Faculty of Business AN ASSESSMENT OF THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT: A DESCRIPTIVE CASE-STUDY AT A DUTCH INTERNETPROVIDER

Title: An assessment of the project management process and recommendations for improvement: A descriptive case-study at a Dutch internet provider

J.J. (Robbert) Hoving Schapendrift 30 9411 BT Beilen

e-mail: hovingrobbert@gmail.com mob. nr.: 06 4225 8334

Beilen / Groningen, Februari 2011

Rijksuniversiteit Groningen

Faculty of Business and Economics MSc Business Administration

Master in Organizational and Management Control

XS4ALL Diemen

Supervisor Groningen: Drs. D.J.J. Heslinga

XS4ALL: Mr. H. Schermerhorn (project portfolio manager) Mr. G. Schans (Business controller)

A

N

A

SSESSMENT OF THE

P

ROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCESS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

:

A

N

E

XPLORATORY CASE

-

STUDY AT A

D

UTCH INTERNET PROVIDER

The increasing ‘projectification’ of industries has led to some fundamental changes in the way firms organize product and process development. For several reasons, projects have become important vehicles and mechanisms in many firms’ operative and strategic business activities. Product or system development projects are typical examples of this. Due to a number of reasons, such as time-based competition and fast technological progress, managing such a project poses a multitude of challenges. For instance, in the telecommunications industries, a project is a complex endeavor, often involving hundreds of engineers and a great number of sub-projects. The requirements of both meeting the overall deadline and integrating the various knowledge bases involved stands at the fore of project management (Söderlund, 2002). Furthermore, today’s dynamic environment makes product lifecycles much shorter, forcing organizations to accelerate new product development and start many more new projects. Even stable industries such as banking, retail, or insurance that were used to stick to their traditional business processes, find that they need more and more new initiatives, and that those can only be achieved through projects. Finally, the information technology (IT) and internet revolution is far from slowing down, forcing almost every organization to invest in new IT projects to keep up with demand and competition (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007).

With this thesis my study Master of Science in Business Administration at the University of Groningen will come to an end. During my time at the university I learned a lot about application of scientific methods as well as a large amount of knowledge which can be applied in practice. The study for this thesis took place during the last part of 2009 and first part of 2010 at XS4ALL, Diemen. At XS4ALL I had my first meeting with Herbert Schermerhorn and Gerben Schans Juli 2009. After arranging the subject and scope of the research I settled in Diemen for 7 months in order to perform research on how to improve the project management process at XS4ALL.

S

UMMARY

C

ONTENTS

1. Introduction ... 1

1.1. General ... 1

1.2. Research objective & question(s) ... 1

1.3. Research Methodology ... 4

1.4. Data collection method & analysis ... 5

1.5. Restrictions to research ... 6

2. Theoretical Framework ... 7

2.1. General literature about project management ... 7

2.1.1. The project ... 7

2.1.2. Project management maturity and typology ... 8

2.1.3. Project Portfolio Management ... 9

2.1.4. Project management process ... 9

2.1.4.1. Initiating processes ... 10

2.1.4.2. Planning processes ... 11

2.1.4.3. Executing processes ... 12

2.1.4.4. Controlling process ... 12

2.1.4.5. Closing processes ... 15

2.1.5. Project management methods ... 16

2.1.5.1. PMBoK ... 16

2.1.5.2. Prince2 ... 16

2.1.5.3. PMW ... 19

2.1.5.4. Comparison of the methods ... 19

2.1.6. Project life cycle (management) ... 21

2.1.7. Project stakeholder management ... 25

2.2. General literature about project success... 25

2.2.1. Forms of Project success ... 26

2.2.1.1. Product success ... 27

2.2.1.2. Project Management Success ... 27

2.2.2. Measuring project success ... 28

2.3. Relating project management to the degree of project success ... 30

2.4. Project Failure ... 32

3. Assessment of current project Management system ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.1. General information XS4ALL ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2. Current XS4ALL Project Management Process ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2.1. Implemented changes ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2.2. Current PMP ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.2.3. Current Issues XS4ALL Project Management Process ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 3.3. Analysis of the project management process ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4. Recommendations ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.1. Initiation process ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.1.1. Step 1: Identify customer and other project primary stakeholders, their needs and requirements Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.1.2. Step 2: Establish project mission, vision, values and leadership system ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.2. Planning, executing and controlling process ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.1. Step 3 & 4: Define, agree and share measures of success with al project stakeholders & develop

both operative and strategic goals for the project ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.2.2. Step 5: Select, define and modify processes and practices used to meet objectives Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.2.3. Step 6: Execute project in most efficient way review the progress against the project objectives Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.3. Closing Process ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.3.1. Step 7: Analyze project results and provide feedback for project stakeholders identify potential business opportunities and create partnerships ... Error! Bookmark not defined. 4.3.2. Step 8: Continuously improve standard processes of project stakeholders ... Error! Bookmark not defined.

