Business Project Management Strategies For Success

Business Project Management

Strategies For Success

Section 1: Foundation of the Study

INTRODUCTION

The private and public sectors increasingly establish organizational

activities as projects (Duffield & Whitty, 2015). For the private sector,

projects result in the organization’s profitability, directly or indirectly, by

improving the organization’s strategic competitiveness (Kopmann et al.,

2017). The essence of projects in the public sector is to benefit the larger

society by providing value for money and contributing to a desirable

development outcome (Hussain et al., 2017). Regardless of the different

objectives for undertaking projects between the private and public sectors,

project managers must meet the projects’ goals. Project managers largely

determine the success or failure of projects (Bredillet et al., 2015).

Background of the Problem

In their pursuit of comparable levels of development, developing

countries worldwide provide large-scale infrastructures such as road

construction, the building of bridges and dams, and other projects (Rammelt,

2018; Sari & Rahman, 2021). In Zambia, the construction industry

contributed 10.3% to the overall gross domestic product (GDP) in 2017

(Central Statistics Office, 2018). Globally, the construction industry has

continued to grow steadily despite the decline in the global economy (Saeedi

& Karim, 2022). However, construction project delays and failure continue

to be the norm (Saeedi & Karim, 2022), with Aranyossy et al. (2018)

positing that large and complex projects have a failure rate of 40% across

public and private sectors. Researchers estimated that, on average, as a

percentage of the original contract value, the total cost of reworking a failed

project in South Africa was 5.12% (Simpeh et.al., 2015). Project

performance, measured in line with meeting project goals on time, cost, and

acceptable quality, is a study area that has raised much interest over the

years (de Carvalho et al., 2015).

Project-management tools and techniques have gained popularity as a

distinct management concept in achieving project success and have evolved

to curtail continued poor project performance (Alias et al., 2014). Formal

project-management tools include goal setting and planning project rules,

standards, and procedures for use by the project team. Despite the associated

benefits of using prescribed project management tools and systems, some

projects have failed to deliver the expected outcomes with high failure rates

(Ramazani & Jergeas, 2015). As a consequence of the continued failure of

projects, interest in understanding the limitations of traditional project-

management tools and techniques in achieving project success continues to

intensify (Joslin & Müller, 2015; Klein et al., 2015). Klein et al. (2015)

contended that project managers tend toward creativity, spontaneity, and

intuition in applying project-management theories to project activities

because of the complexities of managing projects for success. Therefore, it is

arguable that in addition to adapting and using traditional project

management tools and techniques, project managers require other strategies

to manage projects for success.

Problem Statement

Construction projects across public and private sectors continue to

experience repeated failures despite advances in project management tools

and processes (AhiagaDagbui et al., 2017). In 2013, developing countries,

including, Sub-Saharan African countries, spent approximately one trillion

U.S. dollars on infrastructure projects in public and private sectors

(Miyamoto & Chiofalo, 2015); according to Ahiaga-Dagbui et al. (2017),

transport infrastructure projects such as roads, bridges, and rail reported 86%

probability of failure to meet targeted costs. The general business problem is

that some project managers fail to adopt the right strategies to limit high

project failure rates leading to financial loss and lower profitability for

construction companies. The specific business problem is that some

Zambian construction project managers lack project-management strategies

to avoid infrastructure-project failure.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this qualitative multiple case study was to explore

strategies Zambian construction project managers use to avoid infrastructure

project failure. The population for this study comprised project managers

working in Lusaka, Zambia. Project managers were from five public and

private construction companies in Zambia who had implemented successful

strategies to avoid infrastructure-project failure. The results of this study

contribute to social change by including the potential for economic growth

and improved quality of life for affected communities because of the

enhanced, well-planned, and efficiently implemented infrastructure projects

Nature of the Study

The primary three research methods available to a researcher are

qualitative, quantitative, and mixed (Baškarada & Koronios, 2018).

Qualitative methodology was used in this study. Using the qualitative

methodology enables a researcher to explore the contextual richness of how

people cope in their real-world settings (Yin, 2017) and provides for an in-

depth understanding of a phenomenon (Baškarada & Koronios, 2018).

Quantitative studies are best suited for studies using statistical data with

clearly identified variables and focused on examining relationships or

differences among multiple variables (D. L. Morgan, 2015). Mixed-method

research requires a level of statistical measure by incorporating techniques of

qualitative and quantitative methodologies (Venkatesh, et al., 2016). This

study used no statistical data measures, rendering the quantitative and

mixedmethod research methodologies unsuitable.

Qualitative research designs include case studies, ethnography,

phenomenology, and narrative research (Yin, 2017). A case study design

was used in this study. Casestudy research enables a researcher to conduct a

broad in-depth investigation of a phenomenon for which limited literature

exists, arising from various sources consistent with exploratory research

(Marshall & Rossman, 2016; Yin, 2017). An ethnographic design provides a

systematic understanding of cultural context and its influence on the

behaviors of individuals or groups of individuals (Bernard, 2013). This study

was not focused on respondents’ cultural context, rendering ethnographic

design unsuitable. The phenomenological method focuses on an in-depth

investigation of participants’ lived experiences (Padilla-Díaz, 2015). The

focus of this study was not to explore project managers’ lived experiences,

making phenomenological design inappropriate. A narrative design centers

on the lives of the research participants as told through stories (Clandinin, et

al., 2016). This study did not focus on the lives of the participants or their

stories; hence, a narrative design was unfitting. I chose to use the case-study

design for this research to allow for a holistic and critical exploration of the

project-management strategies used by various project managers.

Research Question

The research question under exploration was as follows: How do

Zambian construction project managers avoid construction-project failure?

Interview Questions

I posed the following interview questions to participants:

1. What strategies do you use in managing projects to avoid project

failure?

2. What method works best in determining the choice of the project-

management strategies you use in managing successful projects?

3. What barriers have you encountered in implementing your

projectmanagement strategies to reduce project failure rates?

4. How did you address the barriers to implementing the strategies to

reduce infrastructure-project failure rates?

5. How is the effectiveness of the strategies to reduce infrastructure-

project failure rates assessed?

6. Is there anything else you would like to share regarding the

projectmanagement strategies you apply to avoid project failure?

Conceptual Framework

Contingency-management theory formed the basis of this study.

Fiedler’s (1967) contingency-trait theory was the precursor to contingency-

management theory. The assertion behind the contingency management

theory is that no single best method exists to manage individuals or projects.

The following fundamental constructs underlie contingency-management

theory: (a) no best way of managing exists, (b) the environment or situation

determines the appropriate way to manage, (c) the selection of the

appropriate strategic fit with the environment and its subsystems influences

organizational performance, and (d) an appropriate management style

determines the performance of the organization (G. Morgan, 2007). Hence,

the circumstances, environment, and context determine the most appropriate

management and leadership strategy and approach.

According to contingency-management theory, no one management

approach or strategy fits all circumstances or situations (McAdam et al.,

2016). Contingencymanagement theorists have suggested that most

successful projects are likely to be those whose project managers find the

best fit between the strategies and the project context (Shenhar, 2015).

Contingency-management theory may be useful in exploring successful

prevention strategies because project managers are likely to use different

project management strategies based on the contingencies surrounding

projects to avoid project failure.

Operational Definitions

The definitions below provide the meaning associated with terms

frequently used in this study.

