Professional Writing Service http://HelpWriting.net/Assignment-1.-Project-Success-And-How-I 👈

1. Assignment 1. Project success and how it is defined
Project success and how it is defined
Anthony McMahon, 04231635
Massey University
152.752 Project Management
Assignment 1
Lecturer: David Tappin
April 2017
2153 words (Excluding references, cover pages)
I have read the Admin Guide material on plagiarism.
This assignment is my own original work.
Anthony McMahon

2. Assignment 1. Project success and how it is defined
In the contemporary age projects are common across all industries, with larger organisations
often simultaneously running multiple projects ranging from software development to
building relocations. While the actual output will differ amongst projects, there is one
common factor - an expectation that the project will be successful. Given the variety of
different projects available out there, is it possible that several factors within the project itself,
such as structure, planning, leadership, and communication, can determine success?
What success looks like will differ between projects, stakeholder groups, and organisations.
In trying to define project success, de Wit (1988) states that project management literature
often views a project as successful if it is delivered on time, on budget, and to the
specifications agreed at the commencement. This is supported by Shenhar, Dvir, Levy, & Maltz
(2001), who also argue that using these criteria alone could result in an incomplete or
incorrect assessment as a project which is found to have delivered against them may not
actually meet any customer needs – a factor which will be further explored in this essay.
Literature into the subject of project success suggests plenty of other factors which should be
used, depending on the type, scale, or size of a project – Freeman and Beale (as cited in
Shenhar, et al., 2001) suggest that employee satisfaction, stock market performance, and
even technical competence could be used as success measures by different stakeholder
groups. Shenhar, et al. (2001) also find that project success should not be a one size fits all
model, with different project types being assessed differently, especially as a project can
viewed as a success if it perceived as being able to deliver a future benefit.
Regardless of what is used to measure the success of a project, a common trend is evident –
project success is largely a perception taken from a specific viewpoint, where a project can be
viewed as both a success and a failure.
While there are several measures which could be used to define project success, this essay
aims to complete a critical assessment of four key criteria commonly used; plan development
as part of project commencement; the Iron Triangle of project success; team structure and
the impact of the project manager; and stakeholder satisfaction of the end deliverable. These
criteria have been chosen as they align to three common areas of a project lifecycle – plan,
build, and deliver. The essay will draw upon ideas presented within a range of journal articles.

3. Assignment 1. Project success and how it is defined
I itial pla i g is a e tral ele e t of oder proje t a age e t as it redu es u ertai t
a d i reases the likelihood of proje t su ess D ir, Raz, & “he har, , p. 9 . As the first
stage of project management, planning is the time at which functional and technical
requirements are defined; activities, processes, and resources are identified; and project
timeframes and budget are drawn up. Dvir, et al. (2003) state that this can lead to a common
view of project managers that if they create a solid project plan and follow it, success will
ensue.
However, as the planning phase is traditionally done in the early stages of project many, such
as Andersen (1996), feel that it is highly unlikely that all the activities which need to be carried
out to complete a project successfully can be identified at such an early state, which can have
an impact on eventual costs, timeframes, and deliverables. In addition to this, Bart (as cited
in Dvir, et al. 2003) feels that traditional upfront planning approach results in too much
control, with deviations from the plan meaning the project will not deliver what was agreed
and that additional costs may be incurred. If the costs or timeframes change significantly from
initial sign off, it is likely that stakeholders concerned with these criteria will view the project
to be a failure – this concept is discussed in more detail later in this essay.
While it is elie ed that too u h pla i g a e detri e tal to a proje t’s su ess, D ir &
Lechler (2004) and Andersen (1996) agree planning is still necessary, though should not be
viewed as a onetime task as it is difficult at the start to identify the exact constraints of a
project. While it is accepted that changes to plans can result in higher costs, Dvir & Lechler
(2004) argue that the plan should be frequently revisited as it can be influenced by factors
such as changes to requirements, external factors, or the change of a new manager. Andersen
(1996) suggests the concept of milestones, which define a series of results that need to be
achieved rather than the final project outcome. From this, it is viewed that project success is
more likely when a plan is adaptable throughout a project.
Regardless of if the plan is static or dynamic, expected outputs of this phase are the
confirmation of the constraints of time, cost, and quality – a concept frequently referred to
as the Iron Triangle. Atkinson (1999) finds that these are often the most commonly used
criteria for measuring project success – although with different weightings applied depending
o the proje t. For e a ple, a proje t to uild a stadiu ould ot e a su ess if it did ’t