1. I

NTRODUCTION

This paper is written for those interested in improving project management processes in a real life situation. The subject of the analysis is the project management process (PMP) within XS4ALL. XS4ALL is the oldest internet service provider (ISP) in the Netherlands, providing services like Consumer and Business Broadband Internet Access (ADSL, BDSL), Voice over IP (VoIP), server packages, co-location, hosting and other internet related value adding services.

1.1. G

ENERAL

XS4ALL is a daughter company of KPN and has the stature of being a quality provider in the Dutch market. XS4ALL is frequently awarded for the quality of its services. It now faces the challenge to keep this position of quality provider in a rapidly changing and competitive market.

XS4ALL started as a highly technical oriented organization, with its base in the Dutch ‘hacker culture’. Now however, they have to complete the transitioning to a market and customer driven organization. Furthermore, the market situation urges for a change from near full in-house project management and project execution of (IT oriented) projects, to partnering, outsourcing and multi-location development.

Since the working environment has changed rapidly, the project environment went from a few small technological projects a year to a large amount of market driven overlapping projects. Time pressure on projects is increasing, while the quality stature of XS4ALL urges for strict quality control and the quality of project deliverables. Competition urges, next to an increased amount of commercially driven projects, for an increased focus on return on investment (ROI) within these projects.

This process also puts demands on the project portfolio process and on the PMP in general. XS4ALL has set some first steps in professionalizing these processes but further improvements are necessary in order to steer the current amount of projects. Some inherent factors for this are from different nature. A new management team has been introduced; the need for control is increasing; the increasing influence of KPN; the need for operational excellence; a market that is satisfied; and products evolving to commodity goods. This state of affairs has been underlined by the current business transformation project called AsteriXS (*XS).

1.2. R

ESEARCH OBJECTIVE

&

QUESTION

(

S

)

2

improved to increase the success rate of projects. This implicitly increases XS4ALLs strength in relation to market demands. In order to achieve this goal it first would be necessary to assess the current Project management & control system at XS4ALL and how it is functioning. Therefore the research objective is as follows:

Assess the current project management process at XS4ALL and provide, if necessary, improvements for the project management process to increase the degree of project success.

This study is divided into three parts. The first part will focus on a literature review concerning Project management & control and Project success. This will lead to the development of a theoretical framework. In the second part the PMP at XS4ALL will be assessed and evaluated using the theoretical framework. The last part will contain recommendation for improvement of the PMP at XS4ALL and a general conclusion.

The relevance of this research is that improvements might be found for XS4ALL concerning their Project management & control system. This, in the end, might lead to an increased rate of project success and will therefore be beneficial for the organization. Insights into the relation of Project management & control and project success rate are very specific and therefore this research applies only to the XS4ALL case. However the relationship between these two can be further defined in the general sense, and therefore contribute to existing literature.

The general purpose of this thesis is to increase the degree of success rate of projects at XS4ALL by identifying improvements to the PMP. These have to fit with the specific working environment of the company. Providing these improvements will be done by using findings from literature study as well as using empirical data derived from a case-study at XS4ALL.

In-depth Literature study of elements used in

research Research objective and central research question

Asses XS4ALL’s current project environment using

theoretical framework

Provide improvements / alternatives for XS4ALLs project management

process

3 The main research question used in this thesis is the following:

“How should the process of project management be organized to increase the degree of project success at XS4ALL?”

In order to answer this main research questions, several sub research questions are necessary. These will be divided into a part that covers the theoretical research part, and a part that covers the empirical research. Both are shown below:

Literature research

1) What is project management?

General introduction about project management and its facets. Purpose of this question is to address the different definitions used within project management literature and derive a common view for this thesis.

2) Which project management methods does the literature distinguish?

Several project management methods will be discussed. This will lead to a comparison between the methods. Methods discussed are relevant for the Dutch market, being: PMW, Prince2, and PMBoK.