Project management: This term refers to the application of

knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project activities to meet the

requirements of the project (Project Management Institute, 2017).

Project management tools: These are a set of processes or mechanics

designed to help project individuals and teams to plan a project, track, and

manage the tasks to achieve the defined project goals within the time and

cost. Such tools also assist team members in collaborating effectively and

accelerating the projects to meet the specified objectives while addressing

the constraints (Varajão et al., 2020)

Project-management body of knowledge (PMBOK): PMBOK is the guide

introduced by the Project Management Institute (PMI) to provide a

universal standard for use by project managers in conducting project

management practices while managing individual projects (Snyder

Dionisio, 2017).

Traditional project management: Traditional project management is

the use of prescribed methods, tools, techniques, and knowledge on project

activities to meet the requirements of a project (Kostalova et al., 2017)

Assumptions, Limitations, and Delimitations

Assumptions

When justifying a study, researchers consider certain items to affect

the understanding and outcome of a study (Lips-Wiersma & Mills, 2014)

with details that, though unverified, are assumed true (Marshall & Rossman,

2016). I had two assumptions in this study. The first was that the research

participants would be truthful and accurate in responding. The second

assumption was that project managers interviewed would have the authority

to make decisions regarding strategies that can work to enhance their

performance; therefore, these participants were suitable to accomplish the

desired study objectives.

Limitations

Uncontrollable circumstances arise during research, resulting in

weaknesses and internal threats that can affect the transferability of research

findings (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). Limitations could influence the

perceptions of future researchers intending to use the research about the

reliability of the findings of a study (Shipman, 2014). Possible limitations to

qualitative research are sample type and sample sizes (Yilmaz, 2013). I

identified two limitations associated with this study. First, the study results

depend on the participants’ responses with no project documents to validate

their responses. Second, respondents were restricted to a small geographical

area, thereby affecting the ability to transfer the findings.

Delimitations

Delimitations provide the bounds of the research (Hancock &

Algozzine, 2016) and impact the ability to transfer the research findings.

Delimitations also define what researchers will not do (Marshall &

Rossman, 2016). This study was limited to project managers with a history

of delivering successful public-sector projects. Because of time and financial

constraints, all project managers participating in the study practiced in

Lusaka, Zambia.

Significance of the Study

Contribution to Business Practice

The success or failure rates of projects affect an organization’s

profitability and performance (Rui et al., 2017). By identifying strategies

that have worked in enhancing project success and reducing project failures,

construction companies are likely to improve the levels of business

performance. Therefore, the results of this study could provide information

on the critical strategies associated with executing successful publicsector

infrastructure projects. Project managers could apply the study findings to

improve project performance of future projects by avoiding identified

problems leading to project failure and adopting identified strategies

associated with project success (Jallow et al.,

2014).

The information from this study will enable project managers to

develop workable strategies and tactics to decrease the number and costs of

potential project failures. With a clear understanding of multiple

perspectives on project management, study findings may add to the

knowledge project managers can use to enhance their abilities to avoid or

reduce project failure. Project managers can institute strategies to monitor

and control for project failure to improve project success.

Implications for Social Change

The contribution of infrastructure to economic growth and poverty

reduction is not disputable (Zamojska & Próchniak, 2017). By using more

effective strategies to improve project performance and increase

profitability, the beneficence of infrastructure is likely to be enhanced. More

social and economic infrastructure is likely to be provided effectively,

benefiting communities, citizens, and families. Additionally, with higher

project success rates in public projects comes an increased likelihood of

increased economic growth and poverty reduction through reduced costs of

providing public infrastructure and services with a concomitant increase in

social amenities. With increased economic development comes more

significant social change (Hussain et al., 2017).

A Review of the Professional and Academic Literature

This qualitative multiple case study explored strategies project

managers use to avoid infrastructure-project failure. I undertook an extensive

review of the extant literature on project management, factors that influence

project success, contingency theory, and strategies used by project managers

to manage projects. When seeking relevant literature, I focused on peer-

reviewed studies and articles relevant to answering the research question. I

searched the following databases: Google Scholar, Science Direct, Business

Source Complete, ProQuest Central and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses

Full Text, and ABI/INFORM Complete. I also searched for literature on

PsycINFO, EBSCOhost, Sage PREMIER, Emerald Management Journals,

Academic Search Complete, and dissertations and theses at Walden

University. I used the following keywords and a combination of them as a

strategy to develop the literature review: (a) contingency theories, (b) project

management, (c) project success, (d) strategies, and (e) project managers.

When building this literature review, I primarily considered the

conceptualization of project management and the alternatives to the

management of projects. The investigation of literature focused on

underscoring the professional and academic literature existing on varied

experiences in managing projects for success. Additionally, the

consideration of literature focused on the influence of the contingency-

theory school of thought and the influence the theory has on the success of

projects.

Table 1 provides detail on the number of publications and other

references used in the literature review by the period of publication. I used a

total of 115 sources in the literature review, of which 89% represent

literature published within a 5-year period. The other 13 works were

formative or seminal studies.

Table 1

Summary of the Literature Review References

Source type

% of 2015–

2019

Older % of older Total

Academic,

peerreviewed

journals

85.2 8 6.9 106

Books 4 3.4 5 4.5 9

Total 102 88.6 13 11.4 115

Application to the Applied Business Problem

Contingency Theory

Contingency theory takes various approaches focused either on the

suitability of the fit or the processes of adapting to the context and

environment to achieve a contextual fit (Shenhar & Holzmann, 2017).

Consideration of the project context, complexity, novelty, and environment

and contingency theory in project-management research is gaining

popularity (Papke-Shields & Boyer-Wright, 2017). Previously, researchers’

focus was on identifying critical-success factors for projects with the

understanding that the causes of project success or failure were similar;

therefore, identifying and managing these factors would result in project

success. The contingency-theory approach broadens this perception by

extending factors to include project (and organizational) contexts and the

environment. An example is Canonico and Söderlund (2010), who applied a

contingency model of management control to multi-project organizations.

Joslin and Müller (2016) considered the contingency approach by

considering the management of projects based on differences in project

environments.

Three or more individuals working to achieve a shared purpose form a

team (Imangulova & Kolesnyk, 2016), and like any team in an organization,

project teams do not operate in a vacuum but in the organization’s context.

Members with varying cultural norms form project teams; therefore, the

interface and collaboration on a team impact the achievement of objectives.

Given likely differences in team members’ cultural norms, the management

of project teams impacts the project’s outcome (Imangulova & Kolesnyk,

2016). Thus, project managers should understand the different cultural

norms of project team members to develop appropriate leadership strategies

to achieve team cohesion (Franz et al., 2016). Contingency-theory

approaches and perspectives indicate that the success of projects depends on

contingency factors (Joslin & Müller, 2016); therefore, project-team

managers should consider cultural norms as one contingency in a project

setting.

The application of conventional project-management practices, even

in organizational projects, does not guarantee success in investment (Badewi

& Shehab, 2016). No universality exists in the management of projects, just

as project-success factors are not universal (van der Hoorn, 2016).

Variations in projects underpin contingency-theory-based project

management (van der Hoorn, 2016). Therefore, in practice, project managers

behave in various ways in real-life situations by adopting workable

management styles rather than managing projects using prescribed,

traditional project-management approaches. Sydow and Braun (2018)

contended that capturing only the formal ways of managing projects may not

sufficiently explain what leads to project success, considering the informal

interactions and connections associated with projects and project teams.

