Baker et al. (1983) produce a research on success factors in projects where their findings seem to be similar to Cleland's and King's (1983) conclusions. These similarities are mostly lie in the field of general management and project objectives with more attention to the financial implication such as accurate cost estimation, budgeting and adequate project funding. In addition to the research they also investigate the human factors by focusing on the project team qualification and project manager competence as the main factors by stressing as a necessity of task rather than social orientation.

Generally at this era the human factors seem to be at the early stage of development. Most of the researchers give attention to the social components only without considering the human side that contributed to a project success. In relation to this Locke (1984) indicates a necessity to clarify communication channels and procedures have an impact on the progress control efficiency. He also emphasized the significance of project manager's competences and authority in a project success. Furthermore, Nahapiet and Nahapiet (1985) found their research based on the analysis of different building construction projects in the United States and Great Britain. This comparative study particularly addresses management and organizational aspects as success factors. Likewise, in relation to human factors, Morris and Hough (1987) came with a conclusion that the reasons of failure is related to the poor project management in general, after examining eight complex projects which had a great economic influence and at the same time failed. In this study they indicate success factors based on empirical studies and generalize them into seven dimensions. Morris and Hough (1987) conclude that although stated factors were selected from large projects experience they might also be applied for general projects.

One year before the above studies, Morris (1986) states that good communication, client relations and qualified project team requires more attention due to their highly possible impact on project success. Another research is made by Hughes (1986) pertaining projects failures in the same year, where majority of projects fail due to overall improper project management such as rewarding wrong actions and unrealistic objectives. These resulting the conclusion of the importance of clear and reasonable project goals become one of the most referred success factors in this decade. Although findings of this paper seem similar to Morris and Hough (1987) conclusions, they also include lack of communication of goals as an important characteristic of unsuccessful projects. In addition to this lack of communication of goals also contributes to the unsuccessful projects.

As Pinto and Slevin (1989) in their study pay their primary attention to research and development projects, they concluded with a list of success factors regardless project type. In their paper authors refer to the top recognised success factors starting from 60s: to an importance of top management support and monitoring techniques stated at 60s, following by significance of project manager competences declared at 70s and finally to a necessity of considering personnel power and communication channels defined in 80s. A unique contribution of their paper can be classified into two dimensions. Firstly, this study seems to be the first attempt to find relations between success factors and to investigate factors' relevance according to each particular stage of project life cycle. Secondly, authors accentuate on client factor which is as important as project manager due to a close connection to project and ability to initiate changes. However, in spite of appeared clarity in basic fundamentals there are still some other studies focused on project management success analysis rather than on project success as a whole (Might and Fisher, 1985).

1990's

At the beginning of this decade walker (1995) considered that the project scope as s factors that affecting the project duration and significantly influencing the project success. On the other hand Akinsola et al (1997), Songer and Molenaar (1997), Belout (1998) described that the type of project, project complexity and size of project has the same significance in influencing project success.

Another additionalfactor introduce at this time is the procurement factor along with the above factors as a research result by Pocock et al. (1997), Kumarawamy and Chan (1999), Walker and Vines (2000). In relation to procurement, tendering factor becomes important as defined by Dissanayaka and Kumaraswamy (1999) that it is one of the success factors and they stressed the necessity on paying attention to the selection of main montractor(s) and defining project team.

In the other aspects, project manager as a one of key force affecting project performance which is analysed from the success factor point of view. Particularly project manager's experience, commitment, competence and authority were discussed as factors influencing project success by Chua et al. (1999). However, project management tools and mechanisms attract more attention of researchers rather than personal features of project manager. Among critical project management tools Belout (1998), Walker and Vines (2000) specify communication, feedback capabilities, and decision making effectiveness. Furthermore, Jaselkis and Ashley (1991), Belassi and Tukel (1996) recur to planning, monitoring and control mechanisms which seem to be classical factors since the 60-s when they were initially declared. Although, majority of factors related to project management refers to specific techniques or abilities some author indicate organization structure and safety and quality assurance program as success factors connected to project management within the enterprise (Walker and Vines, 2000). However, it seems unfounded whether it is possible to adopt organization structure, for instance, to each project in order to increase a likelihood of success occurrence.