3) How does stakeholder management and project life cycle management influence the project management process?

Different factors influence the PMP during different stages. The project life cycle and stakeholders during the PMP can directly influence the successfulness of the PMP.

4) What is project success and how can it be measured?

Explain what project success is and how this can be measured. Project success is an ambiguous phenomenon which is often not agreed upon.

5) How does project management influence the degree of project success?

Defining the relationship between project management and the degree of success of projects

Empirical research

6) What is the current status of the project management process at XS4ALL?

Describing the current situation of the PMP at XS4ALL

7) How does this process differ with the described literature?

Linking the PMP of XS4ALL to literature and look for discrepancies.

8) What improvements can be provided for the improvement of XS4ALL’s project management process?

4

By answering these questions the relationship between project management & control and project success will be discussed. The sub research questions are derived from several initial conversations within the organization. This will lead to the most important points of improvement that have to be addressed in relationship to project control at XS4ALL. In the end these findings will be addressed to aid the XS4ALL case.

1.3. R

ESEARCH

M

ETHODOLOGY

This part of the thesis describes how the research has been conducted in order to find answers to the questions stated earlier in this chapter. First the research methodology will be described and the selection of which one to use will be motivated. Thereafter the method of data collection and analysis will be discussed.

Let us first typify the research conducted here. According to Cooper & Schindler (2003) there are four types of studies: (1) Exploratory, (2) Explanatory, (3) Descriptive and (4) Predictive.

Type of study Purpose of study

Exploratory Aims at investigating a little understood phenomena; identify important variables and generate hypotheses for further research.

Explanatory Tries to explain the forces causing a phenomenon in question; identify plausible causal networks shaping the phenomenon Descriptive To document the phenomenon of interest

Predictive Predicts the outcomes of the phenomenon; to forecast the events and behaviors resulting from the phenomenon

When considering these four types, this research can be best typified as a descriptive study. The objective of the research is to improve the degree of project success at XS4ALL with a control system. In order to realize this goal the research requires a strategy, this will be discussed next.

Yin (2003) distinguishes several research strategies in his book: (1) Experiment, (2) Survey, (3) Archival analysis, (4) History and (5) Case study. According to Yin (2003) there are three conditions for using each of these strategies: (i) the type of research question posed, (ii) the extent of control an investigator has over actual behavioral events, and (iii) the degree of focus on contemporary as opposed to historical events. This research will focus on conducting a case study, according to Yin (2008) the relevant questions that have to be asked concerning these three conditions are:

(i) The form of the research question: How, why?

5

(iii) Degree of focus on contemporary events?: Yes

Matching these considerations to the research that will be conducted at XS4All they comply with the research question(s) mentioned earlier. The research question(s) focus on how and why. There is no extent of control over actual behavioral events at XS4ALL, they cannot be changed during the process. There is however a focus on contemporary events, observations are made directly and current events can be studied. This implies there is a match between the conditions Yin (2003) mentions and why a case study research will be performed at XS4ALL.

Next to that Yin (2003) also makes a distinction between different types of case study research. The first concerns the design; the study can focus on a case or multiple-case design. This research will have a single-case study design. The other distinction is the choice between a holistic or an embedded single-case study. In a holistic case study there is a single unit of analysis, whereas the embedded case study focuses on multiple units of analysis. This study focuses on more than one unit, even though it concerns one organization (XS4ALL). All units within the XS4ALL organization are taken into account, if they are relevant to this study. Performing a study at only one department (for instance the project management department) would not be sufficient since all departments influence the activities of one and another.

Combining both the type of research (Cooper & Schindler, 2003) and the research strategy (Yin, 2003) this research can be best described as an embedded, descriptive case study in order to enhance the degree of project success at XS4ALL.

1.4. D

ATA COLLECTION METHOD

&

ANALYSIS

According to Yin (2003) a hallmark of case study research is the use of multiple data sources, a strategy which also enhances data credibility. Potential data sources may include, but are not limited to: documentation, archival records, interviews, physical artifacts, direct observations, and participant-observations. Yin (2003) also states that unique in comparison to other qualitative approaches, within case study research, investigators can collect and integrate phenomenon being studied. Data can then be handled converged in the analysis process rather than being handled individually. This can possibly lead to better, or more thorough, conclusion would all data be handled individually. A negative side-effect of the opportunity to collect data from various and sources is that overwhelming amounts of data can be collected. Which will hinder the analysis and leading to researching being ‘lost’ in the data (Yin, 2003). In order to counter this effect a restriction will be made in the next section of this chapter.