The contingency theory-based approach suggests that project

performance is primarily a result of the fit among a set of contingencies that

include the complexity of the project, the environment in which the project

is operating, the project structure, the team culture, available technology, and

organizational strategy (Tosi & Slocum, 1984). According to the

contingency-theory approach, the success or failure of a project rests on its

fit with several factors. The conceptual argument is that the consequence of

one variable on another depends on some third cause, demonstrating that no

one best way exists to manage (G. Morgan, 2007; Otley, 2016; Tosi &

Slocum, 1984). Theorists of the contingency approach use the notion of fit to

capture the association between the project environmental context and

project characteristics (Joslin & Müller, 2016; van der Hoorn, 2016),

assumed to contribute to better project performance outcomes.

The contingency theory-based approach implies that managers select

and use a methodology to manage projects that they customize based on

project contingencies in the project management field. Accordingly, the

success of a given factor, such as project management, is not due to a

straightforward answer but is moderated by other factors. The frequently

cited project contingencies that impact the effectiveness of the

projectmanagement methodology adopted by project managers include

governance and the environment in which projects operate (Joslin & Müller,

2015, 2016). Although no single best method exists to manage organizations

and projects for success (G. Morgan, 2007), the organizational or project

environment and context determine the best approach. Joslin and Müller

(2016) posited, in adopting the project-management approach, that project

managers need to consider the environment in which the project is operating

and the governance structures of the project as factors influencing project

success.

The success of any organization or project is due to the type of task,

environment, or situation, the management approach adopted (G. Morgan,

2007), and the capacity to adjust or adapt to the context (McAdam et al.,

2016). Harmony must exist between the organization, project structure, and

environment (McAdam et al., 2016). The following significant constructs

underlie contingency theory: (a) no best way of managing exists, (b) the

environment or situation determines the appropriate way of managing, (c)

the fit influences organizational performance with the environment and with

its subsystems, and (d) the appropriate management style determines the

performance of the organization (G. Morgan, 2007).

Historically, broad generalizations by various researchers

characterized the use of contingency theory (Otley, 2016). Contingency

theory gained popularity in the 1950s and 1960s as an alternative option to

the generalized models of organizational theory advocated by Woodward

and other scholars (Hanisch & Wald, 2012). According to Woodward

(1958), technologies directly accounted for the disparities between aspects of

organizations such as control span, authority centralization, procedure, and

rule formalization. Woodward supposed that various contingencies—

suppliers and distributors, competitors, government, customers and

consumer interest groups, unions, and technology—influenced the

operations of organizations. Considering projects as temporal organizations,

the influence of such similar factors and their management is essential for

the success of projects and therefore relevant to the context of this study.

According to Sauser et al. (2009), users of the contingency-theory

approach considered the prescribed scientific forms of management theory

and lacked awareness and consideration of the organizational context and

administrative behaviors, thereby leading to their failure in addressing

underlying organizational problems. Therefore, Vidal et al. (2017)

concluded that no single best way to behave and manage aligns with the

organization and leadership. Instead, the context and adopted management

practices determine the effectiveness of the leader (Hossain & Saleh, 2016).

This viewpoint underpins this study in understanding the strategies adopted

by project managers in managing successful projects in Zambia.

Despite the broad and recognized research on contingency theories,

the application of the theory to project-management research was low,

emerging gradually and gaining greater prominence in the last 2 decades

(McAdam et al., 2016). According to contingency theorists, the concept of

fit captures the relationship between the characteristics of the organization—

in this case, the project—and the context, assumed to contribute to better

performance results (Hossain & Saleh, 2016; Vidal et al., 2017).

Vidal et al. (2017) contended misfits are worse than any fits.

With the consideration of projects as temporary organizations (Sydow

& Braun, 2018) and without an established overarching theoretical

framework, contingency theory serves as a useful explanation for strategies

used by project managers to achieve project success (Vidal et al., 2017).

Emphasis is on context-based strategies and approaches that depend on

contingency fit rather than on a single best way to manage projects. From

this perspective, project managers seek to improve the performance of

projects by improving the fit and aligning with the project environment

(McAdam et al., 2016). Proponents of contingency theory argue against the

existence of homogenous best practices to management. Contingency

theories include a variety of approaches focusing on either the effectiveness

of fit across a variety of firms or the adaptation of processes by which

individual firms achieve fit with their task environments. The core concept

of fit as a foundational aspect of contingency theory is the basis for

advocating the need for proper alignment among internal and external

organizational factors that positively affect project performance.

Complexity Theory as an Alternative Theory

Introduced by Kauffman (1993), complexity theory explains the

interconnectedness among variables in a complex system. Complexity

theory is a model accounting for rich diversity among variables and the

influence each variable brings to the whole system (Baltacı & Balcı, 2017).

Complexity theory provides an alternative theory to explain complexities in

projects and the variously interconnected subsystems related to the

interorganizational nature of projects. Accordingly, complex systems are not

the same as complicated systems and projects are complex systems and not

necessarily complicated (Arena & Uhl-Bien, 2016).

Kauffman (1993) recognized five properties of complex systems: (a)

nonlinear relationships, (b) unbounded, (c) multiple causality, (d) self-

organization tendencies, among the different system agendas, and (e)

emergent designs. These properties indicate that complex systems tend to

have unpredictable dynamic relationships with several sources of change in

the system and unclear demarcations. Additionally, the proposition by

Kauffman entailed that systems can change relationships, reveal new

information, and have dynamic interactions. Because of the dynamics

associated with complex systems, the interaction among variables in a

complex system tends to achieve results fundamentally different from those

anticipated (Baltacı & Balcı, 2017).

Applied to the management of projects, some properties of complexity

theory are applicable to project management, such as nonlinearity and

multicausality (Kauffman, 1993). However, a lack of clarity led to some

complications, with some researchers debating the composition and

definition of complexity in the context of the project (Padalkar & Gopinath,

2016). Other properties associated with complexity theory render it

somewhat less applicable to project-management practice such as

unboundedness, considering that projects are definitive, temporary, and

bounded in nature (Padalkar & Gopinath, 2016). The argument that complex

systems are self-organizing entails that project managers have no role in

organizing projects; as a self-organizing agent, projects would have no need

for management oversight. Project leadership is critical for project success

(Hermano & Martín-Cruz, 2016). This weakness in complexity theory

rendered the theory inappropriate to use as the conceptual framework for this

research.

Projects as Temporary Organizations

Projects can be perceived as temporary organizations; therefore, their

management can borrow from organizational theory (Sydow & Braun,

2018). Temporary organization align with activities and practices based on

mutually dependent individuals organized in the form of teams and company

actors pursuing agreed-upon ex ante objectives in a fixed time frame (Burke

& Morley, 2016). This definition of temporary organizations is similar to the

PMBOK Guide definition of projects as temporary undertakings aimed at

achieving set objectives in a stipulated period of time (PMI, 2017).

This notion supports the principle of projects as temporary organizations.

