Match!

Problems Associated with Defining Project Success

Published on Jan 1, 2015in Procedia Computer Science
· DOI :10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.611
Bassam A. Hussein4
Estimated H-index: 4
(NTNU: Norwegian University of Science and Technology),
Saad B.S. Ahmad2
Estimated H-index: 2
(NTNU: Norwegian University of Science and Technology),
Youcef J-T. Zidane4
Estimated H-index: 4
(NTNU: Norwegian University of Science and Technology)
Abstract
Abstract The paper establishes the relation between the problems associated with defining the project success criteria at the project initiation phase to the potential challenges when it comes to the project execution and close out. A targeted literature review identified; 1) basing the definition on narrow set of criteria, 2) using ambiguous criteria, 3) having competing or conflicting criteria, 4) in adequate or incomplete set of criteria, 5) using unrealistic criteria and 6) Considering all the criteria as equally important (not-ranked criteria) as the most important problems in defining the success criteria. The study relates and analyse the effects of these problems and their inheritance in the execution and evaluation phases of the projects. A web-based survey in the Norwegian industry initiated to investigate the effect of six success criteria definition problems on the: (1) Lack of top management support (2) Lack of alignment in the project organization to project success criteria during execution phase. (3) Subjectivity of measuring the achievement of the targeted success criteria at closeout and evaluation phase. The survey managed 155 respondents with a very high data reliability. The survey revealed and further testified the literature findings that there is very strong correlation between these problems related to defining project success criteria. The research also indicated thatthese problems are mostlyrelated to poor or inadequate stakeholder‘s involvement during initiation phase, lack of alignment of the organizations to project success and poor top management support.
  • References (28)
  • Citations (3)
References28
Newest
#1Laurie McLeod (AUT: Auckland University of Technology)H-Index: 8
#2Bill Doolin (AUT: Auckland University of Technology)H-Index: 17
Last.Stephen G. MacDonell (AUT: Auckland University of Technology)H-Index: 27
view all 3 authors...
#1T.M. Williams (University of Southampton)H-Index: 16
#2Knut Samset (NTNU: Norwegian University of Science and Technology)H-Index: 8
#1Graeme Thomas (ANU: Australian National University)H-Index: 3
#2Walter Fernandez (ANU: Australian National University)H-Index: 11
#1Roger Atkinson (BU: Bournemouth University)H-Index: 4
#2Lynn Crawford (UTS: University of Technology, Sydney)H-Index: 20
Last.Stephen Ward (University of Southampton)H-Index: 22
view all 3 authors...
View next paperProject evaluation process with classified objective criteria in architectural education