Development Project in Terms of its Stakeholders, Partners, Participants and Networks - Case Study Example

Critical analysis and review of a local partnership or development project in terms of its stakeholders, partners, participants and networks Introduction In order to understand the effectiveness of a project it is necessary to refer primarily to its general characteristics, the targets set by its planners but also the resources available for its realization. Even if the above issues are carefully addressed it is still possible that a project is not completed successfully because of the intervention of a series of factors, like ‘a) the project mission, b) the top management support and c) the project scheduling’ (Schultz et al., 1987 in Belassi et al., 1996, 142). These factors are likely to affect the performance of a project but only under specific terms and conditions. Most commonly, the project administrator can take the necessary initiatives in order to ensure the success of a particular project. On the other hand, it is necessary that the progress of the project is under continuous review minimizing the risks of failures – and the damages that could follow to all the project’s stakeholders. In this context, it is supported by Diallo et al. (2004, 21) that ‘success can be evaluated only when the evaluation dimensions are adequately defined; a project is usually considered a success if its implementation complies with the usual constraints of time, cost and the client’s terms of reference or ‘‘quality’’’. However, the issue of quality may be differentiated among projects referring to different industrial sectors. In any case, the quality of a project can be characterized as high when specific issues – as the ones described above – have been addressed and when measures have been taken in advance in order for the project’s stakeholders to be adequately protected from potential damages. Regarding this issue, it is noticed that in order for a project to be successful it is necessary that a close cooperation exists among its participants. This target should be achieved by focusing on specific issues, like: ‘a) client consultation, b) personnel selection and c) training’ (Schultz et al., 1987 in Belassi et al., 1996, 142). The above issues refer to the preparation of the participants – project team for the completion of a specific project. The terms of this preparation are decided by the project’s planners but mainly its administrator/ supervisor. Current paper focuses on the examination of the various aspects of a Community project, the construction of Barnet Community Centre. The Borough’s existing Community Centre cannot respond to the needs of the local community. For this reason the expansion of existing building has been decided. However, because the funds available are limited, particular attention should be paid at the terms of the project – failures must be avoided especially regarding the time of delivery and the cost of the completion. On the other hand, the quality of the project should be kept at high levels – as possible. 2. The construction of Barnet Community Centre 2a. Stakeholders As it is already noticed above, the evaluation of a project should be based on a series of criteria. Towards this direction, it is supported that ‘success criteria differ from project to project depending on a number of issues, for example, size, uniqueness and complexity; a universal clustering of criteria can be formulated to cover the whole issue of project success’ (Westerveld, 2003, 412). In order to identify the success and the failures of a specific project it is necessary to refer primarily to the interests of its stakeholders – locate these interests and evaluate whether they have been served or not. Furthermore, it would be necessary to identify the role of the stakeholders to the success/ failure of a particular project and explain at what level their intervention in the project can be regarded as influencing drastically its progress. It should be noticed that in all projects the stakeholders do not necessarily participate in the development of the project. The project – team (i.e. the participants) as it is explained above has the major role in the completion of the project. The stakeholders (as in the case of organizations) of a project are those that have specific interests from the particular project; In the case of a community project the stakeholders could be: the local population, the local firms, the local authorities but also the government (that can be benefited indirectly from the completion of a project – through the improvement of the local economy and so on). The stakeholders of a project usually have financial interests on a particular project – it is possible that they have also invested on the specific project and they expect the pay-back of their investment. However, in the case of a Community project the interests of stakeholders are not financial – at least not totally; the project of the specific category address specific needs of the local population and for this reason it should be closely reviewed – up to its completion – by the local authorities. All the above issues should be taken into consideration in the case of the specific project which has been developed in order to offer to the Borough’s citizens space for various activities, including navigation in the Internet, professional seminars and sports. The relevant plan has been divided into parts – the completion of this part is examined regarding the application of the project’s requirements. If all the relevant terms are met, then the development of the project’s next part can start. 2b. Partners The construction of Barnet Community Centre – as the existing building is expanded – has been delegated to Ratgrove Ltd, a firm that operates in the construction industry for more than 20 years. The local authority has the right to overview the development of the project and intervene in any case that a differentiation from the project’s initial terms is identified. The branch of Ratgrove Ltd in Barnet will be responsible for the realization of the specific project. The relevant plan has been designed by Adam Phillips who has an experience for more than 15 years in similar projects. The development of the project will be overviewed by G. Atkins and P. Grudonf that have been appointed as the project’s administrators. In order for the project to be successful it is necessary that a close cooperation exists between A. Philliips, G. Atkins and P. Grudonf. The plan has been reviewed by the local authority and it has been accepted regarding all its terms. In the contractual agreement it is clearly noticed that the local authority has the power to change the project contractor at any time – justifying its decision. In this case the project contractor has to be paid for all expenses made up to that point – except from the case of a severe failure where there can be no responsibility of the local authority to compensate the project contractor. 