Critical Success Factors Approaches - Literature review Example

An Overview of Project Critical Success Factors Approaches Synopsis Any project is completed as a result of a combination of various activities, some of which often happen unexpectedly, sometimes in defiance of a project plan. Regardless of their nature, projects are fulfilled in a constantly changing environment, so, during a project, different events can occur, influencing the final result. Taking the high possibility of changes into consideration, it is advisable to understand which factors are more critical to the project success so that to make an attempt to manage risks connected with their possible changes. According to Amberg et al. (2005) the critical success factors (CSF) approach in the context of the project management has been first established by Rockart (1979), which defined CSF as “the limited number of areas in which results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure successful competitive performance for the organization” (Rockart, 1979, cited in Amberg et al., 2005, p.1). In spite of the fact that initially Rockart used the CSF concept regarding to the Information System projects, Amberg et al. (2005) emphasise that it can be used in different industrial areas what is confirmed by a number of studies, carried out during 30 years after the first introduction of the CSF term. In this paper I briefly review some referred journal articles which deal with the identifying of variables influencing the success of project implementation according to various CSF approaches. In the centre of my investigation’s attention there are research papers, which describe multidimensional, multiobservational approaches to assess project success, which are specifically “designed to capture the “real world” experiences of project managers with a view to determining the extent to which those involved in the management of projects actually make use of the methods and techniques that are available and how effective the methods and techniques used are felt to be” (White & Fortune, 2002, p.1). Thus, the review will help me to understand commonalities and differences in the CSF definition, including in respect of contract and in-house projects. Search strategy To find referred article for reviewing I used Google services – classical Google search engine1 and Google Scholar2. At first, I used a word-combination “project success factors” directly in search box in Google and browsed among the relevant materials, picking out mostly articles or papers of researchers and experts in Project Management area. I looked through references given by authors and selected titles of academic journal articles, which were mentioned more often or seemed to me more appropriate to the objective of my review. As a consequence of this selection the initial list of articles for reviewing has been composed. Then I used Google Scholar to seek whether the previously chosen article has been cited in other relevant articles and made a final choose of four articles for reviewing. I was guided by the following criteria: 1. An article should make a significant contribution to the body of knowledge in the Project Management area, representing a new approach or generic ideas, so that it enables to serve as a basis for other researches. 2. It is desirable that the Project Critical Success Factors approach or approaches described in the article are related or can be applied to different types of projects, including contract and in-house projects. 3. The chosen articles should reveal a development of the Project Management theory and practical methods regarding the Project Critical Success Factors area. As a result I’ve chosen two descriptions of researches in specific approaches to the project success factors, which are widely used now in other researches; and two descriptions of researches aimed to make an overview of current practices and generic models of defining the project success and managing the project effectiveness. Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., Shenhar, A., & Tishler, A. (1998). In search of project classification: a non-universal approach to project success factors. Research Policy, 27, 915-935. In their article Dvir et al. (1998) describes results of the study aimed to classify projects by using “a non-universal” approach to project success factors based on a linear discriminant analysis methodology. I found interesting that authors, in contrast to many other studies, proceed from the assumption that project success factors are not universal for all projects: “Different projects exhibit different sets of success factors” (Dvir et al., 1998, p.915). To achieve their objectives researchers analysed more than 400 managerial variables influencing on the success of 110 projects, where success is estimated in 11 variables. For analysis they used multivariate method, namely Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA). Among the important findings the following ones should be mentioned: a preparation of detailed contract at the initiation phase of the project is extremely important factor from the point of view of satisfying customers’ needs for all projects regardless of their types; the project effectiveness is influenced by a wide spectrum of variables that are not usually taken into account by project managers; the list of project success factors is not universal and it depends on a specific type of a project. Shenhar et al. (2001) point out that one of the major independent project managerial variables, mentioned by Dvir et al. (1998) is the level of technological uncertainty at the project initiation stage. Pich et al. (2002) argue that the classification scheme based on the degree of technical uncertainty and complexity of the project proposed by Dvir et al. (1998) does not “hold up for projects across different industries” (p.1010). Nevertheless, the research gives a clear understanding of need to establish a set of project success factors taking into account project type and properties. http://www.reinventingprojectmanagement.com/material/other/11.