What Is Project Success From My Perspective?

Centre for Research in the Management of Projects, University of Manchester, P.O. Box 88, Manchester M60 1QD, UK Centre for Research in the Management of Projects, School of Construction and Project Management, The Bartlett University College London, UK Received 8 July 2003; received in revised form 30 January 2004; accepted 15 June 2004

A projects success and project managements success must be differentiated, as a project managements success can be measured by performance against quality, time and cost however a projects success can be measured by the overall projects objectives (Cooke-Davies 2002). The key criteria of a project discussed above is what the project management team and organisation together have set for the projects objective, which are the desired outcomes of the project from various aspects and stakeholders of an organisation. The following can be a standard for an organisation to follow to lessen the chance of project failure. Management must be engaged in the project and ready to support the needs of the project as top management have the resources, authority and power for implementation and as such can contribute and improve the project along the way. The project has clearly defined goals and directions with detailed specifications of the implementation process, client consultation with back and forth communication during the entire process and finally how the project is executed. Stakeholders also should agree upon success criteria of a project to ensure each stakeholders needs are met (Davis. K 2013).

The paper rates each of the four phases using the following project management knowledge areas: Scope, Time, Cost, Quality, Human Resource, Communication, Risk, Procurement, and Integration Management. An Excellent (5) rating was provided to the project management areas where the project management team were so successful. A Very Good (4) was given for the areas in which the project management team performed very well. A Good (3) was given for the areas in which the project management team performed well. A Poor (2) was given to the areas which had just applied new procedures. A Very Poor (1) rating was given to the project management areas in which either were not achieved the needed goals or were implemented unsuccessfully. In the fifth phase “Lessons Learned” we have studied the whole project, identified the area of improvements and learned how such adjustments can be used in coming

Three factors define the success of any project; these are time, cost, and quality (Wysocki and RK 2013: 4). This paper identifies three main facets of project management that were inappropriately implemented, namely; Resourcing, Stakeholder Management, and Risk Management and how their improper implementation led to the violation of the three constraints (i.e. time, cost, and quality).

Performance measurements are used to characterize and define performance in a project. They are used to track and manage progress toward achieving specific project goals. Performance measurements help determine how decision-making processes of a project led to its success or failure, understanding these can help organizations make future improvements. It is a project manager's responsibility to measure performance based on the triple constraints of time, budget, and quality of a project. There are many performance measurements a project manager can use based on the type of project at hand, this paper compares and contrasts the following measurements -

Project management provides reasonable scientific solutions in order to overcome difficulties and achieve success. Each project has a variety of objectives have to achieve, these objectives are vary and can be for organization objectives or for social objectives. However, the project objectives could face some obstacles could be lead to limited success. The attempt to discover the factors of project success and project failure was not easy task for both scholars and expertise. These definitions can provide a close understanding and explanation for these terms. Many project management literatures have variety definitions of project success. (Adinyira, 2012) pointed out that Pinto and Slevin (1988) defined the success as delivering projects on proper time, cost and quality. Others like westerveld, elizabith have different ideas regarding the success that are related to the judge of stakeholders and organizational management. However, nowadays success become more complex issue to determine, it is not only meeting the costs and time it is belonging to the typology and sector of the project

According to Kloppenborg (2015), “Project success is creating deliverables that include all of the agreed-upon features” (p.11). Other measures of success include the customer’s success, the performing organization’s success, the project team’s success, and if the project is completed on time and on budget.

According to Hillson & Simon (2012), in order for a project to be considered successful, the Critical Success Factors (CSF) must be completed. Those CSF’s include:

Their research only supported three hypotheses issuing differences in the apprehension of performances of different practitioners in construction projects, different project kinds, and different practical roles in the partnering companies. These findings have been backed by Soetanto, Proverbs and Holt (2001), revealing deviations in the level of importance that was ascribed to differing performance criteria. In conclusion, Lai and Lam research clearly shows that people have different kinds of approach as far as criteria are concerned to measure their performance.

successful IT project. These factors include: plan, people, communication, risk management, and the balance between time, quality and budget.

Project success is often only measured by the factors of the Iron Triangle and therefore the initial benefits (benefits to the customer, design goals, commercial success and future potential) of the project

When scope, time, and costs are successfully met, quality will follow. The mistake often made by project managers is that they are so satisfied with what they are currently doing that they begin to see the world with rose-colored glasses. The problem with wearing rose-colored glasses is the ability to sense when there is a red-alert of mistakes being made before, during, and after the risks have the project in ruins. It is usually after the smiles and handshakes where grins and lawsuits may have the project management wishing they took off those rose-colored glasses to weigh the risks (Laudon and Laudon, 2009).

The link between successful project outcomes and project management was recognised by Peters and Waterman (1982, pp. 3-28), more than 40 years ago. In the fast moving 21st Century business environment, project managers must work ever more effectively and accurately, and timely information is essential to every aspect of the project management role: planning, organisational design, gaining the ‘buy in’ of various stakeholders and being able to provide project reviews in ‘real time’, as well as embracing sustainability (ICE, 2002, p.5). The ways in which the project and its progress relate to the wider organisational context will also need to be considered and communicated (Cleland and Ireland,

There have been so many arguments by many authors concerning the criteria for judging project success. According to Wit (1988) the appropriate criteria to identify the success of a project is to measure the project with its objectives. There are also other traditional parameters which suggest project is successful if it finishes on time, according to specified performance and within budget (Akinson 1999 cites Oilsen 1971). But Prabhakar (2008) argues that schedule, budget and performance alone are inadequate for measuring project success. Lock (2013) also notes that the traditional parameters which are time, performance and cost relate mainly to the execution or fulfilment stage of the project. He further agues that a project can only be considered successful if it satisfies all

The performance measurement criteria for successful Pioneer Construction and Engineering project traditionally has been based on the price, time and specification. Present day performance management systems to encourage a holistic approach for the project evaluation efficiency. Systems have evolved from what was essentially a method of accounting performance measurement in a diverse range of performance statistics for each specifically designed to assess various attributes of organizational importance. The literature review reflects the philosophy of a performance management system and its relevance in the current industry practice. The potential application of management models adapted to contemporary performance purpose for Measuring individual building project 'welfare ' it is examined. Two well-known performance management frameworks, the EFQM Business Excellence Model of Kaplan and Norton Balanced Scorecard are evaluated for their suitability