Software methodology

Procedia Engineering 196 ( 2017 ) 607 – 615

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

1877-7058 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Creative Construction Conference 2017 doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2017.08.048

ScienceDirect

Creative Construction Conference 2017, CCC 2017, 19-22 June 2017, Primosten, Croatia

Project Management Success Factors

Mladen Radujkovića, Mariela Sjekavicab* a University of Zagreb, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Fra Andrije Kačića Miošića 26, Zagreb 10 000, Croatia

a Alma Mater Europea ECM, Slovenska ulica 17, Maribor 2 000, Slovenia b Croatian water, Ulica grada Vukovara 220, Zagreb 10 000, Croatia

Abstract

Project management success is extremely interesting topic from scientific, as well as practical point of view. Namely, different models of project management success emerged through history, indicating the level of thoughts considering management of project successful. This article differs project management from project success, gives definitions of project management success, aims to review different models of project management success, differs success of managing public and private projects and gives a special accent on present situation in context of project management in Croatia. Comprehensive literature review is given, analysis and synthesis of most interesting material is made, and applicable practical guidelines are defined. © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Creative Construction Conference 2017.

Keywords: project management, success, public project, EU project, case study

1. Introduction

Maybe the most beloved word of any project practitioner is “success” [1]. There are two main success concepts when talking about projects: project success and project management success. There are similarities, as well as differences, between these two project success dimensions [2-5]. The main difference concerns with linking project success with result of evaluation of overall project goals achievement, while project management success relates to traditional measurements of time, cost and quality performance [2, 3, 6, 7]. However, due to existence of many different models of both project and project management success, it is hard to make a strong differentiation between them, mostly because of their mutual relationships.

* Corresponding author. Mladen Radujković Tel.: +385-1-463-9234.

E-mail address: [email protected]

© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the Creative Construction Conference 2017

608 Mladen Radujković and Mariela Sjekavica / Procedia Engineering 196 ( 2017 ) 607 – 615

Nomenclature

EU European Union WWTP Wastewater treatment plant GIS Geographic information system PM Project management WBS Work breakdown structure OBS Organizational breakdown structure SWOT Strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats PDM Precedence diagram method EVM Earned value management

Although there is no consensus definition of what project success consists of [7- 10], authors are agreed that project success can be achieved through good actions of project manager [11-13].

This article deals with project management success with an aim to contribute to today’s knowledge and practices existing on the area of construction management in particular. Construction projects success is namely fundamental question for most governments, users and communities [12], so it is very important never to stop looking for new ways of contribution to improvement of construction management success.

This aim will be achieved through four parts. In the first part, comprehensive literature review is given, defining different meanings and models of project management success through time. In the second part, project management success factors are given in a breakdown structure. The structure consists of three parts: project management competence, organizational elements and project management tools, methods, methodologies and techniques. This breakdown structure is explained through management of public, EU co-financed water projects in the third part. Finally, recommendations for future development are given in the fourth part.

2. Project management success

Project management is planning, organization, monitoring and control of all aspects of project, with motivation of all included to achieve project goals on safe manner, within agreed schedule, budget and performance criteria [14]. It can be seen from the definition of project management, that it is focused on project performance, regarding short-term dimensions of project success – adherence to criteria of time, cost and quality. The “iron triangle” model itself was the very first model of project management success [2], which has later proven to be only a part of overall project success. From this point of view, it is clear to see how it is possible to have a successful project with unsuccessful project management, and vice versa. Namely, project can be successful despite unsuccessful project management because it has achieved higher and long-term goals. In the moment when management of project stops, short-term orientation can be unsuccessful, but long-term outcome can be successful, because wider set of goals are satisfied, instead of narrow subset which project management consists of [15].

Besides the “iron triangle”, and taking into account considerations of project management success, it is possible to find many different approaches [16]. Project manager is not responsible only for time, cost and quality management, but also integration, scope, human resource, communication, risk and procurement management [17], so he or she is the most responsible person for project success.

With this in mind, it is surely possible to broaden “iron triangle” model on models that anticipate management of stakeholders’ satisfaction [18, 19], benefits to organization that owns the project [16, 18, 20] and long-term impacts on project environment [21].

How to measure if project management is successful? Project management success can be evaluated through already mentioned criteria of time, cost, quality, scope, resource and activity [22], but also through models of measuring success like PMPA – Project Management Performance Assessment [23] or maturity models of management within organization like Project Excellence Model® [24]. It is hard to answer the question of project management success evaluation precisely, because project management creates both tangible and intangible benefits [25].