4. Assignment 1. Project success and how it is defined
deliver the stadium in time for a major sporting event, even if the project met the quality and
cost constraints.
However, the Iron Triangle uses criteria which are defined early on in a project – Atkinson
(1999) suggests that time and costs are simply best guesses, calculated when the least is
known about a project. As time and costs are point in time estimates, they can be easily
influenced by factors unforeseen during planning – in the example of building a stadium, a
global shortage of steel will have significant impacts to the time and costs involved in the
initial construction which will delay other phases. Atkinson (1999) also views quality as a
subjective measure which can change either through the lifecycle of a project or based on the
viewpoint of the person measuring it. The reality behind the Iron Triangle is that it is a series
of leading measures, used to show how a project is progressing to a pre-agreed plan and
enable a project team to gauge progress – something de Wit (1988) feels is not the same as
project success. Unfortunately, as seen by Atkinson (1999), the Iron Triangle is often used as
by senior management as a lag indicator in measuring the project once it has been completed.
What can be determined from this is that while it is not incorrect to use the Iron Triangle as
part of a measure of success, it should really be the focus of measuring a projects progress
and likelihood of success. Atkinson (1999) and De Wit (1988) agree that different criteria
should be defined to measure the success of a project post-completion. As with the example
of a stadium, it would be viewed as successful if it was delivered to time, budget, and
requirements – but if the stadium never hosted an event would the community view it as a
success.
As mentioned, the Iron Triangle provides a way for a project team to gauge progress, but the
team itself, including the project manager, are tasked with completing a project. Can a team
have an impact on the success of a project, even if they deliver on time and budget? de Wit
(1988) discusses how studies within the construction industry show that the likelihood of a
project being successful is enhanced when emphasis is placed on a range of criteria specific
to the human side of a project – project manager commitment and capabilities, and team
motivation. The interesting thing here is that team skill was not seen to be as critical to
success, but Scott-Young & Samson (2008) do find that team design is shown to influence task
productivity.

5. Assignment 1. Project success and how it is defined
Scott-Young & Samson (2008) state that several factors, such as cross-functionality of skills; a
degree of autonomy within the team, experience; and continuity of team, should be
considered in team design. Based on their research, they find that there is a clear correlation
between these factors and the project outcomes when the project team is working towards
a o o goal. Açıkgöz & Gü sel 016) feel that a cross-functional team with a mutual goal
are more likely to develop higher quality ideas on how to deliver project outcomes than if
they do not have a goal. This aligns to the view of Bart (as cited in Dvir, et al. 2003) who views
it as a more important factor of project success for the project team to be given a degree of
creativity than strict adherence to the plan.
While the team structure may be ideal, the greatest influencer on how the team operates is
the project manager. As stated by de Wit (1988) project manager motivation is frequently
viewed as having an impact on how the team performs – a manager who is not motivated by
the project outcome or goals is not likely to be able to motivate their team well in turn.
Equally, a manager who is motivated only by delivering to the plan could have a detrimental
impact on the project – though some projects, especially during crisis management, may
necessitate rigid adherence to a plan.
So, if a project manager is the greatest influencer on a project, what impact would it have if
they were changed? Scott-Young & Samson (2008) argue that while the project manager
themselves should be able to adapt to the changing needs of the project, changing the project
manager through a project lifecycle may be detrimental to the project outcomes. They find
that there is a direct and positive relationship between project manager continuity and
project outcomes. The linkage to project success here is clear – appoint the right project
a ager a d do ’t ha ge them, and success is more likely.
While the team is critical in delivering a project, they are delivering to a separate, varied,
group of people – the stakeholders. The Project Management Institute (as cited in Aragonés-
Beltrán, P, García-Melón, & Montesinos-Valera, 2017) describes stakeholders as anybody who
may have an impact on, or be impacted by, a projects performance or result. It may be that a
single project has many different stakeholder groups, all with different viewpoints – in the
earlier example of a stadium, stakeholder groups will include the authorities who commission
it, the companies who construct it, the sports teams who will use it, and the citizens who will
attend events held at it. Each of these stakeholder groups will have a different opinion on the