%20In%20search%20of%20classification.pdf White, D., & Fortune, J. (2002). Current practice in project management – an empirical study. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 1-11. The title of the article describes exactly objectives of the quantitative study, which White and Fortune (2002) conducted among project managers in 2002. Today I consider its results are still of current importance and useful for organisations which seek effective methods of project management (PM). The research results give a comprehensive view on currently used PM practices in relation to different types of projects, as well as reveal a set of criteria used for evaluation of projects success. Generally speaking, the research confirmed results of other studies found in the literature that the most critical factors for any project are clear goals / objectives; support from senior management; and adequate funds / resources. It is important that “the fit between the project and the organisation and the consequences of the project for the performance of the business” (White and Fortune, 2002, p.10) were also reported as significant criteria. In addition interesting findings were revealed concerning the unexpected side-effects, such as increased business / opportunities, or new knowledge gained during the project. The study was further developed by other researchers, for example, by Hyvari (2006) who also confirmed that three above-mentioned CSFs are critical success / failure factors. Crawford et al. (2006) point out, however, the limitations of sampling in the White and Fortune (2002) research, where over 25% of respondents were from the IT industry, 8% were from engineering and only 2% were from a construction industry, while a number of other researches reveal a construction industry as one of the main areas of applying PM methods. In spite of the critique, I consider the White and Fortune (2002) research findings as highly important for all industries; they have developed an exhaustive list of critical factors, which should be taking into account depending on different project conditions. http://fandango.cs.unitn.it/~rcuel/filippo/05073112044316275.pdf Westerveld, E. (2003). The Project Excellence Model: linking success criteria and critical success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 411-418. In this article Westerveld (2003) describes the first model, which was developed by linking findings of previous researches on both project success criteria and critical success factors. In my opinion, it was a large step toward a generalisation of accumulated body of knowledge in the project success or failure research area. The model was based on the well-known EFQM Excellence model and was called The Project Excellence Model. It is important that the model derived from its predecessor one of the most essential features – it distinguishes Result Areas (Project success criteria) from Organisational Areas (Critical success factors) and assumes that “in order to manage a project successfully the project organisation has to focus” on these two areas concurrently (Westerveld, 2003, p.412). In relation to project success criteria Westerveld (2003) emphasises again that they are differ between projects and depend on various project characteristics. Regarding critical success factors it is pointed out that the external factors are extremely significant and should be taken into account. External factors can relate to skills and knowledge of project manager or team members; to project features (size, uniqueness, etc.); to parent organisational competencies (e.g. effective control and communication systems, good planning and scheduling, strong teamwork and leadership, etc); or external environment characteristics (technologies, politics, etc.). In conclusion Westerveld (2003) suggests a clear picture of the Project Excellence Model for five major project types, which he defines as Product-oriented, Tool-oriented, System-oriented, Strategy-oriented, and Total Project Management. For each of the types he gives a detailed description that includes key result and key organisational areas, as well as characteristics of the projects, keys to success and critical control aspects. http://www.dcs.napier.ac.uk/~cs181/Modules/PE/Project%20Excellence%20Model.pdf Shokri-Ghasabesh, M., & Kavousi-Chabok, K. (2009). Generic Project Success and Project Management Success Criteria and Factors: Literature Review and Survey. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 8 (6), 456-468. The last article, which I’ve chosen for reviewing, represents an up-to-date research on above-mentioned issues of projects success. In my review it serves as a summarizing of thoughts and research findings that were revealed earlier, from the today’s point of view on project management practices. Based on a comprehensive literature review, Shokri-Ghasabesh & Kavousi-Chabok (2009) give clear definitions of Success and a Successful project, as well as clear distinctions between Project Success Criteria vs. Project Success Factors, Project Management Success vs. Product Success, and Project Success vs. Project Management Success. They also introduce the term “Ambiguity” in relation to project success factors, explaining that there may be different interpretations of project success factor among researchers. In addition, authors represent a list of generic criteria, which can influence a success of the most projects, regardless of their types and other characteristics. But most importantly, Shokri-Ghasabesh & Kavousi-Chabok (2009) produce the results of survey, which reveal alterations of PM professionals opinions concerning the importance of project critical success factors. Surprisingly for today’s PM Managers the Top Management Support is the most important factor, and then Cost and Project Control follow. Time, which was the first one in previous studies, is on 9th place in this survey. So, “it seems that idea of considering a successful project when it merely meets the time, cost and quality purposes is now becoming outdated” (Shokri-Ghasabesh & Kavousi-Chabok, 2009, p.465). These changes in ideas of how to measure a project success serve as evidence of need of further investigations in Project Success Criteria and Factors area. http://www.wseas.us/e-library/transactions/economics/2009/32-503.pdf Summary Numerous researches show that applying Project Critical Success Factor (CSF) approaches in Project Management practices is extremely important for ensuring project success. According to Rockart (1979, p. 87), project organisations and managers can enjoy the following benefits when applying the CSF approach: The process helps the manager to determine those factors on which he or she should focus management attention. It also helps to ensure that those significant factors will receive careful and continuous management scrutiny. The process forces the manager to develop good measures for those factors and to seek reports on each of the measures. The identification of CSF allows a clear definition of the amount of information that must be collected by the organization and limits the costly collection of more data than necessary. The identification of CSF moves an organization away from the trap of building its reporting and information system primarily around data that are “easy to collect”. Rather, it focuses attention to those data that might otherwise not be collected but are significant for the success of the particular management level involved. It is obviously that sets of CSFs will differ in relation to contract project and in-house projects, because these types of project have significant different characteristics both in internal and external factors. An overview of some research results in the Project Critical Success Factor area gives a deeper understanding of how criteria and factors of project success can be defined for each particular type of projects, as well as it helps taking some previously observed Project success factors into account as necessary criteria. References Amberg, M., Fischl, F., & Wiener, M. (2005). Background of Critical Success Factor Research. Friedrich-Alexander-Universitat Erlangen-Nurnberg, Working Paper No.2. Retrieved May 12, 2010 from http://www.international-outsourcing.de/CSF-Tool/docs/WorkingPaper_BackgroundCSF_Ambergetal._FINAL.pdf Crawford, L., Pollack, J., & England, D. (2006). Uncovering the trends in project management: Journal emphases over the last 10 years. International Journal of Project Management, 24, 175–184. Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., Shenhar, A., & Tishler, A. (1998). In search of project classification: a non-universal approach to project success factors. Research Policy, 27, 915-935. Hyvari, I. (2006). Success of projects in different organizational conditions. Project Management Journal, 37 (4), 31-41. Khang, D.B., & Moe, T.L. (2008). Success Criteria and Factors for International Development Projects: A Life-Cycle-Based Framework. Project Management Journal, 39 (1), 72–84. Pich, M.T., Loch, C.H., & Meyer, A.D. (2002). On Uncertainty, Ambiguity, and Complexity in Project Management. Management Science, 48 (8), 1008–1023. Rockart, J. (1979). Chief Executives Define Their Own Information Needs. Harvard Business Review, March/April 1979, 81-89. Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., & Maltz, A.C. (2001). Project Success: A Multidimensional Strategic Concept. Long Range Planning, 34, 699–725. Shokri-Ghasabesh, M., & Kavousi-Chabok, K. (2009). Generic Project Success and Project Management Success Criteria and Factors: Literature Review and Survey. WSEAS Transactions on Business and Economics, 8 (6), 456-468. Westerveld, E. (2003). The Project Excellence Model: linking success criteria and critical success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 411-418. White, D., & Fortune, J. (2002). Current practice in project management – an empirical study. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 1-11. Read More