609 Mladen Radujković and Mariela Sjekavica / Procedia Engineering 196 ( 2017 ) 607 – 615

As stated earlier, it may be possible for a right project to succeed without successful project management, but successful project management can boost up its success. There is a significant positive relationship between project management practices and project success [4, 26, 27]. Project management success is one of the elements of project success, because the latter is hardly achievable without it [28].

3. Project management success breakdown

In addition to thoughts given in previous chapter it is interesting to take a look at those project management parts which contribute the most, both to project management success and, consequently, to overall project success. Those parts are named project management success factors – enablers or influencers of project management success.

In table 1 such review is given, with authors specifying those factors.

Table 1. Project management success factors [Slightly modified from 29]

Project management success factor Author, year

Category of project management success factors

Project manager competencies [7, 30-32] C1

Project managers’ emotional intelligence, soft project manager elements [33-35] C1

Stuff in project team [27, 36] C1

Application of project management knowledge and skills from project manager and project team, as well as their coordination

[34, 35] C1

Organizational structure [32, 34] C2

Organizational culture [24, 37] C2

Project management tools and techniques [38, 39] C3

Project management standards [35, 40] C3

Through examination of these factors, it can be seen that they can be attached to three categories, as highlighted in

the third column of the table:

Elements of project management competence (C1) Elements of organization (C2) Elements of project management methodologies, methods, tools and techniques (C3)

Regarding this categorization, slight modification of initial factors found in literature is made, based on ICB - IPMA Competence Baseline [14], OCB - IPMA Organizational Competence Baseline [41], and categorization regarding C3 found in [42] and [43]. The final result is given in figure 1.

First category, elements of project management competence, consists of technical, behavioral and contextual competencies (based on [14]) of project manager and project team members, as well as their coordination.

Second category, elements of organization, consists of organizational structure, organizational culture, organizational atmosphere and organization competence (PP&P governance, PP&P management, PP&P organizational alignment, PP&P resources, PP&P people’s competences (based on [41])).

Third category consists of six parts, based on [42], and followed on by [43]: project management methodologies, project management software, project management tools, decision-making techniques, risk assessment tools and information communication technology support tools.

Theoretically, if you have a competent project manager, competent team, coordinated manager and team, adequate organizational structure, culture, atmosphere and competence, as well as high usage of project management methodologies, methods, tools and techniques, your project should have highly successful project management, and enable project success.

It is important to note here, that the importance of these factors may vary depending on project type (public or private) and project orientation (interim projects or projects for the market) and number of projects being managed in

610 Mladen Radujković and Mariela Sjekavica / Procedia Engineering 196 ( 2017 ) 607 – 615

organization. For instance, in organizations that manage many projects, organization competence becomes vital, but is not that important in organizations that are concentrated on relatively small number of parallel projects.

Fig. 1. Project management success factors breakdown structure

How the breakdown works on practical cases will be shown in next chapter, through three cases of EU co-financed water projects.

4. EU co-financed water projects: case study

EU co-financed water projects are public projects in the Republic of Croatia, which are being planned, selected, verified, monitored and controlled under Croatian water as Intermediate Body of Level 2. The fact that these projects are public, gives special accent on their project management. Project manager must take into consideration a larger scope of elements than time, cost and quality while taking managerial decisions – e.g. end users satisfaction, environment, health and safety, political and social implications etc.

Factors from the three categories will be tested on three case studies, whose characteristics can be seen in table 2. All of the three projects have implemented Project Implementation Units inside grant contract beneficiaries’ organizations, with project manager and project management team in charge for successful implementation of project.

611 Mladen Radujković and Mariela Sjekavica / Procedia Engineering 196 ( 2017 ) 607 – 615

Project manager also exists from the point of view of Intermediate Body of Level 2, and is responsible for verification of Project Implementation Unit work. Therefore, he/she is the relevant person for assessment of project management factors on those projects. Project managers were asked to assess the strength of project management competence (on Likert scale 1-5; where 1 = insufficient competence, 2 = sufficient competence, 3 = good competence, 4 = very good competence, 5 = excellent competence) and existence of organization competence, define parent organizations’ structure (functional, project or matrix), culture (clear or unclear, strong or weak, stabile or flexible, authoritative or democratic) and atmosphere (positive, neutral, negative) and name those project management methodologies, software, tools and techniques in use.