6

within XS4ALL will be reviewed. Also in-depth interviews will be held with several stakeholders of the PMP; this will improve the accurateness of the research. The interviews started with an introduction to the research being conducted and a quick scan of the interview questions, this to diminish incorrect answers or wrongly understood questions. The interviews were structured in accordance to the theoretical framework, focusing on the essential parts. All of these (four) interviews took about 60 to 80 minutes. Because of some statements that could harm the status of the interviewee there will be no reference to the interviewee in the study itself. The appendix containing the interviews will also not be disclosed to public.

1.5. R

ESTRICTIONS TO RESEARCH

This next part will cover the scope of the study. This research focuses on project management and the degree of success projects have at the XS4ALL organization. The factors that influence the degree of project success are chosen by an in-depth literature study and are selected subjectively by the author of this study. If all factors influencing the degree of project success would be taken into account the research will not be of any relevance to, in this case, XS4ALL. A selection has been made after the first interviews and document study. Because, as Cooper & Schindler (2003) state, without making restriction to the research it will become too broad and the research question will not be addressed adequately in the study. The restrictions made in this research are:

(1) Focus on Dutch project management processes

(2) Main focus is on factors influencing the degree of project success that are of main importance to XS4ALL (3) Focus will be mainly on short-term success, long-term success is hard to measure and of less importance to

XS4ALL

7

2. T

HEORETICAL

F

RAMEWORK

Before being able to assess the current PMP some general characteristics the PMP itself and project success are discussed as they are mentioned in academic literature. Next to that the factors influencing the PMP and, indirectly, influencing project success will be discussed. Thereafter a model will be developed, enabling the assessment of the PMP at XS4ALL.

2.1. G

ENERAL LITERATURE ABOUT PROJECT MANAGEMENT

To be able to develop a theoretical framework of how the PMP can help increase the degree of success of projects it is important to first describe the activities involving this process. This section will deal with the activities of project management, a typology of PMP and the methods used to organize the PMP within organizations. In order to distinguish the terms used in the project management literature it is necessary to develop distinct definitions for these terms. The PMP involves the project itself (the object that has to be managed), the project

management process and project portfolio management (PPM). These three activities will be discussed next.

2.1.1. T

A project can be considered to be the achievement of a specific objective, which involves a series of activities and tasks which consume resources. It, most often, has to be completed within a set specification, having definite start and end dates (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996). However, a project can also have a definite starting point while the end relies upon a requirement being met without setting a fixed end date. Shenhar & Dvir (2007) define a project as a temporary organization and process set up to achieve a specified goal under the constraints of time, budget, and other resources. However, these definitions lack one important facet; projects are a mechanism employed by the organization to achieve the strategic plan (Mehmood et al, 2007). Unfortunately, many organizations do not have a clear definition of what a project is (Kerzner, 2009). Hence, routine tasks can be seen as projects or vice versa, where complex and non-routine tasks, requiring a project approach, are organized as being line activities. It is therefore important that an organization has a clear definition of what they categorize as a project. Using these definitions, a project is defined in this study as:

8

These specific objectives of the project are often made in accordance with the client’s wishes. A project is therefore an entity that has been agreed upon and formed as a temporary organization that meets the main short- and long-term objectives of all the stakeholders (Jukala & Artto, 2000)

2.1.2. P

An organization has to go through several typical life-cycle phases when implementing project management. Kerzner (2009) identifies five stages; these stages are mentioned in table X. In the first stage, the Embryonic Phase, the organization recognizes the apparent need for project management. Once the organization perceives the need for project management, it enters the second life cycle phase, Executive Acceptance. Project management cannot be implemented rapidly in the near term without executive support. Furthermore, the support must be visible to all. The third life-cycle phase is Line Management Acceptance. It is highly unlikely that any line manager would actively support the implementation of project management without first recognizing the same support coming from above. Even minimal line management support will still cause project management to struggle. The fourth life-cycle phase is the Growth phase, where the organization becomes committed to the development of the corporate tools for project management. This includes the project management methodology for planning, scheduling, and controlling, as well as selection of the appropriate supporting software. Some portions of this phase can already begin during the earlier phases. The last life-cycle phase is Maturity. In this phase, the organization begins using the tools developed in the previous phase. Here, the organization must be totally dedicated to project management. The organization should develop a management cost/schedule control system which controls het PMP. Also employees should be facilitated in enhancing project management skills by an educational program.