2c. Participants It is already noticed above that the success of projects is depended on the level of coordination/ cooperation among the participants/ project team. The specific issue is also highlighted by McHaney et al. (2002) who noticed that ‘successful projects are characterized by teamwork, cooperation, mentoring, effective communication of outputs, high-quality vendor documentation, easily understood software syntax, higher levels of analyst experience, and structured approaches to model development’ (McHaney et al., 2002, 49). The above study refers to a wide range of criteria that should be met in order for a project to be characterized as successful. In practice, it would be difficult for all these criteria to be met when a project is in progress. The appearance of various problems – especially related with the methods used or the money spent – in the development of a project’s parts can lead to delays and to damages especially if the specific problem is not appropriately addressed in advance. Usually, the cooperation of participants in a particular project can be affected by many factors; the strategy used by the firm involved in order to face the specific problem should be carefully designed. On the other hand, even when the coordination among the participants of a specific project is close, there are still chances of failure. For this reason, it is noticed in the literature that there are specific issues that need to be taken into consideration when the development of a project is attempted: ‘a. project manager and team members, b. project (i.e. size, urgency), c. parent organization and d. external environment’ (Westerveld, 2003, 417). It is not made clear whether the above suggestions refer to the projects developed within a specific industrial sector. It can be assumed that the specific comments should be taken into consideration by managers in all industries when having to deal with a specific project. The development of the project under examination – the Barnet Community Centre – has been delegated to a specific contractor. Therefore, the participants of the project will be the contractor’s team of workers. Members of the local community or the local authority could participate in various phases of the plan in accordance with the terms of the contractual agreement or in a voluntary scheme if such a contribution would be considered as necessary for the successful completion of the project. 2d. Networks The success of a project is decided using specific criteria and methodology. In this context, it is noticed that ‘the choice of methods in evaluation should be driven by an understanding of the nature of what is evaluated (including a theory of social programming), and by choices about broad approach, questions and focus’ (Gasper, 2000, 18). On the other hand, the evaluation of a project cannot take place without reviewing the various stages/ parts of the project in a specific sequence in terms of the time at which each of these parts had to be completed. Various models have been developed in the literature regarding the graphical representation of projects referring to various industrial sectors. These graphs can be helpful in order to estimate the project’s cost, time framework and resources required and have to be developed in advance (i.e. before the start of the project). After the project’s completion these graphs can help in order to evaluate the success of the project – if the deadlines referring to the completion of the project’s various phases have been met, if the cost remained within the initial framework and so on. An indicative example is the PERT model, presented below. In this model, the numbered nodes represent specific activities (numbers follow an incremental trend, being increased by 10 each time). The advantage of this model is that it offers the chance for handling differences in time required for the completion of its project’s part. The sequence of works in the project under examination can be identified in Figure 2. Figure 1 – Pert Model for project management (source: http://www.netmba.com/operations/project/pert/) Figure 2 – Project network – Diagram developed using Smartdraw (details on box covered by the firm’s details: Publication/ marketing, Jan 31, Cost 11300). 3. Conclusion When having to evaluate a project the use of specific criteria is necessary. In the literature it is noticed that the following failures can lead to the assumption that a project has failed: ‘failure to finish the project on time; budget overspending; and lack of experience by either the project manager or by members of the project team’ (Pedley, 2000, 43). In order for the above risks to be minimized it is necessary for project designers to take into consideration specific concepts and frameworks that can guarantee the success of a particular project: ‘concepts as goal succession, goal displacement, and goal perspectives help illuminate the program as an ongoing organization’ (Deutscher et al., 1988, 607). However, even if all the above issues are taken into consideration, it is still possible for a project to fail to meet its targets. The effects of this failure on the project’s stakeholders will be able to be identified in advance usually only after the completion of the project – or its termination if the completion is not possible due to severe differentiations on the time/ cost involved. The overview of the various aspects of the project under examination – Barnet Community Centre – has led to the assumption that the specific project is carefully designed and measures have been taken in order for all risks to be minimized. On the other hand, the communication/ cooperation among the participants are expected to be quite satisfactory. In the specific project the participation of local community could be also requested – if necessary, an aspect that would increase the chances for the success of the project in accordance with its plan. It should be taken into consideration that ‘there can be ambiguity in determining whether a project is a success or failure (Belassi et al., 1996, 141-142). In the case of the specific project, the development of which is represented in Figure 2, its success should be decided using the details included in its plan; additional criteria like the potential effects of this project on the life of people in local community should be also taken into account in order to decide on its success. References Belassi, W., Tukel, O. (1996) A new framework for determining critical success/ failure factors in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 14(3): 141-151 Deutscher, I., Beattie, M. (1988) Success and Failure. Evaluation Review, 12(6): 607-624 Diallo, A., Thuillier, D. (2004) The success dimensions of international development projects: the perceptions of African project coordinators. International Journal of Project Management, 22: 19-31 Gasper, D. (2000) Evaluating the logical framework approach towards learning-oriented development evaluation. Public Administration & Development, 20(1): 17-28 McHaney, R., White, D., Heilman, G. (2002) Simulation Project Success and Failure: Survey findings. Simulation & Gaming, 33(1): 49-66 Pedley, P. (2000) Implementing and project managing a new library management system. Business Information Review, 17(1): 43-49 Westerveld, E. (2002) The Project Excellence Model: linking success criteria and critical success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 21: 411-418 Read More