Project success: success factor and success criteria Essay

1.Since the mid-sixties there present been an increasing number of find out attentionscholars that realize expressed concerns regarding the ship canal to manage the accomplishr or failure of a fuddle. Crawford (2000) theorised that there be two major avenues of thought in this force field macrocosm how supremacy is judged and the factors that contri onlye to the victor. These two avenues were subsequently crowned conquest factors and success criteria respectively of which both will be discussed in reason during this essay to provide an insight for future expulsion c argon scholars. achiever CRITERIA2.The way by which a despatch is judged as to whether it is successful or not haslong since been deliberated by many ascertain watchfulness scholars. Crawfords (2000) efforts to detail these criteria has helped that a better understanding is required such that each visualize coach-and-four or notice stakeholder evict hold as to what criterion will defined whether the tolerate is a success or failure. This section will elaborate on Crawfords (2000) studies by drawing on one of her principle advisers, Atkinson. Atkinson uses the weightlift trigon as the make upation 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) over fifty years ago stated that the Iron Triangle(Atkinson, 1999) of Time, Cost and Quality were the key success criteria for any intention. This triangle was reduced to just epoch and reckon by W well(p) (1997) however turner (1993), Morris (1987), Wateridge (1998), deWit (1988), McCoy (1987), Pinto and Slevin (1988), Saarinen (1990), and B solelyantine (1996) all agree that the Iron Triangle should be used albeit not exclusively. Temporary use of criteria can be used during certain part of the project to ascertain whether or not a project is red to plan. An font of temporary criteria that was used by Meyer (1994) was the earned value method.The get value method in a project can stage it the project is on track, specifically when earned value (what the project is expense at that term) is less than actual costs it means the project is over budget. This is countered however by deWitt (1988) that states when costs atomic number 18 used as a control they manage progress kind of than project success. Atkinson (1999) adds that some projects whitethorn need to be bound by clipping he uses a millenary project (e.g. a computer system with a emf year 2000, Y2K, bug) as an example, if the project doesnt meet the time simplicity it could have catastrophic consequences.4.Alter (1996) considers process and organisational goals as an other measure,utilising the apprehension of did they do it rectify and did they get it in force(p) this gives rise to the concept of quantity success both during and after the project. Atkinson (1999) reflects this concept by the introduction of the cheering fall, which proposes three additional criteria to the IronTriangle. The three additional criteria for determining project success are the technical strength of the termi kingdom system, the benefits to the3resultant organisation (direct benefits) and the benefits to the wider stakeholder community (indirect benefits). A detai direct breakdown of the Square descend is explained in table 1.IronInformationBenefitsBenefitsTrianglesystem(organisation)(stakeholder community)Cost,Maintainability, improve efficiency,Satisfied users, Social andQuality,Reliability,Improved effectiveness,Environmental impact.TimeValidity,Increased profits, private development,InformationStrategic goals,Professional learning, andquality useOrganisational-learning,contractors profits.Reduced consumeCapital suppliers, contentproject team, economicimpact to surroundingcommunity. remand 1 The Square Root (Atkinson, 1999)Figure 2 The Square Root (Atkinson, 1999)5.The Information System. Whilst Atkinson (1999) doesnt de tail theinformation system success criteria other than what is described in the table it is reasonable to suggest he was concerned with the ilities of the project. basically Atkinson was considering the brinytenance of the project to ensure that it was not only resourced but also governed that the information would support its continued success.46.Organisational Benefits. mastery of a project must not only be consideredfrom an individual perspective, sooner it must look at how it will also benefit the organisation. put back 1 presents these champaigns however there are two areas that must be considered individually, namely efficiency and effectiveness. Success of a project is not inescapably guaranteed due to efficiency, reducing the amount of workload due to shortening of touch on wont necessarily help without the consideration of effectiveness. Effectiveness considers whether or not the goals are be achieved thus when placed with efficiency it ensures that the goals are be ing achieve quickly and in full.7.Stakeholder Community Benefits. The final area of the Square Root thatAtkinson considers is the success criterion that benefits the stakeholder community. These criterion consider the wider benefits of not just the direct outcomes of the project quite this area considers the stakeholder satisfaction and the complaisant 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. olibanum 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. moreover in the eruditeness of a new aircraft for military the stakeholder community benefits that could be used as success criteria could be the level of entertain nation employment or inv olvement to improve their knowledge base. Thus whilst it may not improve the actual new aircraft it will allow the host nation to build the aircraft themselves next time that that nation wishes to purchase a new aircraft.SUCCESS FACTORS8.Since the late 1960s intention counselling scholars have been trying to establishthe factors that triplet to project success (Baker, 1988) (Pinto, 1988) (Lechler, 1988), which have led to conclusions being published for project vigilance practitioners. Despite decades of research and infinite 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 respond three separate questions What factors are critical to project centering 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 perplexity