Lundin and Söderholm in 1995 were the first to conceptualize the idea

of considering projects as temporary organizations; in 2003, Tuner and

Müller integrated the traditional project-management view using projects as

temporal organizations (as cited in Sydow & Braun, 2018). These

developments led to new perspectives on the management of projects from a

narrow perspective to an approach that is more pluralistic in nature,

borrowing from the organizational theories of management (Lundin et al.,

2015). Temporary organizations like projects are time bound and the

management of time is of great significance (Sydow & Braun, 2018).

The differentiating factor of temporary organizations that makes them

similar in management to projects is the ex-ante mechanism of termination,

built in the structures. In managing temporary organizations like projects,

managers rely on groups of individuals rather than organizational units

(Sydow & Braun, 2018). These groups of individuals often come together

from various backgrounds, experiences, and expectations regarding

organizational or project objectives, leading to heuristic rather than

systematic information processing (Sydow & Braun, 2018) influenced by the

interorganizational past relations of the team (Eriksson et al., 2016).

Another significant similarity between temporary organizations and

projects is the management of interorganizational relations with various

stakeholders; temporary organizations and projects cross organizational

boundaries (Sydow & Braun, 2018). Given the understanding of projects as

temporary organizations, projects do not need to be managed using the

traditional project-management approach with conventional project-

management methodologies, tools, and techniques (Jacobsson et al., 2016).

Projects, like temporary organizations, require management with

consideration of their temporary and relational nature. It is with this

understanding that contingency theory approaches to project management

are considered an alternative to traditional project management.

Projects as Interorganizations

Projects are increasingly becoming interorganizational in nature, and

this provides another challenge in the context and complexity of managing

projects (Sydow & Braun, 2018). The complexity associated with the

interorganizational nature of projects relates to latent and activated ties in

these projects, assorted team members with varying cultural backgrounds,

and the associated hierarchies created that require disordering by the project

manager (Takele & Teklu, 2016). The interorganizational nature of projects

entails the project manager facing the challenge of blurring organizational

boundaries and the need to reframe the behavior of individual project teams

that are influenced by their organizations or departments (Sydow & Braun,

2018).

Although not all projects are interorganizational in nature,

construction projects are embedded in interorganizational settings (Sha,

2016), involving more than one organization—an increasingly important

consideration in developing strategies for managing projects. In the case of

construction projects, apart from the organization implementing the project,

as an example, the organizations supplying the materials greatly influence

the performance of the project. Typically, a construction project involves

interplay among various organizations and systems including the project

sponsor, the contracted organization, subcontractors that in some cases may

be several, the consultant, and the designer (Wu et al., 2018). Each of these

influences the success of the project in some way. Therefore, project success

is not limited to the confines of the project or the implementing organization

(Sydow & Braun, 2018). Thus, project managers need to recognize the other

influencing factors in deciding on the projectmanagement strategies to apply.

Apart from external factors that influence project performance,

behaviors of project team members and past and future interactions of team

members influence project performance through the shadows of

interorganizational relationships (Ligthart et al., 2016). Past relationships of

project members are either a source of innovation in the project setting

(Eriksson et al., 2016) or a source of fragmentation that requires effective

management to yield positive project performance. The interorganizational

nature of the project is, therefore, not only of innovation but also of inertia

(Sydow & Braun, 2018).

When considering the projects as interorganizational, the role of a

project manager is two-fold: that of a chief executive with autonomy and

power and that of the agent to the principals (Sydow & Braun, 2018). As

chief executive of the project, the project manager achieves the success of

the project by providing leadership. As project leaders, project managers

stimulate, motivate, and recognize project members to get work done and

achieve the desired outcome (Andersen, 2016). The goal is to inspire team

members to exert their full potential and remain committed to the

achievement of the desired results. In achieving their role as chief executive

officer, project managers may adopt different leadership styles and

strategies, based on the situation (Cho et al., 2016).

Another important aspect of the project manager’s role as chief

executive officer of the project is to manage relationships among and with

different stakeholders. The management of projects includes addressing

customers, service providers, suppliers, and other stakeholders, providing an

important context of the interorganizational nature of projects (Ligthart et

al., 2016; Sydow & Braun, 2018). As a result, the management of a project

cannot depend only on the traditional classic project-management

approaches; the manager may have to establish strategies to strengthen

reciprocal trust and cooperation among the various project actors (Ligthart et

al., 2016). In developing strategies to manage projects, Müller et al. (2016)

asserted that informal connections matter as much as formal contracts.

Traditional project-management approaches may overlook the need to

manage informal connections (van der Hoorn & Whitty, 2015).

Project Success and Failure

In the project management field, and in the consciousness of project

managers, the notion of project success continues to be highly ambiguous

with no clearly accepted definition (Samset & Volden, 2016). Various

institutions and individuals interpret project success differently (Davis,

2014; Samset & Volden, 2016). The term success remains a highly

subjective and vague concept, depending on individual perspectives (Davis,

2014; de Carvalho et al., 2015; Rolstadås et al., 2014). Different project

types are measured differently and in certain cases, the same project is

assessed differently by different individuals based on preferences, the degree

to which the project affects them, and individual values. A project manager

measures success by how close the project comes to being on time, on

budget, and aligned with specifications; in contrast, for the investor, success

is about long-term economic feasibility; and for the user, success is the

effects of the project.

Traditionally, conformity with project cost, schedule, and

performance, referenced as an iron triangle, constitutes project success

(Brady & Davies, 2014; Cserháti & Szabó, 2014). Increasingly, the notion of

viewing project success using the “iron triangle” is changing on the basis

that the iron triangle was an insufficient measure of success (Anantatmula,

2015; Mir & Pinnington, 2014; Serrador & Turner, 2014). Rather, a need

exists for an enhanced understanding of success.

Using the iron triangle as a measure focuses on project efficiency

rather than project success (Berssaneti & Carvalho, 2015). As a result,

definitions of project success have changed to include multiple criteria

because of the complexity of projects and the involvement of various parties,

including stakeholder satisfaction as a success measure (Davis, 2014; Ramos

& Mota, 2016; Serrador & Turner, 2014). New measures of project success

should consider the expectations and perspectives of the various

stakeholders and end-users. End-user satisfaction, supplier satisfaction, team

satisfaction, customer satisfaction, meeting user requirements, attaining the

purpose, and business success are all perspectives requiring consideration

when measuring and defining the success of projects (Davis, 2014).

De Carvalho et al. (2015) argued that, in addition to financial

performance and the iron triangle definition of project success, a need exists

to distinguish between projectmanagement success and the success of the

project product or service provided. A true project success definition,

consequently, must evaluate the different aspects of the project: the impact

on the environment, social characteristics, and project, product or service

sustainability.

Projects are increasingly becoming complex, compounded by the

political, socioeconomic, and technological environments in which they exist

and coexist (Berssaneti & Carvalho, 2015). Samset and Volden (2016)

distinguished project success in terms of strategic and tactical performance.

In strategic terms, performance includes long-term and broader perspectives

considering sustainability, relevance, and the impact of the project. Tactical

performance is short-term in nature, considering the iron triangle. A

successful project delivers the agreed output and, at the same time,

contributes to the significant fulfillment of the overall objectives (Samset &

Volden, 2016).

Although it is important to understand the reasons behind project

failure, because of the varied definitions of project success, it becomes

difficult to distinguish and define what constitutes project failure (Rezvani et

al., 2016). Additionally, the challenge in defining project failure arises from

the varied states of a project between complete success and complete failure

(Müller & Jugdev, 2012). Considering the crucial role that understanding

project success or failure has in project-related research, it is imperative to

discuss the factors that influence project success.