TABLE 1: LIFE-CYCLE PHASES FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY

Embryonic phase Executive Management Acceptance Phase

Line Management Acceptance Phase

Growth Phase Maturity Phase

 Recognize need

 Recognize benefits

 Recognize applications

9

Evaristo & Fenema (1999) made a classification of project management types based on the number of projects and sites involved. Using this classification will help identifying the PMP at XS4ALL. Evaristo & Fenema (1999) used two indicators for arranging the types: the location and the amount of projects. The location can be divided into the single location projects or multiple location projects. Subsequently there is a difference in the amount of projects, a firm can execute single projects or it can choose to execute multiple projects at once (program).

TABLE 2: CLASSIFACTION OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT TYPES BY EVARISTO & FENEMA (1999)

Single Project Multiple Projects (Program)

Single Location Traditional Project Co-located Program

Multiple Locations

Distributed Project Multiple Traditional Projects Multiple Co-located Programs Multiple Distributed Projects: Discrete

Locations

Multiple Distributed Projects: Shared Locations

2.1.3. P

P

M

PPM focuses on determination of the right mix of project and the right investment level to make in each of them. The outcome of this process is a better balance between ongoing and new strategic initiatives (Kerzner, 2009). Organizations engage in many projects at any given point in time. These projects all have different objectives, some related to product development while others relate to the implementation of new IT systems and process support. A key managerial task is to prioritize the allocation of resources across all of these projects and consequently, management across projects is critical to organizational performance (Blichfeldt & Eskerod, 2007). Implying PPM is an essential part of the PMP within an organization. PPM mainly focuses on the selection of projects at the start of the PMP. However, when the process is started, it also reprioritizes projects and reallocates resources when needed. Hence, PPM is defined as Blichfeldt & Eskerord (2007) state in their paper:

“All managerial activities that are relate to the initial screening, selection and prioritization of project proposals, the concurrent reprioritization of projects in the portfolio, and the allocation and reallocation of resources to projects according to priority.”

2.1.4. P

10

within agreed time, cost, and performance criteria. The project is the single point of responsibility for achieving this.” However, one part of the process is often overlooked, the closing of a project. Taking these definitions into consideration, project management is defined as:

“The process of initiating, planning, execution, control, and closing of a project and the management of all involved to achieve the project objectives within the set boundaries.”

Implying, that PMP influence the outcome of a project in relation to its objectives. In order for this outcome to be beneficial the project has to perform well on all activities mentioned in the definition of the PMP. Figure II shows these processes in relation to a project life cycle phase. The different processes will be discussed next.

FIGURE II: LEVEL OF ACTIVITY AND OVERLAP OF PROCESS GROUPS OVER TIME IN THE PROJECT LIFE CYCLE (PMBOK, 2004; SCHWALBE, 2007)

2.1.4.1.

I

Initiating is the process of formally recognizing that a new project exists or that an existing project should continue into its next phase (PMBoK, 2004). It includes the defining and authorizing of a project. An organization should put considerable thought into project selection to ensure that it initiates the right kinds of projects for the right reasons. It is better to have a moderate or even small amount of success on an important project than huge success on one that is unimportant (Schwalbe, 2007). This implies the necessity of alignment between projects and an organizations’ strategic focus (Martinelli & Waddell, 2004).

11

2.1.4.2.

P

Planning is of major importance to a project because the project involves doing something which has, often, not been done before (PMBoK, 2004). The planning processes include devising and maintaining a workable scheme to ensure that the project addresses the organization’s needs. The main purpose of the planning process is to guide project execution (Schwalbe, 2007). Often there is no single project plan, the overall plan contains several sub plans, e.g. scope management plan; schedule management plan; cost management plan and procurement plan. Each of these plans is developed by a project team to define the work that needs to be done for the projects. To account for changing conditions on the project and in the organization, project teams often revise plans during each phase of the project life cycle (Schwalbe, 2007). Hence, the planning process involves the entire project life cycle because it can alter at any time.