Table 2. Three project case studies

Project no. 1 2 3

Project duration (years)

3,5 4 2

Project value category (mil. EUR)

0-20 > 50 21 -50

Project scope WWTP, Sewage system expansion and construction, Water system- house ports , Equipment, GIS system, Supervision, Visibility, PM

WWTP, Sewage system reconstruction and expansion, Water system reconstruction, Equipment, Property relations, Supervision, Visibility, PM

WWTP, Sewage system construction, expansion and reconstruction, Water system construction and expansion, Equipment, Supervision, Visibility, PM

The result of project reviews and interviews with project managers are shown in table 3.

Table 3. Results of evaluation of project management success factors

Project no. 1 2 3

Project management competence

Project manager’s competence

Technical competence

4 4 4

Behavioral competence

4 4 2

Contextual competence

5 5 3

Project team’s competence

Technical competence

4 5 2

Behavioral competence

4 5 3

Contextual competence

4 5 3

Coordination 3 5 2

Organization

Organizational structure

Matrix Matrix Matrix

Organizational culture

Unclear

Weak

Stabile

Authoritative

Clear

Strong

Stabile

Authoritative

Unclear

Weak

Stable

Authoritative

612 Mladen Radujković and Mariela Sjekavica / Procedia Engineering 196 ( 2017 ) 607 – 615

Organizational atmosphere

Positive Positive Negative

Organization competence

Applicable, 2 parallel external projects Not applicable, only 1 external project Applicable

PP&P governance -

PP&P management -

PP&P organizational alignment

-

PP&P resources -

PP&P people’s competences

-

Project management methodologies, methods, tools and techniques

Project management methodologies

ICB ICB ICB

Project management software

MS Excel, Primavera MS Excel, Primavera MS Excel, Primavera

Project management tools

Gantt charts, S curves, PDM, EVM, WBS, OBS, Cash flow analysis, SWOT, Project chart, Resource Leveling, Reporting system, Progress reports, Progress meetings, Team building

Gantt charts, S curves, PDM, EVM, WBS, OBS, Cash flow analysis, SWOT, Project chart, Resource Leveling, Reporting system, Progress reports, Progress meetings, Team building

OBS, Cash flow analysis, SWOT, Project chart, Reporting system, Progress reports, Progress meetings

Decision-making techniques

Cost benefit analysis, Decision analysis Cost benefit analysis, Decision analysis Cost benefit analysis

Risk assessment tools Life cycle cost analysis Life cycle cost analysis Life cycle cost analysis

Information communication technology support tools

Integrated group interface, Expert forums

Integrated group interface, Expert forums

Group interface (only e- mail)

As it can be seen from table 3, some conclusions can be drawn:

Project managers on projects 1 and 2 are quite competent, especially in contextual sense, which is very important because these projects are EU co-financed, so there is a broader context than in nationally funded projects. Project manager of the third project is evaluated low in behavioral and contextual competence element, which can warn on potential problems in managing this project.

Project team’s competence on second project is excellent, what indicates great team composition and complementarity, which supports project manager. Team members’ competence on the first project is very good, and on the third project, very low.

Coordination between project manager and project team is extremely highly assessed on the second project, good on the first project and bad on the third one.

All parent organizations have matrix structure, what means that some project team members work both on project and in their regular departments of functional part of organization. This structure indicates that parent organizations still want to have some sort of control over project decision-making, while keeping project management “in house”.

Previously said is visible in organizational culture, which for all three organizations is authoritative - the “last word” usually stays within organization director. Speaking of organizational culture, it is stable in sense of years and tradition on operating on one way, but is strong and clear only on the second project.

Organizational atmosphere is negative only on the third project, which is not surprising according to the previous notions on that project.

613 Mladen Radujković and Mariela Sjekavica / Procedia Engineering 196 ( 2017 ) 607 – 615

It is useful and purposeful to analyze organization competence only in those organizations that manage more than one project at the time, what is the case on the first and third project. All elements of organization competence do exist on the first project, but not on the third one.

When it comes to the last category, it can be noted that first and second project are keen of usage of same project management methodologies, methods, tools and techniques. Third project, on contrary, uses only those tools that are obligatory on EU co-financed projects in water sector such as cost benefit analysis (including life cycle cost analysis, project chart, OBS and SWOT).

To conclude, second project has the most successful project management, the average one is on the first project and the worst on the third one. After conducting these case studies, it can be seen that proposed PM success factors breakdown structure methodology coincides with current state and trends on these projects.