Project Success Factors

Several factors significantly contribute to the success or failure of

projects and the management of projects (Silva Susil et al., 2015). Silva

Susil et al. (2015) identified 34 factors critical to project success. Amade et

al. (2015) highlighted nine aspects as critical in containing project failure

and abandoning public-sector construction projects. Managing these factors

is essential to the success of projects in developing countries. The nine

factors outlined by Amade et al. are as follows:

1. a lack of detailed and comprehensive design by the contractors,

2. inadequate effective monitoring,

3. unclear understanding of the project’s mission,

4. insufficient technical know-how of the project manager,

5. insufficient support from top management,

6. political risks,

7. an ineffective procurement process,

8. insufficient financing by the client, and

9. ineffective communication and information-management strategies

by the project team.

Berssaneti and Carvalho (2015) explored the influence of internal and

external environments to enhance understanding of the causes of project

failure; while, Joslin and Müller (2015) studied the influence of project

context and conduct of actors in projects on project failure. When addressing

the main influences on project success, a project manager manages the time

required to complete the project, financial assets, and other resources

(Pandya, 2014). Daily, project managers face obstacles and challenges that

impact the completion of projects in the planned timeframe, planned costs,

defined quality, and using the available resources (Chen et al., 2019). Project

managers must develop workable strategies aimed at effectively managing

the critical factors of scope time and resources while managing stakeholder

and project team expectations.

One shared element between a failed project and a successful one is

the management of the people (Nitschke, 2013). The project manager is at

the center of the project process and has a significant role in overseeing the

project, directing the project team, and ensuring the success of the project

(DuBois et al., 2015). It is the role of the project manager to ensure the

project ends in success. Leadership and people management are critical to

project management. Fundamental to the way people work together in teams

to achieve defined objects is the performance of leadership and has been a

subject of much research in project-management literature (Nixon et al.,

2012). Leadership is an essential portion of project management, influencing

project outcomes and project excellence directly, determining the overall

project culture, and providing a tool to mobilize people for change (Ahmed

et al., 2013). Leadership skills critical for project success include problem

solving, motivation, negotiation, influence, conflict management, and

effective communication (Ahmed et al., 2013). Leadership style and

personality traits are critical project success factors (Ahmed & Anantatmula,

2017). Additionally, the ability for the project manager to use lessons

learned from experience influences project success (Sepehri, 2015).

Project managers consider leadership to entail developing effective

communication tools as the central factor to generate a positive relationship

among leaders, the supporters of the project, and the project teams (Vacar,

2014). Teamwork is a critical element for the success of any project.

However, the temporality of projects means that members of the project

teams could be new, with no past working relationships, and may not spend

enough time on the project to establish an effective way of working together

(Too & Weaver, 2014). It is critical, therefore, that the project manager uses

leadership to develop effective project teams to maximize the performance

of the project team (Vacar, 2014). Effective project teams are critical to

project success. Leadership styles that include team building, establishing

clear relations and roles among project members, openness, self-confidence,

organization, clearly defining project successes, and reevaluating when

necessary influence project success (DuBois et al., 2015). Leadership styles

and traits likely influence the selection of strategies for use in managing

projects for success (DuBois et al., 2015).

Building trust among team members and empowering the project team

are elements of leadership that are critical to successful project management.

It is critical that project managers build synchronization, cooperation, and

coordination among project teams (Zoogah et al., 2015). Project managers

assign great importance to human-resource actions essential in achieving

organizational objectives by creating a powerful and united team and

strengthening relationships among team members through good

communication

(Vacar, 2014). Project managers’ leadership skills significantly influence

project success (Pandya, 2014), as they are accountable for the day-to-day

oversight of the project, managing change, assuring the availability of

resources, addressing behavioral and emotional flares with internal and

external stakeholders, and building relationships that help create a high-

performance team.

Various skill components influence project performance differently

(Sunindijo, 2015). Interpersonal skills positively influence project-time

performance whereas four skill components—emotional intelligence,

interpersonal skill, apparent sincerity, and budgeting—positively influence

project cost performance. In addition, eight skill components—visioning,

emotional intelligence, interpersonal skill, transformational leadership,

interpersonal influence, apparent sincerity, quality management, and

document and contract administration—influence project-quality

performance. Project managers must develop effective skills to manage the

multifaceted responsibilities associated with managing successful projects

(Sunindijo, 2015).

T. Williams (2015) focused on the interconnected nature of success

considering causal chains through which success emerges. Among success

factors are the multidimensionality of project success and the complex

interactions among factors. Root causes of specific project success factors

are generic or context-dependent, building on the underlying systemic nature

of success factors (T. Williams, 2015).

Successful Project Management

For decades, the management of projects has focused on measuring

performance based on the iron triangle, thereby directing the development of

tools and frameworks to achieve efficiency (Hjelmbrekke et al., 2015).

Project management is a key topic in the literature on projects (Ali & Kidd,

2013), rooted in foundational organizational, administrative, human

relations, and scientific-management philosophies (T. C.

Williams, 2011). Representatives of the PMI (2017) defined project

management as the use of techniques, tools, skills, knowledge, and

capabilities on a project to meet or surpass stakeholder requirements and

expectations. Kaiser et al. (2015) described project management as a

framework for providing strategies, techniques, and methodologies to

manage projects efficiently and successfully.

Several tools used in project management to estimate and manage

costs emerged from defense programs for aircraft, missiles, shipbuilding,

and facilities of the 1940s and 1950s (Lenfle & Loch, 2010). Following

those tools, managers executed projects through planning, scheduling, cost

estimating, cost control, and schedule-control functions, forming

associations among them (Ghosh et al., 2012). The focus of these

associations was to standardize the project manager’s knowledge in

consideration of the essential experience, interpersonal skills, and

competence that are key for successful project management (Ballesteros-

Sánchez et al., 2019). Furthermore, the focus of institutions such as PMI and

the International Project Management Association was to develop standard

tools and techniques to manage projects (Ghosh et al., 2012).

A white paper, Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge

(PMBOK), was developed by PMI in 1981, eventually constituting an

official guiding document in 1987 (Ghosh et al., 2012). Ultimately, the

PMBOK progressed into defining standards for the project management

profession (PMI, 2017). Despite the standards, techniques, or tools used,

project managers manage, control, and minimize project-failure rates by

ensuring project alignment with project objectives (Khamooshi &

Golafshani, 2014). In addition to being a rational decision process, project

management is a process involving negotiating, bargaining, and structural

reconfiguration, responding to complexities and uncertainties in business

environments (Martinsuo, 2013).

Project management, as described in the PMBOK, emphasized certain

aspects over others, highlighting hard skills and the need for documentation,

control, and measurement of the project (Besner & Hobbs, 2012). However,

Berssaneti and Carvalho (2015), emphasized soft skills as they relate to the

management of stakeholders and communication skills. Söderlund and

Maylor (2012) accentuated the need to balance hard and soft skills in

managing projects. Jugdev et al. (2013) contended that projectmanagement

methodologies, tools, and techniques are supposed to help project managers

carry out their work and effect procedures.

Patanakul (2015) suggested six attributes of project-management

effectiveness divided into two components: strategic and operational.

