No abstract

Project management maturity models are important assessment tools for the profession. Maturity models identify organizational strengths and weaknesses as well as provide benchmarking information. They capture explicit, codified practice (know-what), but do not include the intangible assets of project management (know-how). Some have made the claim that project management maturity models (MMs) can lead to a competitive advantage for firms. This paper uses four resource-based frameworks to assess whether or not maturity models lead to a sustained competitive advantage. In the context of the strategy domain, the authors conclude that MMs can result in a temporary competitive advantage but not a sustained competitive advantage. Clearly, a sustained competitive advantage is rooted in a combination of know-what and know-how.

Our views on project success have changed over the years from definitions that were limited to the implementation phase of the project life cycle to definitions that reflect an appreciation of success over the entire project and product life cycle. This paper assesses our evolving understanding of project success over the past 40 years and discusses conditions for success, critical success factors and success frameworks. The paper concludes with a holistic view of project success and its implications for practice. This is an important topic because projects are an increasingly common way of work, and the lines between project and process work are harder to discern. Increasingly, more project managers work in companies using program and portfolio management as a means to organize project-related work. The success of individual projects, therefore, impacts the wider organization in several dimensions and makes the concept of project and project management success that much more relevant. The topic is also important because it has a bearing on the future directions of project management in the strategic context.

No abstract

PurposeFew scholars have been cited as frequently as Pinto, Slevin, and Prescott for their contributions to project success and related critical success factors (CSF) in the 1980s. Studies since then built on their articles to broaden and refine our understanding of the topic. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the reasons for the impact of these seminal contributions and how the topic of project success continues to evolve.Design/methodology/approachThe paper analyses the popularity of Pinto and his colleagues' contributions to project success and reviews the development of this field of research since then.FindingsProject success remains a vibrant school of thought as do the earlier definitions, measurement scales and dimensions, and assessment techniques that Pinto and his colleagues developed. The authors view success more broadly and think of it strategically because they consider longer‐term business objectives. Some research is now based on managerial or organizational theories and reflects the multi‐dimensional and networked nature of project success.Practical implicationsPractically, the classic contributions in project success continue to be valid. The authors see diversity in how success is defined and measured. The CSFs vary by project types, life cycle phases, industries, nationalities, individuals, and organizations.Originality/valueThe paper relates earlier understandings of project success to subsequent research in the field and underscores the significant findings by Pinto, Slevin, and Prescott.