In order for the planning process to be effective, plans must be realistic and useful, so a fair amount of time and efforts are performed during the planning process; people knowledgeable with the work need to plan the work. In today’s environment a lot of organizations cope with the simultaneous management of multiple projects at once (Platje et al., 1994). The need for portfolio thinking is required in which all tasks and responsibilities can be delegated to the lowest possible organizational levels. Subsequently, this will lead to improved communication. The need for multi-project planning (and control) is therefore needed.

FIGURE IV: PLATJE ET AL. (1994) PLANNING CYCLE IN MULTI-PROJECT ORGANIZATIONS Project Selection

Process

Initiating Process

12

Platje et al. (1994) developed this planning cycle as a guideline for planning cycles in multi-project organizations. It reflects the importance of communication between departments, project teams, portfolio management team and the management. It is based on the “Deming Wheel”, also referred to as the ‘plan-do-check-act’ cycle. It describes the self-regulating, continuous improvement processes.

2.1.4.3.

E

Executing the project involves taking the actions necessary to ensure that activities in the project plan are completed (Schwalbe, 2007). These actions involve the coordination of people and other resources to carry out the project plan (PMBoK, 2004). The output of the project is produced during project execution and it usually takes the most resources to accomplish this process. This process is based on the planning process, and it includes constant monitoring and control. During this phase it can be necessary to adjust plans or take corrective actions. This relation is shown in figure VI.

2.1.4.4.

C

Project performance should be measured regularly to identify variances from the plan. Variances should be noticed by the control process. And, if needed, adjustments to the plan are made by repeating the appropriate project planning process (PMBoK, 2004). Schwalbe (2007) refers to these actions as corrective actions. Next to this, controlling also includes taking preventive action in anticipating possible problems (Schwalbe, 2007). Reducing the probability of negative consequences associated with project risks. Hence, the controlling process is not solely

Planning Process Project Selection

Process

Initiating Process

Planning Process Executing Process

Control Process FIGURE V: PLANNING PROCESS RELATED TO THE EARLIER PROCESSES

13

controlling, it involves a large amount of monitoring during the execution of the process. During this process the activity of reporting is also of great importance. Reporting can be done by using formal or informal communication between the project team and project leader, or project leader and management. Formal control can be for instance status reports. Informal control can be a conversation between project team members and their project leader in the walk to their work. An important difference between these is that formal control is documented, while informal control is not. The project control process facilitates the control on activities and employees within the process. Such a process is necessary because not all employees will act in such a way that the projects result will be the greatest. Which can, for instance lead to decreased quality, overrun in costs or schedule overrun. Several researchers stress the need for control forms, and a project control system, for projects (Hollman, 2003; Bradshaw, 2008).

The need for control can be related to three causes according to Merchant & van der Stede (2007). First the lack of direction, some employees perform poorly because they simply do not know what the organization wants them to do. Second, motivational problems can arise because individuals are self-interested and individual and organizational objectives do not naturally coincide. Thirdly there can be personal limitations; this is the case when employees are simply unable to do a good job because of certain personal limitations. Several forms of control have been identified in the literature (Merchant & van der Stede, 2007; Ouchi, 1979; Jarowski, 1988).

TABLE 3: SUMMARY OF CONTROL FORMS (OUCHI, 1979; MERCHANT & VAN DER STEDE, 2007; JAROWSKI, 1988; OUCHI, 1979)

Author Form of control Explanation

Ouchi (1979) Market Decision making is based on competitive information of prices

Bureaucracy Explicit rules are created about levels of task completion, these may contain rules specifying standards of output or quality

Clan Implicit form of control. Tradition and shared values and belief are the requirement of control

Merchant & van der Stede (2007) Results control Enables employees to take their own actions that have te best results (empowerment)

Action control Involves taking steps to ensure that employees act in the organizations best interest by making their actions themselves the focus of control Personnel control Focuses on the employees’ natural tendencies to control and/or

motivate themselves

Cultural control Designed to encourages mutual monitoring

Jarowski (1988) Formal control Documented control forms and initiated by the management Informal control Unwritten control forms and often initiated by employees themselves,

though management also uses informal forms of control

Ouchi (1979) Behavior control Can be applied when the knowledge of the transformation process is perfect, and the output can or, cannot be, measured

14

Ritual and Ceremony control When both the ability to measure outputs and the knowledge of the transformation process is low

In order to be able to characterize the project control system at XS4ALL, a distinction between different types of control available to organizations can be helpful. In table 2 several authors and their control forms are mentioned. For the purpose of this thesis the three forms specified by Merchant & van der Stede (2007) will serve as a basic framework to classify the project control at XS4ALL. They divide control into three forms: results control,

action control and personnel and cultural control. Next to the difference in control form, there is a difference in the

tightness of control, which also will be covered next.