Strategic attributes include strategic alignment, adaptability to internal and

external changes, and the added value of projects. The operational elements

include project visibility, transparency in decisionmaking, and predictability

in project delivery. Each attribute suggested by Patanakul eventually impacts

the success of projects.

However, despite augmented business-process rigor recommended by

projectmanagement associations and institutions, projects continue to

perform poorly (Moraes & Laurindo, 2013). Notwithstanding continued

project failures, project management continues to grow in importance and

significance in reducing project failure. A growing body of professional

associations seek to reduce failure by investing in new strategies, standards,

methodologies, and tools to increase project success (Davis, 2014).

An association exists between good quality project management and

project success (de Carvalho et al., 2015), leading to a proliferation of

standardized projectmanagement methodologies (Remer & Ross, 2014). Of

the total variation in project success, 22.3% resulted from the project-

management methodology employed (Joslin & Müller, 2015). Further,

project-management maturity led to project success through the development

of systematic methods, models, and tools, over time (Winch, 2014). Among

factors that contributed to the success of projects and project management is

the projectmanagement methodology based on the governance structure or

context of the project (Joslin & Müller, 2015). Clustered or grouped use of

project management practices, tools, and techniques were more effective

than individualized differences between projects and industries (Besner &

Hobbs, 2012).

Pinto and Winch (2016) reviewed the science of project management,

seeking to examine the importance of the early stages of project

development and the complete cycle of projects from conception to

successful handover. Pinto and Winch contended that the management of

projects focused on tools, techniques, and normative best practices. Some

studies in the field of project management such as studies by Mir and

Pinnington (2014), Badewi (2016), and de Carvalho et al. (2015) indicated

some significant relationship between some project-management methods

and project success. However, despite these findings, it is difficult to

establish consistency in the relationship between project management and

success.

In spite of associated developments and changes, as well as increased

appreciation of project-management tools and techniques and the associated

benefits of improving management skills among project managers,

researchers continued to describe the dismal performance of projects

(Alsudiri et al., 2013). Rugenyi (2016) assessed the influence of project-

management competence, expressed as project-management experience and

project-management professional certification on the successful management

of project scope, time, and cost: the triple constraint. The ability of project

managers to manage the triple constraint effectively determines the success

or failure of a project. Findings by Rugenyi (2015) indicated that the years of

experience of a project manager and a project manager’s professional

certification had no influence on the ability to manage the triple constraints.

This finding supports the notion that for projects to succeed, other

influencing actors influence success.

The wide use of the prescribed techniques and tools do not have a

strong relationship with success (Papke-Shields & Boyer-Wright, 2017). The

prescriptive nature of project-management approaches resulted in various

problems including restricted usefulness, lack of acceptance, and ambiguous

application (Ahlemann et al., 2013). As a result, project managers have

tended to use other strategies to manage projects for success. Because of the

internal and external environments in which projects operate, implementing

project-management methodologies have proven to be challenging (de

Carvalho et al., 2015).

Variables in the project environment complicate, confound, and render

projects complex to manage (Dao et al., 2017). Additionally, the complexity

of projects and project environment tend to result in increased project risk

(Floricel et al., 2016, 2018). Uncertainty of project results imply that the

more complex the nature of the project, the greater the risk for project failure

(Moore et al., 2018). As a result of these project complexities, the project

manager’s role is to ensure project teams continually adjust to project plans

(Khattak et al., 2016)

Factors that render projects complex are internal and external to the

projects. These factors may entail changing the project scope in form and

size (Dao et al., 2017) or the changing nature of interest and perspectives of

stakeholders (Khattak et al., 2016; Klein, 2016). Factors often outside the

control of the project-management team include obtaining project permits

and approvals (Dao et al., 2017) technological changes (Khattak et al.,

2016), dynamics in the market environment, political and social issues, and

cultural dynamics (Dao et al., 2017; Khattak et al., 2016; Klein, 2016). This

multifaceted nature of project dynamics makes traditionally prescribed

projectmanagement methodologies more complex, leading project managers

to consider other less prescribed strategies to manage projects to ensure

success.

Limitations of Traditional Project Management

The traditional project-management approach has not evolved with

time and remains highly dependent on the concepts developed almost 50

years ago (Shenhar, 2015). Despite developments and research that have

occurred more recently, little change has accrued to the methodologies,

tools, and techniques associated with traditional project management. The

concepts associated with the traditional way of conducting projects propose

that a project is a compilation of activities requiring planning and execution

in accordance with an encoded and predetermined process (Shenhar, 2015).

The implication is that the purpose of project management is to achieve the

on time, within budget, and scope objectives. Project management has

therefore largely continued to rely on the use of the standard tools and such

as the as network diagramming techniques, Gantt charts, critical chain, work

breakdown structures, critical path, and earned value, mainly designed to

manage the triple constraints. Little has changed in project-management

approaches despite technological advancements dominated by the same

concepts (Eriksson et al., 2017).

Various authors (Johnson et al., 2016; Shenhar, 2015; Svejvig &

Andersen, 2015) discussed the insufficiency of traditional project

management. For example, Svejvig and Andersen (2015) identified six

categories emerging as major aspects that make classical project

management insufficient: contextualization, social and political aspects,

rethinking practice, complexity and uncertainty, actuality of projects, and

broader conceptualization. These aspects differentiate traditional project

management and the concepts of rethinking project management (Svejvig &

Andersen, 2015). These categories cover a broad range of contributions with

diverse and alternative perspectives on project management.

van der Hoorn (2016) argued that the positivist conceptualization of

projectmanagement tools and techniques prescribed by traditional project-

management approaches leads to challenges in the successful delivery of

projects and especially megaprojects. The positivist conceptualization

assumes the project manager is external to the organization and the

command and control structures in the organization. The internal and

external influences of the project lead to uncertainties and unpredictable

realities that cannot be managed using the blueprint prescribed by traditional

project-management approaches (van der Hoorn, 2016).

Research in project management lacks a strong theoretical

underpinning (Drouin & Jugdev, 2013; Parker et al., 2015). Therefore, the

recommendation is to apply theory from related fields. As a result,

researchers in project management have tended to use theoretical constructs

from well-developed concepts in the management field (Drouin & Jugdev,

2013; Papke-Shields & Boyer-Wright, 2017; Parker et al., 2015). Likewise, I

applied contingency theory in this study.

Commonly cited organizational structures presented by Burns and

Stalker (1961) can be either mechanistic or organic in nature (Kanten et al.,

2015). Similarly, considering projects as temporary organizations, project

organizational structures can be either mechanistic or organic. The

characteristic of a mechanistic organization structure is high levels of

formalization and standardization with functions that are largely centralized.

In contrast, organic organizational structures tend to be more flexible, lean,

and easily adaptable to the context and environment. Use of prescribed

traditional project-management tools and methodologies tend to be

mechanistic in nature in comparison to the contingency approach, which is

more organic in nature.

In the project environment, the mechanistic management system

entails using established conditions and complete knowledge of the project’s

expectations and requirements with a clear structure and work division. In

the organic system, varying conditions determine the characteristics

associated with managing the project, making it difficult to use a prescribed

management modality from the onset of the project

(Aramburu et al., 2015; Klein et al., 2015; Wysocki, 2014).