According to all said above, recommendations for future PM development in praxes can be made, and they consist of:

Education. Education on PM competence and even more important – right way to use them is extremely important. Project manager with his team is the most responsible for the final project success at the end of the day. That is why it is important to promote competence, PM knowledge and best praxes. The significant part of this education should be internal organizational capacity and competence strengthening, as well as learning based on experience between organizations.

Relationship between project and parent organization. This relationship also defines project manager responsibilities in decision-making and, consequently, liability. Due to that, it should be defined in relation to project type and project purpose. It is important to work on creation of such organizational strategic governance and project-supporting climate to give projects best organizational preconditions possible to succeed.

PM methodologies, methods, tools and techniques. It is very useful to know large scale of these, but only in order to help, not embitter yourself. Teach, try and pick those which fit to your case the most, and which can make your life easier and your project planning, monitoring and control optimized. According to internal and mutual organizational learning mentioned before, it is useful to develop those methods, tools and techniques that can really help organization in managing their own projects.

5. Conclusion

Project management is inevitable in today’s world – a place of continuous improvement through different types of various projects. Project management is not only necessity for that improvement but also one field that seeks for improvement itself, through influence on different PM success factors. Those factors are drawn up in this article, in form of project management success factors breakdown structure. The breakdown structure is then applied on three different EU co-financed projects, and relevant conclusions are made, the most important one dealing with matching between proposed breakdown structure methodology and real trends and states on the projects. Investments in project management field should be made, especially through strengthening people and organization competence.

Acknowledgements

Authors would like to thank Faculty of Civil Engineering of University of Zagreb, Alma Mater Europea ECM and Croatian waters on support and motivation of this research.

References

[1] E. Howsawi, D. Eager, R. Bagia, K. Niebecker, The four-level project success framework: application and assessment, Organisational Project Management. 1 (1) (2014) 1-15.

[2] A. De Wit, Measurement of project success, International Journal of Project Management. 6 (3) (1988) 164-170. [3] T. Cooke-Davies, The “real” success factors on projects, International Journal of Project Management. 20 (3) (2002) 185-190.

614 Mladen Radujković and Mariela Sjekavica / Procedia Engineering 196 ( 2017 ) 607 – 615

[4] P. Serrador, J.R. Turner, The relationship between project success and project efficiency, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 119 (2015) 75-84.

[5] A.J. Shenhar, D. Dvir, Project management research - the challenge and opportunity, Project management journal. 38 (2) (2007) 93-99. [6] K. Jugdev, R. Müller, A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success, Project Management Journal. 36 (4) (2005) 19-31. [7] L.A. Ika, Project success as a topic in project management journals, Project Management Journal. 40 (4) (2009) 6-19. [8] J.K. Pinto, D.P. Slevin, Critical success factors across the project life cycle, Project Management Journal. June (1988) 67-75. [9] D. Baccarini, The logical framework method for defining project success, Project Management Journal. 30(4) (1999) 25-32. [10] L. McLeod, B. Doolin, S.G. MacDonell, A perspective based understanding of project success, Project Management Journal. 43 (5) (2012)

68-86. [11] S. Bezak, M.M. Nahod, Project manager's role analysis as a project management concept, Tehnički vjesnik. 18 (1) (2011) 33-40. [12] N. Gudienė, A. Banaitis, N. Banaitienė, J. Lopes, Development of a conceptual critical success factors model for construction projects: a case

of Lithuania, Procedia Engineering. 57 (2013) 392-397. [13] C. Gewanlal, M. Bekker, Project manager attributes influencing project success in the South African construction industry, Acta Structilia,

22(1) (2015) 33-47. [14] International Project Management Association, ICB - IPMA Competence Baseline, 3rd edition, Nijkerk, International Project Management

Association, 2006. [15] A.K. Munns, B.F. Bjeirmi, The role of project management in achieving project success, International Journal of Project Management. 14(2)

(1996) 81-87. [16] F.J. Machado, C.D.P. Martes, Project management success: a bibliometric analisys, Proceedings of 12th International Conference on

Information Systems & Technology Management – CONTECSI, São Paulo, CONTECSI, 2015. [17] Project Management Institute, Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) Guide, 5th edition, Project Management Institute, 2013. [18] R. Atkinson, Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria,