Results control

Results controls are commonly used for controlling the behaviors of employees at many organizational levels. Results controls are particularly dominant as means of controlling the behaviors of professional employees; those with decision authority (Merchant & van der Stede, 2007). Results control focuses on the outcomes/outputs of the actions the employee has taken. It therefore does not control the activities itself. Hence, results control are an indirect form of control used when activities have already been undertaken providing an output. The implementation of results control require four steps as Merchant & van der Stede mention: (1) defining the dimension(s) on which results are desired (or not desired), such as profitability, customer satisfaction or product defects; (2) measuring performance on these dimensions; (3) setting performance targets for employees to strive for; and (4) providing rewards to encourage the behaviors that will lead to the desired results. In order for results controls to be effectively all of the following conditions should be present according to Merchant & van der Stede (2007): (1) knowledge of desired results; (2) ability to influence the desired results (controllability); and (3) the ability to measure controllable results effectively. Results controls can be effective when it is not clear what behaviors are most desirable. In addition results controls can yield good control, while still allowing employees whose behaviors are being controlled a high degree of autonomy. This enables employees to be innovative, because they are not being restricted in their actions. However, a sole form of results control is very rare; they are often supplemented by action and personnel/cultural controls.

Action control

15

(un)desirable actions (do not) occur. As with results control systems, action control systems usually cannot be made near-perfect (Merchant & van der Stede, 2007). Hence, organizations use personnel and cultural controls to help fill in some of the gaps.

Personnel & Cultural control

Personnel controls build on employees’ natural tendencies to control and or motivate themselves (Merchant & van der Stede, 2007). They serve any of three basic purposes. First some of them clarify expectations. Second, they help ensure that each employee is able to do a good job. And third, the personnel controls can increase the likelihood that each employee will engage in self-monitoring. Cultural controls are designed to encourage mutual monitoring; a powerful form of group pressure on individuals who deviate from group norms and values (Merchant & van der Stede, 2007). Both control forms take the employees’ natural tendencies to control as a starting point. Personnel controls focus on controlling and monitoring their own behavior, while cultural controls focus on the control and monitoring of other employees’ behavior. The degree to which personnel/cultural controls are effective can vary significantly across individuals, groups and societies. Some people are more honest than others, and some groups and societies have stronger emotional ties among their members.

Tightness of control

Tightness of control is defined here in terms of a high degree of assurance that employees will behave as the organization wishes. Managers should implement tight controls if they have good knowledge about how one or more objects of control (actions, results, and personnel/culture) relate to the organization’s goals and if they can implement the chosen form(s) of controls effectively. When they wish to tighten controls, managers often use multiple forms of controls (Merchant & van der Stede, 2007).

2.1.4.5.

C

The closing process involves gaining stakeholder and customer acceptance of the final products and services and bringing the project, or project phase, to an orderly end (Schwalbe, 2007). Closing includes verifying that all of the objectives are complete, and it often includes a final presentation. Schwalbe (2007) mentions the importance of formally closing a project. By doing so, the organization can receive important feedback by reflecting what can be learned from the finished project. This is not only important for finished projects, but also for projects that are canceled before completion. Closing also prevents the ongoing of projects, and thus resource claims that are not necessary.

16

2.1.5. P

In this case the focus will be on the Dutch IT-sector. A report made by Neering et al. (2005) considers the different approaches used in the Dutch IT-sector anno 2005. The approaches most used are PMBoK (8%), PMW (8%) and Prince/Prince2 (75%). A note on this is that most of the companies develop their own approach based on one of these. A method is almost never used explicitly. Payne & Turner (1999) even go one step further; they state that a company should tailor the use of a method to each individual project. This however, is not applicable for most organization because it takes a lot of organizational work and time.

2.1.5.1.

PMB

K

PMBoK is a norm for project management developed by the American Project Management Institute (PMI). PMBoK focuses on the periodical cycle that project management involves. The cycle contains planning, execution, control and adjusting. As mentioned earlier this is also known as the Deming Wheel.