As the area has been explored by many researchers, several studies are trying to focus on the key players of the project such as client, contractors, sub-contractors, consultants, suppliers and manufacturers. This has been pointed out by Walker (1995) where client has extreme influence on project results and can have direct impact in project duration area. Songer and Molenaar (1997) emphasised that the client's power is able to make critical changes to project in reference to client's type, knowledge and experience, confidence in the construction team and client project management. Moreover, in the dimension of stakeholder management the relationship with client is considered important (Munns and Bjeirmi, 1996). This consideration brings researchers to explore project success on the project results should satisfy client and/or user and in order to achieve this their involvement in the project implementation process is very important ( Wateridge, 1995; Turner, 1999).

Another important key players are contractors and sub-contractors which are considered as the one that have direct involvement in the project have been studied by Chan and Kumaraswamy (1997) and Dissanayaka and Kumarasswamy (1999) where their experience, site management, financial stability and speed of information flow. The researchers believe that these criteria can exert the result of the project.

In a different perspective Cah and Fox (1992) came up with a champion' role as a critical factor for overall success of a project and this has been agreed by Martinez and others that such role is considered as commited sponsor. In fact project champion has a big power and can influence the project success directly claimed Jang and Lee (1998).

In spite of the number of differences in characteristics among all project key players team spirit and collaboration between them are the common attributes which contribute to a project success. In addition, team effort, according to Hassan (1995), is a critical ingredient of successful project performance. Furthermore, Larson (1995) also marks out an importance of collaborative work between project owner and contractor. His study accumulates experience of 280 construction projects and a primary focus also lies in partnering between project key players. He stresses that only 'working together as a team' with clear objectives and procedures can ensure effective problem solutions and increase a probability of success. In addition Chua et al. (1999) specify interactive processes with project key players as a main project success driver.

Different angle has been viewed in terms of success factors is the environmental issues which are considered as external factors which has significant influence in a project success. Their influence can be either in positive or negative way as different authors refer these in relation to social, political and technical system (Akinsola et al., 1997; Kaming et al., 1997). In addition to that Chua et al. (1999) stated that the other external factors are the adequacy of funding, site limitation and location. They also claim that there are some critical internal project characteristics such as project size and pioneering status; where last is defined as 'if project's technology is new to the project team'

2000's

There are significant amount of studies related to the project success factor in construction industy was introduced in the past decades. Nevertheless the new century researches are also developed however they are in a fashion of previous decade where most of them are concentrated on classification process.

Thus, Chan et al (2004) summarize factors dispersed in previous studies and classified

findings in groups of factors related to:

• project,

• procurement,

• project management

• project participants, and

• environment.

In the project related category Chan et al. (2004) attribute mostly to project scope and type of project whereas Yu et al. (2006) attribute to the clear objectives and realistic budget for this group. This findings also similar to Fortune and White (2006) where they stress that clear articulation of goals and priorities would help to clear ambiguity of project success. Another study in construction projects developed by Chan and Kumaraswamy (2002) declares project scope as one of the main components affecting construction duration and therefore influence the project completion.

Under this cluster Chan et al. (2004) put selection of organization for the design and construction of the project and procedures adopted for the selection of the project team generally and main contractor particularly. While Fortune and White (2006) refer procurement and contractor performance to a resource group; and at the same time Chan and Kumaraswamy (2002) state that selection of project team relates to 'management attributes' category. This category has not been given much attention by most of the authors.

For the project management aspect according to Chan et al. (2004), it is a combination of the planning and control, organizational structure, overall managerial actions, implementation of effective quality assurance and safety programs. Moreover Chan and Kumaraswamy (2002) also categorize similar factors in one group accentuating communication and human resources management. Yu et al. (2006) add under the similar category which is under control of processes and called this group as 'process-related factors'. Also as managerial factors they mention decision-making abilities and communication.

The next category is the project participants where the aspects of key players and stakeholders management are combined. Chan et al. (2004) in their classification is focusing on the client's experience, nature and size, client's expectations in terms of costs, quality and duration and client's managerial abilities. Project team leader category attracts these authors' attention in the sense of managerial skills (planning, organization, motivation and control), as well as leaders' commitments and support to project. Moreover, Müller and Turner (2008) specify leadership style of Project Manger from all other competences is correlated to overall project success. Whereas Chan and Kumaraswamy (2002) identified project manager's capabilities and client's attributes as the most relevant success factors. Furthermore, Yu et al. (2006) distinguish s between success factors related to client and those refer to end user. Other project participants in their study are united in a group of 'stakeholder management'. In contrast, Fortune and White (2006) following Formal System Model components point user and client involvement, competence of project manager, qualified team and good performance of suppliers and contractors as success factors but allocate them into different model's aspects. They also specify project sponsor/ champion role separately.