success? Cooke-Davies(2002) analysed a selection of 136 mainly European projects which varied in size and scope however had an average of $16M over a effect of two years, adetailed breakdown is at (Cooke-Davies, 2000). The compendium found a surprising differentiation between the correlation of schedule survive and cost escalation, only a small amount of cost escalation was accounted for schedule delay. This analysis found that when adequacy and maturity specific project heed practices are compared with the effect of each criterion then different practices are found to correlate significantly.This correlation relates to nine factors (the first nine factors show at add-in 1). The analysis for adequacy of documentation of organisational responsibilities on the project is depicted at figure 1 with the vertical axis present the 95% confidence interval of time predictabili ty and the horizontal axis masking not at all adequate(1) to fully adequate(4). fundamentally 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 iodine factor which leads to individual project success. He states that the existence of an effective benefits sales talk and care process that involves the mutual co-operation of project attention and line focusing functions (Table 2, operator 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 move on requires the cooperation of a project team with a single goal to achieve this project benefit outcome. 11.What factors l ead to consistently successful projects? Cooke-Davies (2002)now moves away(p) from the individual project and considers that corporatefunctions that enable a project to come through. 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 ( divisors 10-12) however directly relate to resourcing, feedback eyeholes and learning from experience.12.Resourcing (Table 2, grammatical constituent 10) being governed by corporate is essential toproject success, for if a project is not able to have the right volume or assets at the right time a project is unlikely to succeed. If a project precaution corporation sets up the correct plans, processes and procedures to ensure that each one of its secondary projects are adequately resourced, Davies-Cooke (2002) envisages that it is set up for success. An example of this is the develo pment of bill Operating Procedures for purchase of support equipment in a large-scale acquisition project. The standardisation of this resource alignment by corporate enables the factors for success later in the project.13.Feedback loops (Table 2, Factor 11) are essential to a line managing director knowing ifwhat they are doing is appropriate and in line with the project theatre director and the stakeholders perceptions of what the project needs to succeed. Whilst it is acknowledged that if a feedback loop is withal short it will tend to misguide a line manager rather than improve the chances of success. This is the job of the project manger to ensure that the loop is correct for the particular project, for example a long lead time project is retinued to a larger feedback loop whereas a speedy prototype project7needs to have potentially occasional feedback to key line managers to ensure the project is going in the right direction given the potentially fastinnovations in techn ology. Cooke-Davies (2002) finally proposes the success factor of learning from experience (Table 2, Factor 12). Corporations should in order to succeed implement plans, programmes, and procedures to ensure that the lessons learnt from previous projects are not re-learnt the hard way. invariably (Pinto, 1990) (Robertson, 2006) (Baker, 1988) (Atkinson, 1999) when project scholars analyse how a project has performed it is recognised that a push-down list of issues that cause failure are not ground breaking rather they are just repeated with a delay loop. Thus project wariness 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 forethought, individual project and corporate area all play out to enable success of a project.Figure 4 incarnate drift Success Model (Cooke-Davies, 2002)8FactorF1F2F3F4F5F6F7F8F9Factor Type vagabond focusingSuccess Factor leap out solicitudeSuccess Factor assureManagementSuccess FactorProjectManagementSuccess FactorProjectManagementSuccess FactorProjectManagementSuccess FactorProjectManagementSuccess FactorProjectManagementSuccess FactorIndividualProject SuccessfactorF10Corporatesuccess factorsF11Corporatesuccess factorsF12Corporatesuccess factorsDescriptionAdequacy of company-wide education onthe concepts of risk management. nameFactor 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 th eproject.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 eff ective means of learning fromexperience on projects, that combines hardcore knowledge with tacit knowledgein a way that encourages people to learnand to embed that learning intocontinuous 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. what is more the factors that lead to this success are multiple however they are broadly speaking governed on the project mangers competence to ensure that the project is maintained at bottom 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 deliver other success criteria, International Journal of Project Management, Volume 17, have intercourse 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 three-D model of information systems successes the search 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 Projec t Manager. In Project Management Research at the Turn of the Millennium Proceedings of PMI Research Conference, 21 24 June, 2000, Paris, France, pp. 3-15. Sylva, NC Project Management convey(ftp//ns1.ystp.ac.ir/YSTP/1/1/ROOT/DATA/PDF/MISC/PMI2000%20Research.pdf) de Wit, A, Measurement 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 number 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 Ba seline, 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 past 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 across 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. Pr oject 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 Southampton, 43pp. University of Southampton Discussion Paper Series Centre 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 pr oject sponsor. International Journal of Project Management, 1997, 15(3), 181-186.