Traditional project-management approaches to assessing the

performance of construction projects use a reductionist perspective, viewing

a project as one unit with several processes and activities connected to

achieve an identified outcome (Zhu & Mostafavi, 2017). Researchers have

attributed the continued failure of projects to the reductionist approach to

project management (Sage et al., 2014). Given the complexity of projects,

regardless of the size, linear thinking strategies are considered less effective;

researchers are proposing the adoption of a systematic pluralist approach to

project management (Sage et al., 2014). Systemic pluralism entails project

managers recognizing projects as systems and adopting a pluralistic

approach and systems-thinking perspective in the management of projects.

Differing perspectives of the project task among project managers

mean different ways of understanding and interpreting the work situation,

leading to differing strategies adopted to manage projects (Andersen, 2016).

The significance of understanding the inherent differences in perspectives of

project managers is the impact on the adoption and use of traditional

approaches to project management. Given differences in perceptions, project

managers adopt either mechanistic or organic project-control systems

(Chenhall, 2003).

Although mechanistic approaches tend to be rigid in nature, with set

rules (Chenhall, 2003), organic controls are more flexible and open-ended,

involving fewer regulations and standard procedures, largely dependent on

the environment (Chenhall, 2003), similar to the contingency theory of

management. The organic control system assumes no ideal type of managing

a system for the achievement of success and depends on the changing market

and technological dynamics (Ylinen & Gullkvist, 2014).

Organic project-management theory reflects two significant

characteristics. First, relaxed controls reflect the need to closely manage

cooperation and communication among project stakeholders, emphasizing

timely completion of the work. Second, organic projects welcome open

communication channels with a free flow of information between the project

manager and project team subordinates (Ylinen & Gullkvist, 2014). In the

organic system, teams become self-organizing, self-sufficient, and self-

directing (Klein et al., 2015; Wysocki, 2014). From the organic perspective,

project characteristics are subject to changing conditions, and it is not

possible to provide scope details at the project’s onset (Wysocki, 2014).

Traditional project-management theories propose detailing the project scope

at the development stage of the stage, limiting traditional project

management (Wysocki, 2014).

Strategies to Manage Successful Projects and Contingency Theory

Van der Hoorn (2016) developed a tool to identify and visualize the

critical success factors specific to a project at any time in the project

execution stage. Using this tool, project managers can develop strategies to

manage projects by identifying factors that would lead to the greatest

efficiency and effectiveness in project execution by considering the project

context and complexity.

Traditionally, project management was detached from the project

context or environment. However, project context matters to achieve

successful project management (Joslin & Müller, 2015). Despite project

managers following well-defined formal rules for project planning and

decision-making, projects continue to fail (Samset & Volden, 2016). This

failure has led to a shift from the idealized notion of the universality of

project management methodologies and tools toward a more contingency-

based approach to managing projects (Deng & Smyth, 2013). The

perspective that not all projects have the same influences point to the need

for project managers to find ways of managing projects differently. Project

management practices, as defined currently, do not always ensure project

success (Alias et al., 2014). Rather, strategies for the management and

control of projects largely determine project success. From a strategic point

of view, using traditional project management tools alone does not

adequately guarantee project success (Hjelmbrekke et al., 2015). The

diversity of factors driving project success requires strategic management.

Contingency-based approaches are becoming more visible in the

construction-management literature (Deng & Smyth, 2013).

Managing the diversity associated with projects and project teams

(Hjelmbrekke et al., 2015) requires planning and establishing a project

strategy. Strategic decisions made by the project manager define the

distinction between successful projects and failed ones. Project managers

should be able to switch successfully between the early strategies of

focusing on project-success factors to later strategies of managing factors

influencing success. This proficiency calls for continuous project planning

and strategic management throughout the process of implementing the

project, while reviewing and considering various stakeholder needs and

expectations (Hjelmbrekke et al., 2015).

The management of multiple stakeholders poses a challenge for

project managers in deciding which strategies to employ to ensure project

success. Strategies must address different and sometimes contradictory

success perceptions of project stakeholders (Davis, 2014). Successful project

managers effectively manage to address stakeholders’ expectations while

correspondingly managing the triple constraints of time, cost, and scope.

Managers simultaneously maintain positive and constructive communication

and working relationships with the project team and stakeholders (Ahmed &

Anantatmula, 2017).

Project managers and portfolio managers consider standardized formal

projectportfolio management methods and models used in practice

insufficient in managing projects for success (Jerbrant & Gustavsson, 2013).

Projects are complex and operate in unstable and continually changing

environments (Klein et al., 2015). Addressing the complexities of projects

and management of projects entails the use of combinations of multiple

schools of project management and improvisational practices. Project

managers simply rely on their knowledge rather than on strict protocols or

tools when managing projects for success. This type of behavior is

improvisational; an aspect of projectmanagement practice not adequately

addressed in principal project-management theories (Klein et al., 2015).

To manage the turbulent environments in which projects operate,

project and portfolio managers require action space (Jerbrant & Gustavsson,

2013). Action space provides stability in the need for structure and flexibility

(Jerbrant & Gustavsson, 2013). Project and portfolio managers use

improvisational strategies and actions in these action spaces outside formal

project-management techniques and tools. Improvisational strategies and

actions present an opportunity for the rapid decision-making required in

project and portfolio management (Jerbrant & Gustavsson, 2013; Klein et

al., 2015).

One reason for project failure is the impact of unexpected events

during the project cycle. Laufer et al. (2015) studied how project managers

cope with unexpected events during the project cycle to ensure the success

of the projects. Findings by Laufer et al. indicated that successful project

managers use a combination of traditional and agile approaches similar to

contingency-based approaches to ensure project success. Project

management is increasingly becoming more strategic and business oriented

(Shenhar, 2015). The increasing strategic orientation of project management

requires new approaches. Strategic project leadership as an inclusive

approach to managing projects that combines the strategic, business-related

features of projects; the contextual aspects of projects; and the need to adapt

to the environment, the team leadership perspectives of project management,

and the conventional triple constraint of time, budget, and performance

needs of the project (Shenhar, 2015). To achieve success, project managers

ought to address the strategic and business aspects of their projects while

adapting their styles of management to the project and environmental

context.

The management and control strategies of projects largely determine

construction-project success (Alias et al., 2014). Success requires leadership

strategies to manage and control projects at all stages of the project cycle.

Variables critical for project success include project-management action,

project procedures, human factors, external issues, and project-related

factors, defining the development of project leadership strategies by project

managers (Alias et al., 2014). Project success in the construction industry

requires project managers to have three types of knowledge:

projectmanagement knowledge, knowledge through experience, and industry

knowledge in their knowledge set (Burger et al., 2015). For a project

manager to be effective, they needed general management and interpersonal

knowledge, project management, and technical knowledge and experience.

A combination of this knowledge is strategic for project success (Burger et

al., 2015).

Because of the complexities associated with project management,

project managers have tended toward creativity, spontaneity, and intuitive

application of theories to meet project objectives in a constantly changing

environment (Klein et al., 2015). No one tool or school of thought can

resolve all problems and complexities of managing projects successfully

(Klein et al., 2015). This view aligns with contingency theory, a perspective

that refrains from an approach advocating for a single effective path (Kujala

et al., 2014). The contingency-theory perspective suggests that most

successful projects are likely those whose project managers find the best fit

between strategies and project context (Shenhar, 2015). The proposed

improvisation, like contingency theory, advocates for the selection of the

best tool, approach, or strategy in any context and situation.