1990's

Walker (1995) single out a project scope as a factor affecting project duration and therefore influencing on project success. However, project scope is not the one factor related to project characteristics. Thus, Akinsola et al. (1997), Songer and Molenaar (1997), Belout (1998) also depicted type of project, project complexity and size of project as influential project related success factors. Moreover, procurement factor is also introduced in this period. Its importance increased after studies of such researchers as Pocock et al. (1997), Kumaraswamy and Chan (1999), Walker and Vines (2000). In one level with procurement a tendering factor becomes popular. By defining tendering as a success factor Dissanayaka and Kumaraswamy (1999) stress a necessity to pay more attention on selection of main contractor(-s) and defining a project team.

Project manager as a one of key force affecting project performance is also analysed from the success factor point of view. Particularly project manager's experience, commitment, competence and authority were discussed as factors influencing project success by Chua et al. (1999). However, project management tools and mechanisms attract more attention of researchers rather than personal features of project manager. Among critical project management tools Belout (1998), Walker and Vines (2000) specify communication, feedback capabilities, and decision making effectiveness. Furthermore, Jaselkis and Ashley (1991), Belassi and Tukel (1996) also recur to planning, monitoring and control mechanisms which seem to be classical factors since the 60-s when they were initially declared. Although, majority of factors related to project management refers to specific techniques or abilities some author indicate organization structure and safety and quality assurance program as success factors connected to project management within the enterprise (Walker and Vines, 2000). However, it seems unfounded whether it is possible to adopt organization structure, for instance, to each project in order to increase a likelihood of success occurrence.

Along with debates about project manager's abilities, skills and tools (s)he applies in managing of projects, other project participants attract attention as well. Several studies are especially focused on such key players as client, contractors (including sub-contractors), consultants, suppliers and manufacturers.

Thus, Walker (1995) points that client has extreme influence on project results and can have direct impact in project duration area. Specifically, Songer and Molenaar (1997) emphasize client's power to make critical changes in project with a reference to client's type, knowledge and experience, confidence in the construction team and client project management. Moreover, Munns and Bjeirmi (1996) emphasize relations with client as one of the main dimensions of stakeholder management. From literature review it might be seen that the process of success factors research might follow different directions. It might be forward which aims to receive a set of project success factors and is built in a way to obtain the target. However it also might be backward which implies an identification of key performance indicators and based on that list to develop a set of factors that might have influence these indicators. Thus, Wateridge (1995) and Turner (1999) state that project results should satisfy client and/or user defining it as a criterion of project success and then specify an importance of client/ user involvement into a project implementation process as

a success factor; in this way demonstrating backward approach. Contractors and sub-contractors are also directly involved in construction projects and can easily exert on their final outcomes. Main variables which were marked out in researchers as those affecting projects results are (sub-) contractor's experience, site management, financial stability and speed of information flow (Chan and Kumaraswamy, 1997; Dissanayaka and Kumarasswamy, 1999).

Furthermore, Cash and Fox (1992) separate a 'champion' role as a critical factor for overall success of the project. Study of Martinez (1994) and others also mention this type of role naming it 'committed sponsor'. In addition Jang and Lee (1998) in their study on success factors in consulting industry claim that project champion has a big power and can influence project success directly.

In spite of number of differences in characteristics among all project key players team spirit and collaboration between them are the common attributes which contribute to a project success. In addition, team effort, according to Hassan (1995), is a critical ingredient of successful project performance. Furthermore, Larson (1995) also marks out an importance of collaborative work between project owner and contractor. His study accumulates experience of 280 construction projects and a primary focus also lies in partnering between project key players. He stresses that only 'working together as a team' with clear objectives and procedures can ensure effective problem solutions and increase a probability of success. In addition Chua et al. (1999) specify interactive processes with project key players as a main project success driver.

The last but not the least set of success factors belong to environmental issues Environmental factors are considered as external forces which can influence project in either positive or negative ways. Different authors refer particularly to social, political and technical systems (Akinsola et al., 1997; Kaming et al., 1997). Chua et al. (1999) in analyzing typical construction project environment among listed above external factors also mention adequacy of funding and site limitation and location. They also claim that there are some critical internal project characteristics such as project size and pioneering status; where last is defined as 'if project's technology is new to the project team'. Other environmental factors would be discussed in details below. In spite of a new wave of thinking and new views appeared during this decade it seems likely there is no complete refuse of results and findings made before 90s. Evolutional growth of thought in area of project success factors shifts focus form one aspect to another. However, some authors among new approaches as stakeholders' management and project characteristics also are loyal to old principles like detailed planning, control and monitoring (Belassi and Tukel, 1996).