International Journal of Project Management. 17(6) (1999) 337-342. [19] H. Maylor, Beyond the Gantt chart: Project management moving on, European Management Journal. 19 (1) (2001) 92-100. [20] P. Ribeiro, A. Paiva, J. Varajão, C. Dominguez, Success evaluation factors in construction project management—some evidence from medium

and large Portuguese companies, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering. 17(4) (2013) 603-609. [21] M. Radujković, Project management and its impact on society in 21st century, keynote lecture, Seminario Internacional „Direccion de

Proyectos Desafious Actuales y futures”, Pontifica Universidad Catolica de Chile, Centro de Extension UC Alameda, Santiago de Chile, 2014. [22] H.R. Kerzner, Project management metrics, KPIs, and dashboards: a guide to measuring and monitoring project performance, John Wiley &

Sons, New Jersey, 2011. [23] D.J. Bryde, Methods for managing different perspectives of project success, British Journal of Management. 16(2) (2003) 119-131. [24] E. Westerveld, The Project Excellence Model®: linking success criteria and critical success factors, International Journal of Project

Management. 21(6) (2003) 411-418. [25] J. Thomas, M. Mullaly, Researching the value of project management, Project Management Institute, 2008 according to F.A. Mir, A.H.

Pinnington, Exploring the value of project management: Linking Project Management Performance and Project Success, International Journal of Project Management. 32(2) (2014) 202–217.

[26] K.E. Papke-Shields, C. Beise, J. Quan, Do project managers practice what they preach, and does it matter to project success?, International Journal of Project Management. 28 (7) (2010) 650–662.

[27] F.A. Mir, A.H. Pinnington, Exploring the value of project management: Linking Project Management Performance and Project Success, International Journal of Project Management. 32(2) (2014) 202–217.

[28] W.S. Han, A.M. Yusof, S. Ismail, N.C. Aun, Reviewing the notions of construction project success, International Journal of Business and Management. 7 (1) (2012) 90-101.

[29] M. Radujković, M. Sjekavica, Development of a project management performance enhancement model by analysing risks, changes, and limitations, Građevinar. 69 (2) (2017), 105-120.

[30] M. Radujković, Voditelj projekta, Građevinar. 52 (3) (2000), 143-151. [31] J.R. Turner, R. Müller, V. Dulewicz, Comparing the leadership styles of functional and project managers, International Journal of Managing

Projects in Business. 2 (2) (2009) 198-216. [32] M. Radujković, IPMA Competence Based Approach to Project Management Standards, keynote lecture, Project Management Symposium

2014, Maryland, 2014. [33] L.R. Yang, C.F. Huang, K.S. Wu, The association among project manager's leadership style, teamwork and project success, International

Journal of Project Management. 29 (3) (2011) 258–267. [34] A.L.R. Feger, G.A. Thomas, A framework for exploring the relationship between project manager leadership style and project success, The

International Journal of Management. 1 (1) (2012) 1-19. [35] M.M. Nahod, M. Vukomanović, M. Radujković, The Impact of ICB 3.0 Competences on Project Management Success, Procedia – Social and

Behavioral Sciences. 74 (2013) 244-254. [36] M. Radujković, The Role of Project Management in Construction Industry Modernization, Proceedings of the 13th China International

Construction Project Management Summit, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 13th China International Construction Project Management Summit, 2014. [37] G. Skulmoski, Project maturity and competence interface, Cost Engineering. 43 (6) (2001) 11-24. [38] J.S. Chou, N.T. Ngo, Identifying Critical Project Management Techniques and Skills for Construction Professionals to Achieving Project

Success, 2014 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEE IEEM), Malaysia, 2014.

615 Mladen Radujković and Mariela Sjekavica / Procedia Engineering 196 ( 2017 ) 607 – 615

[39] C. Besner, B. Hobbs, The project management tools and techniques: The portrait of current professional practice, Project Management Journal. 37 (3) (2006) 37-48.

[40] J.S. Chou, N. Irawan, A.D. Pham, Project Management Knowledge of Construction Professionals: Cross-Country Study of Effects on Project Success, Journal of Construction and Engineering Management. 139 (2013) 1-15.

[41] International Project Management Association, OCB - IPMA Organizational Competence Baseline, Nijkerk, International Project Management Association, 2013.

[42] J. Fortune, D. White, K. Jugdev, D. Walker, Looking again at current practice in project management, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. 4 (4) (2011) 553-572.

[43] K. Jugdev, D. Perkins, J. Fortune, D. White, D. Walker, An exploratory study of project success with tools, software and methods, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. 6 (3) (2013) 534-551.