6. Assignment 1. Project success and how it is defined
finished stadium, with it being possible for the project to be viewed both as a success and a
failure – a concept supported by de Wit (1988)
Beltrán, et al. (2017) argue that it is critical that all project stakeholders are identified by the
project manager as early as possible to be able to measure their ongoing influence in the
project. In many cases, the viewpoints of the stakeholders will be obvious – those who
commission a project will be looking for the completed business outcome, while any investors
a e looki g for a sig ifi a t retur . Atki so 999 also elie es that as Custo ers a d
users are e a ples of stakeholders… the riteria the o sider as i porta t for su ess
should also e i luded i assessi g a proje t p. 0).
But when is the right time for project stakeholders to be engaged? It is found that stakeholder
engagement, as with planning, should be an ongoing activity that takes place throughout the
project and makes as much effort as possible to involve all stakeholder groups. Dvir, et al.
(2003) find that stakeholders are vital to determining the project goals, and therefore shaping
the deliverables and requirements, further stating that the important group which is often
overlooked is the end-user of a project. This view, shared by many studies, puts forward that
if an end-user is not satisfied with what the project delivers, they will either not buy or
consume it. This in turn will have a knock-on effect to many of the other project stakeholders,
particularly a i estors looki g for a retur . D ir, et al. argue that the e d-user
i ol e e t should start at the first stage of the proje t a d o ti ue u til its su essful e d
(p.95).
Project success is a subjective measure which is largely dependent on the viewpoint from
which the project is being measured. This adds complexity to how projects are measured and
indicates that success is not a binary result. Instead, the right measures should be chosen
which are applicable to the specific project and should not just be those covered in the Iron
Triangle. These measures should be agreed with all stakeholder groups and be visited
throughout the project delivery phase to be adjusted accordingly. Finally, the it is critical that
end user has an involvement in all facets of the project – from planning right through to
delivery. This will ensure the project meets the needs of the audience.

7. Assignment 1. Project success and how it is defined
References
Açıkgöz, A., & Gü sel, A. 6 . I di idual Creati it a d Tea Cli ate i “oft are Development Projects:
The Mediating Role of Team Decision Processes. Creativity & Innovation Management, 25(4), 445-
463.
Andersen, E. S. (1996). Warning: activity planning is hazardous to your projects health! International Journal
of Project Management, 14(2), 89–94.
Aragonés-Beltrán, P., García-Melón, M., & Montesinos-Valera, J. (2017, April). How to assess stakeholders'
influence in project management? A proposal based on the Analytic Network Process. International
Journal of Project Management., 35(3), 451-462.
Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it’s
time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 337-342.
De Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of project success. International Journal of Project Management, 6(3), 164-
170.
Dvir, D., & Lechler, T. (2004). Plans are nothing, changing plans is everything: the impact of changes on
project success. Research Policy, 33(1), 1-15.
Dvir, D., Raz, T., & Shenhar, A. J. (2003). An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning
and project success. International Journal of Project management, 21(2), 89-95.
Scott-Young, C., & Samson, D. (2008). Project success and project team management: Evidence from capital
projects in the process industries. Journal of Operations Management, 26(6), 749–766.
Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., & Maltz, A. C. (2001). Project Success: A Multidimensional Strategic
Concept. Long range Planning, 34(6), 699–725.