Furthermore, another trend could be found in this period of time. It seems likely that after three decades of studies in project success factors field and after numerous of researches have been published, 90s also brought another perspective of thinking. Authors start primary focus their attention not on development of new lists of factors but mostly on factors classification and grouping. It seems likely that previous papers already grounded a solid basement for further analysis. Findings collected from earlier investigations seem to require a systematic approach to consolidate obtained results and to find possible interconnections among them. Thus, Belassi and Tukel (1996) come out with four main areas of critical success factors related to: project, project manager and a team, organization, and external environment.

Apparently, project related factors refer to project size and project life cycle, when project team addresses competences and skills of project key players; organization group combines top management support and organizational structure while environmental cluster involves political, economical, social and technological issues. The fact that client and subcontractors are attributed to environmental group (as well as competitors) rather than to project team could demonstrate that idea of partnership between key players working on the same project was not recognized by many authors in the middle of 90s. Main interest of such categorization belongs to clarification of possible inter-elations between success factors and factors' criticality with the respect to particular industry. Authors state that there are numerous of connections among groups of factors which deserve more attention from the side of researchers in order to evaluate possible impact of these factors on project results.

In addition, following main focus of this decade Chua et al. (1999) express their attention to project parties' roles. They assign project manager competence and authority; client's personnel and top management support; contractor's team competence and level of service; and other project players (consultants, suppliers, subcontractors) characteristics to a group of success factors named as 'project participants'. However, due to subjective character of classification process, different understanding of meaning of each particular factor and first attempts in categorization process it seems that group names and factors falling to these groups accordingly, are mixed up. For instance, authors address political and economic risks, location and impact on public in project related group rather then environmental category and at the same time they indicate clear objectives and adequacy of plans as contractual agreement instead of project issues.

2000's

During the last decade significant amount of studies related to project success factors in construction industry was introduced. Also it might be interesting that number of these researches were produced within developing countries (Chua et al., 1999; Mbachu and Nkado, 2007). New century researches are developed in a fashion of previous decade: most of them are concentrated on classification process.

Thus, Chan et al (2004) summarize factors dispersed in previous studies and classified

findings in groups of factors related to:

• project,

• procurement,

• project management

• project participants, and

• environment.

To the project-related category Chan et al. (2004) ascribe mostly project scope and type of project, however, another factors are also generalized by this category by many authors. For example, Yu et al. (2006) ascribe clear objectives and realistic budget to this group. They stress (as well as Fortune and White, 2006) that clear articulation of goals and priorities would help to overcome ambiguity of project successfully. Although this research is focused on construction project briefing, findings refer to the factors valid for other stages of project as well. Another study in construction projects developed by Chan and Kumaraswamy (2002) declares project scope as one of the main components affecting construction duration and therefore project completion in time.

Procurement as a success factor (or group of success factors) seems not to be broadly recognized among other authors. Under this cluster Chan et al. (2004) put selection of

organization for the design and construction of the project and procedures adopted for the selection of the project team generally and main contractor particularly. Apart of this, CEEC's and KPMG's (2008) research on Ukrainian construction industry claims procurement as the second priority in a list of investment areas for 2008-2009, disclosed by construction companies. It stresses procurement processes' significance especially for construction projects. Although these factors were mostly investigated in 90s, publications dated as 2000s address them to other groups. For instance, Fortune and White (2006) refer procurement and contractor performance to a resource group; and at the same time Chan and Kumaraswamy (2002) state that selection of project team relates to 'management attributes' category.

Project management aspect according to Chan et al. (2004) combines planning and control, organizational structure, overall managerial actions, implementation of effective quality assurance and safety programs. Chan and Kumaraswamy (2002) also categorize similar factors in one group accentuating communication and human resources management. Yu et al. (2006) add under the similar category control of processes naming this group as 'process-related factors'. Also as managerial factors they mention decision-making abilities and communication.

