Critical success factors in projects

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.

Investigating causes of delays and cost escalation in project execution during turnarounds

“…If one or more of the above-mentioned happens in a project the chances are that the project will fail, or be delayed, with resultant increased costs. The concept of project success and/or failure has not been well-defined anywhere in project management literature (Muller & Judgev, 2012).…”

“…Muller and Judgev (2012) argue that there is no consensus on the concept of success in either business or project management literature.…”

“…These authors also claim there is no definitive set of factors leading to project success (Muller & Judgev, 2012). The project control issues that could cause delays and consequent failures include: inappropriate delay allocation; inadequately detailed baseline schedule; incorrect logic and interfaces in the baseline schedule; infrequent schedule updates; incompetence in analyzing the schedule; no contractual treatment of scheduling methodology; no industry-wide consensus on delay analysis procedures; contractors lack awareness of delay impact on the project.…”

Formal Assessments, Teams and Influence of a Project Champion in the Selection of ICT Projects: A Czech Republic and UK Study

“…The importance of the role of a project champion at the project implementation stage is not in question (Müller and Jugdev, 2012;Wickramasinghe and Gunawardena, 2010;Nah and Lau, 2001;and Rosario, 2000). However, Lefl ey (2006) concluded, "that a project champion may be in a position to infl uence the project selection decision, possibly to the detriment of their organisation".…”

Projetos ambientais corporativos: do gerenciamento ao sucesso

“…Tradicionalmente os fatores críticos para avaliar o desempenho de gerenciamento de projetos são referentes ao orçamento, ao cronograma e às funcionalidades desejadas (Cooke- Davies, 2002;Müller & Jugdev, 2012).…”