Understanding project evaluation – a review and reconceptualization

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to understand the underlying logics applied by different project evaluation approaches and to propose an alternative research agenda. Design/methodology/approach This paper explores the project evaluation literature via conducting a qualitative research applying systematic literature review and thematic analysis. Findings The project evaluation literature has mainly concentrated on the objective aspects of project evaluation and overlooked the subjective aspects that reflect the temporal, dynamic, complex and subjective nature of today’s projects. The authors propose a meta-framework that helps project practitioners to select an appropriate project evaluation criterion for their projects by considering the strengths and limitations of their preferred project evaluation model as well as making project evaluators aware of the underlying logics associated to diverse project evaluation approaches. Research limitations/implications This study suggests that new conceptual approaches to deal with some of the major challenges in the project evaluation field. Practice-based views, narrative analysis and actor-network theory are likely to be useful tools to better understand and cope with the projects’ uncertainty and complexity. Practical implications The findings of this research assist project management practitioners and particularly project evaluators to enhance their understanding of the subjectivity, complexity and dynamics of current projects. To increase the reflexivity and resilience of project evaluation practice, this study also proposes new directions to apply different criteria, sub-criteria and indicators to the evaluation practice. Originality/value The originality of this study relies on transcending the conventional objective and rational approaches prevailing in current project evaluation practices. It proposes a research agenda that pave the way to address the shortcomings of conventional project evaluation practice.

Evaluation of Sino Foreign Cooperative Education Project Using Orthogonal Sine Cosine Optimized Kernel Extreme Learning Machine

“…He et al [8] proposed novel q-rung picture fuzzy aggregation operators, and the effectiveness was validated on the best project selection example. In order to help project practitioners to select an appropriate project evaluation criterion for the projects, Haass and Guzman [9] proposed a meta-framework by considering the strengths and limitations of their preferred project evaluation model as well as making project evaluators aware of the underlying logics associated with diverse project evaluation approaches. The results proved that narrative analysis and actor-network theory were likely to be powerful tools for coping with the projects' uncertainty and complexity.…”

Learning from the ambiguous past with project reviews

“…PPRs can be conducted in numerous ways (Busby, 1999; de Weerd-Nederhof et al , 2002; Haass and Guzman, 2019; Schindler and Eppler, 2003) and with multiple objectives (Haass and Guzman, 2019) as to determine success or failure (Albert et al , 2017) while the focus here is on using PPRs to learn from. The PPRs with focus on learning share the view that the challenge is to generate, collect and disseminate knowledge, as explained by Anbari et al (2008, p. 633):The data gathered from post-project reviews provide the historical database from which future project teams can develop meaningful project plans based on their organization's project learning cycle.…”

“…There is a growing body of research dealing with the evaluation of projects concerning ex ante , interim and ex-post reviews. This has recently been critically reviewed by Haass and Guzman (2019). Their comprehensive review focuses on performance reviews rather than a learning perspective.…”

“…According to Koners and Goffin (2007), PPRs generate tacit and explicit knowledge and support project-to-project learning. Although their empirical foundation (Koners and Goffin, 2005) and theoretical underpinnings have been questioned (Haass and Guzman, 2019), the use of PPRs is accepted, and researchers claim that well-prepared and well-conducted PPRs will generate useful knowledge (Gwillim et al , 2005; Koners and Goffin, 2005, 2007; Nelson, 2007; Yip et al , 2019).…”

“…Research on learning from past projects has focused on identifying relevant knowledge using systematic approaches (Von Zedtwitz, 2002; Anbari et al , 2008) to make tacit knowledge explicit. However, it is not easy to generate knowledge (Nonaka, 1995; Goffin and Koners, 2011), and several are concerned that PPRs focus too much on formal and technical aspects of the reviews (Koners and Goffin, 2005, 2007) or “biased toward objectivistic short term evaluation” (Haass and Guzman, 2019, p. 17). Several studies have investigated the limitations of knowledge dissemination and noted issues with the diffusion of learning from one project to other projects and the wider organization (Anbari et al , 2008; Bresnen et al , 2003).…”