'Project participants' group seems to be the broadest one since it combines different aspects of project key players and stakeholders management. One decade before human factor already received a huge attention from researchers. Several categories, as client, contractor, project champion and others were discussed and findings of those studies initiated a new cluster related to project participants. Thus, Chan et al. (2004) in his classification define client and project team leader dimensions for specific characteristics to be assigned accordingly. Particularly, they focus attention on client's experience, nature and size, client's expectations in terms of project costs, quality and duration and client's managerial abilities. Project team leader category attracts authors' attention in sense of managerial skills (planning, organization, motivation and control), leaders' commitments and support to project. Moreover, Müller and Turner (2008) specify leadership style of Project Manger from all other competences correlated to overall project success. Chan and Kumaraswamy (2002) also identified project manager's capabilities and client's attributes as the most relevant success factors. Furthermore, Yu et al. (2006) distinguish sbetween success factors related to client and those refer to end user. Other project participants in their study are united in a group of 'stakeholder management'. In contrast, Fortune and White (2006) following Formal System Model components point user and client involvement, competence of project manager, qualified team and good performance of suppliers and contractors as success factors but allocate them into different model's aspects. They also specify project sponsor/ champion role separately. Environmental factors are referred again as it was in 90s. Chan et al. (2004) single out economic, social, political, physical, technological factors as well as industrial relations in this category. Surprisingly, Chan and Kumaraswamy (2002) point identical set of project success factors related to external environment. Moreover, Fortune and White (2006) find learning from past experience and organizational adaptation/ culture as success factors belonging to environment. Although these factors seem to benefit more to overall management like procedures, politics and personnel skills which become more efficient from project to project, it is also possible that authors' focus lies in internal environment analysis. In spite of growing interest to environmental success factors in projects some authors still do not consider this aspect as important one (Yu et al., 2006). However generally referring back to study of Chan et al. (2004) it would be interesting that Acharva and Lee (2005) raise a discussion on that study. They stress that although Chan et al. indicate comprehensive groups of factors, most of them seem referring to human-factor.

Furthermore, authors add more support to contractors' flexibility abruptly pointing it as a crucial factor without which project success seems unachievable and comparing to which other factors might be evaluated as supportive. As was mentioned above in 1990s a team orientated approach in stakeholders' management was not widely recognized. However, new decade develops that gap and collaboration among key project participants becomes a new focus in project management. Continuing to draw an analogy between project key players and a team, discussing joined efforts invested in project, it seems to be close to project partnering. Project partnering, according to Chen and Chen (2007), '… involves the major project participants in an alliance that creates a cohesive atmosphere enabling project team members to openly interact and perform'. In their study Chen and Chen (2007) investigate critical success factors for construction partnering in Taiwan. Basing on 19 critical success factors excerpted from studies on success factors in construction partnering and using factor analysis technique authors deliver four main clusters: collaborative team culture (which implies flexible, committed to support, dedicated team developing two-ways communications); long-term quality perspective (demands commitment to quality as well as to continuous improvements and questioning attitude from team); consistent of objectives (assumes that team promotes mutual trust, clear understanding, effective communication and expertise); and resource sharing (includes financial security, availability of resources and senior management commitments).

In spite of numerous similarities discovered among studies findings there are also some contradictions. However, discrepant character of some success factors sets striking eye on the beginning turn into supplemental to each other after complex analysis. In other words, various conclusions of different authors do not contradict each other; most of them amplify knowledge with diverse perspectives. For instance, Yu et al. (2006) declare 37 success factors, most of which do not refer to project generally but they are specified particularly for construction project briefing. Therefore this study investigates specific area of success factor application and contributes to the body of knowledge with a more precise analysis.

Moreover, Fortune and White (2006) address to slightly different list of factors due to specific approach they used. Westerveld (2003) also defines project success factors from the Project Excellence Model point of view. Both these studies expand existing knowledge by illustrating other perspectives. In addition study of Chen and Chen (2007) express interest to success factors regarding project partnership. Although it highlight another factors mostly related to strategic aspect, i.e. long-term perspective, commitment to continuous improvement, good cultural fit, questioning attitudes and others, this research seems to be complementing to previous findings in this area.

However, besides similar and supplemental sets of levers there are some unique success factors mentioned by different authors. For instance, Toor and Ogunlana (2008) point 'sufficient resources' as an extra factor increasing chances for project successful implementation. Yu et al. (2006) indicate flexibility and change management as a critical aspect affecting project results directly. In contrast, Chan and Kumaraswamy (2002) define that there is a specific collection of success factors which has a potential influence on project outcome but they do not clarify which factors might be assigned to this category.

Although each particular factor should be recognized as valuable and should be addressed with an attention, it seems obvious that success factors mentioned in different studies deserve more confidence.

During around half of a century period of time main thought evolved a lot: starting from basic theoretical guidance in 1970s to more specific applications in 2000s. A cumulative result of literature review is presented in a Table 2.1. It seems likely that a combination of findings from previous researches organized in chronologic order makes an appropriate base for studying construction projects success factors in developing countries.