By definition, projects and project designs are novel and tend to be

complex, unique, and unpredictable (Shenhar, 2015); as a result, project

managers recognize the need to develop strategies to manage and control

projects for success (Alias et al., 2014). Project managers are likely to use

various and divergent approaches in developing strategies for specific

projects to ensure success. Laufer et al. (2015) studied how project managers

cope with unexpected events during the project cycle to ensure the success

of the project and found that successful project managers use a combination

of traditional and agile approaches to ensure project success.

The various approaches adopted change at different stages of the

project cycle. During the early stages of the project, project managers

develop collaboration with various stakeholders (Laufer et al., 2015).

Periodically, project managers integrate planning and review with learning

and occasionally implement strategies to prevent major project disruptions

while ensuring the project continues with the expected momentum. These

roles require undertaking various activities at different stages of the project

and require that the project manager develop strategies contingent to the

context and the stage in the project cycle (Laufer et al., 2015).

Project managers use different project-management approaches

prescriptive and adaptive approaches or strategic project-management

approaches in projects (Rolstadås et al., 2014). Project managers espouse

either traditional or adaptive project management approaches when

managing projects for success. Project managers adopt strategic ways

to manage projects, dependent on the project situation and other project

factors, according to contingency theory (Andersen, 2016). Various

perspectives prevail among project managers on how to manage projects for

success, considering their tasks differently. Differences in perspectives mean

different ways of understanding and interpreting the working situation and

therefore varying strategies and approaches to manage projects (Andersen,

2016).

Using the concept of systems lifecycles and systems theory, projects

are multiple organizational systems that link the execution of the project to

the operational phases (Artto et al., 2016). This view implies that projects

result in value creation from execution to operation in the lifecycle of the

system. Project execution translates into operation through a network of

multiple self-organizing systems (Artto et al., 2016). Viewing projects as a

system of self-organizing structures, mutual adjustment and collaboration in

the systems network of project organizations markedly determines project

success compared to the blueprint traditional approach proposed by

traditional project-management theories (Artto et al., 2016).

Complexity and uncertainty in projects remain a major area of

discussion in the successful management of projects with the two terms

interrelated (Klein et al., 2015; Saunders et al., 2015). Combined with

increased complexity of the project is increased levels of uncertainty (Brink,

2017). Shenhar and Dvir (2007) clearly elaborated on the significance of

understanding uncertainties in projects by using the diamond model.

According to Shenhar and Dvir, projects align with four dimensions of

uncertainty: novelty, technology, complexity, and urgency. High levels of

complexity in projects tend to have a greater impact on uncertainly and

therefore the management of projects should be determined by the levels of

complexity (Eriksson et al., 2017).

According to Eriksson et al. (2017), traditional project-management

practices, focused on straight-line control, are best suited for simpler

straightforward projects with higher levels of certainty. Projects that are

more complex require less traditional projectmanagement approaches that

promote flexibility (Eriksson et al., 2017). Saunders et al. (2015) developed

a framework to understand the basis of uncertainty in projects, categorizing

four theoretical ways to reduce the impact of uncertainty on project delivery

to achieve project success outcomes based on project complexity.

Complexity in projects relate to the environment in which the project

operates and the governance structures of the project (Eriksson et al., 2017).

With the increasing complexity of project environments is the increasing

complexity of applying traditional project-management approaches and tools

(Eriksson et al., 2017). Klein et al. (2015), therefore, advocated for a

praxeology framework that transcends the universal and dogmatic nature of

current project-management theories, proposing the use of improvisation to

address project context. Project managers tend to assess the complexity of

the project and decide to use either rational formal or informal project-

management models (Brahm & Tarziján, 2015).

When comparing the complexities of two successful projects,

Heathrow Terminal 5 and the London 2012 Olympic Park projects and the

management of the complexities, Brady and Davies (2014) found significant

differences in the approaches used by project managers responsible for the

two projects. The project team for the Terminal 5 project created a highly

controlled umbrella framework based on consistency and standardization

and a code of behavior for use across all major projects and subprojects

associated with the megaproject. In contrast, the Olympic delivery authority

preferred a “tight–loose” approach with a greater level of autonomy in

approaching the projects and subprojects. Regardless of the approach used,

both projects recorded success in on-time delivery, within budget, and

expected quality. Clearly from the success of the two projects, a single

method of managing projects is not appropriate for all projects. Brady and

Davies amplified the argument for use of different approaches and strategies

by project managers to ensure the success of projects with their given

complexities.

Given the significance of project governance on project management,

Zwikael and Smyrk (2015) considered stakeholder theory, stewardship

theory, resourcedependency theory, principal-agency theory and,

institutional theory as a way of viewing project governance and its likely

influence on project performance. These theories emphasize the importance

of relationship building among the various project stakeholders (Bredillet et

al., 2015). Project governance means achieving a balance among the varying

perspectives of principal investors, executing agencies, beneficiaries, and

users (Klakegg et al., 2016). In achieving successful projects, relational and

contractual governance are complementary rather than substitutes, with the

management of contractual governance more significant in supporting

project performance than relational governance (Lu et al., 2015).

In megaprojects, the traditional concepts of project-governance and

projectmanagement practices do not reflect the contemporary knowledge of

project complexities (Klakegg et al., 2016). Complexities and high risks of

megaprojects, using formal systems of project management, lead to

limitations (Klakegg et al., 2016). Wysocki (2014) proposed four models to

manage projects, depending on their complexity and governance structures.

First, the traditional project-management approach is suitable for projects

operating under established and secure conditions, with unambiguous goals

and solutions (Wysocki, 2014). The agile strategy is proposed for use when

project goals are clear and the project has a partially unknown solution

(Wysocki, 2014). The third and fourth project-management strategies are the

emertxe and extreme project-management styles, suitable for developing

applications for new technologies with clear solutions and unclear goals, and

situations where the solution and goals are ambiguous, such as in research

and development projects, respectively (Wysocki, 2014). Clearly, the type of

project, the project environment and governance structure, the uncertainties

associated with projects, and the project complexity determines the strategies

adopted by project managers to achieve project success.

Transition

The focus of this doctoral study was on Zambian construction-project

management and strategies to avoid infrastructure-project failure. Section 1

comprises the foundation of the study, with subsections that include the

background of the problem, the problem statement, the purpose statement,

the nature of the study, the research question, and the interview questions.

Additional subsections are the conceptual framework, operational

definitions, significance of the study, and a review of the professional and

academic literature. Section 2 provides the details on the role of the

researcher, the participants, the population, and the sampling. Also included

in Section 2 are the research method and design, the management of ethical

issues, and a description of the processes for obtaining, collecting, and

analyzing data. In Section 3, I explain the findings of the study based on the

data collection and analysis process described in Section 2. I also include the

application of the study findings to business practices and contributions to

social change in Section 3. Additionally, I include recommendations for

action by professional practitioners and areas for possible future research.

Section 2: The Project

Section 2 of this doctoral study includes the purpose statement, the

role of the researcher, the participants, the research methods and design, the

population, and the sampling method. Also included in this section are

ethical considerations in the research, data collection and data-collection

techniques and instruments, data analysis, reliability, and validity of the

research.