The PMP covers 9 different knowledge areas, management of integration, scope, time, cost, quality, human resource, project communications, risk, and procurement management. PMBoK is a method that is scarcely used in the Netherlands; moreover it is used in the United States and Asian countries.

2.1.5.2.

P

2

Prince2 (Projects IN Controlled Environments) is a method, from English origin, often used in the Netherlands. Prince2 is a structured approach to project management, originally developed as a method to manage IT-projects. It divides the process into manageable stages, making it a structured method for project management. Prince2 is structured among three characteristics: (1) processes, (2) components, and (3) techniques (Akker, 2002). The method contains eight processes through which a project is executed, these are: starting up; initiating; directing; controlling; managing stage boundaries; managing product deliveries; planning and closing.

Project Selection Initiating Process Planning Process Executing Process Control Process Closing Process

17

FIGURE VIII: PRINCE2 PROCESSES

Next to that it has eight components that describe the working areas: business case, organization, plans, controls, management of risk, quality in a project environment, configuration management, and change control. Prince2 offers three guidelines for techniques a project manager can use as support for the processes. These three are: product-based planning; change control approach and quality review. The use of these techniques is not obligatory; however product-based planning is a technique that is considered as a principal. Prince2 mentions six aspects that have to be controlled during each project. These are mentioned in the table below:

Control Aspect Description

Time This contains the total life cycle of a project; it includes the delivery of the end result.

Costs This concerns the costs that are made during the execution of the project; it includes the costs of the project management.

Quality Staying within budget and delivering on time alone isn’t sufficient. The result of a project should also be according to demands and wishes, while being fit to use for the purpose the project was initiated.

Scope This concerns the question about what the end result has to be exactly. It describes the activities that should, or should not, be done in order to create the actual deliverable of the project. Mistakes are made often concerning this aspect; this is done by stakeholders that create incomplete, and incorrect, images of the objectives of the project. This can lead to severe negative effects.

Risks Every project has a certain degree of uncertainty, and therefore involves risks. This should not be of any problem, if the risks are managed properly. Management of threats, but also opportunities that arise during a project is essential.

18

However, in 2009 PRINCE2 also added seven principles that are the fundament for every project in order to become successful. They are based on the experience of projects through the past decades that succeeded or failed. These principles are applicable to every project, irrespective of the size or complexity. The seven principles are:

 Business justification

A project has to have continued business justification at any given moment in time. During the project this has to be tested on a regular basis. When there is no longer any business justification for the project it should be abandoned.

 Lessons Learned

At the start of a project, earlier lessons learned should be taken into account. During the project the project team should actively share experiences and documented lessons learned for future projects. And, when closing a project, the lessons learned should be handed over and distributed in the organization.  Roles & Responsibilities

A project has defined and agreed roles and responsibilities with an organization structure that engages the business, user and supplier stakeholder interests. This structure should also be a means for effective communication among the various roles & people involved.

 Manages by Stages

A project is planned, monitored and controlled on a stage by stage basis. Planning and executing can be divided in a short term, detailed ‘team plan’, and a more long term, ‘high level project plan’, for the entire project. Prince2 states that there should be a minimum of two stages, one initiation stage and one or more management stages. These stages are the control points for the management to make decisions and asses the project’s status.

 Manage by Exception

A project has defined tolerances for each project objective to establish limits of delegated authority. When an established limit is, or in the process of, being surpassed, this will be delegated to the next higher level to decide the action that has to be taken.

 Product Focus

A project focuses on the definition and delivery of products, in particular their scope and quality

19  Tailor to Project Environment

The use of Prince2 should be tailored to suit the project’s size, environment, complexity, importance, capability and risk.

2.1.5.3.

PMW

PMW (ProjectMatig Werken) is a Dutch project management method focused on a more human-oriented approach. The method is build around three main processes: phasing the process, controlling the process, and decision-making during the process. Next to that it focuses on two other processes that of conforming agreements and cooperation between project members. During the different phases the project is controlled using five ‘control aspects’: (1) money, (2) organization, (3) quality, (4) information, and (5) time, revered to as GOKIT.

FIGURE IX: PMW PROCESSES AND ITS CONTROL ASPECTS

2.1.5.4.

C

These methods are a tool to aid an organization in its PMP. With the use of these methods, the user can enable several critical benefits for his/her organization. These methods strive to enable several goals that will be beneficial to an organization considering its PMP:

(1) Enable the coordination of processes that will deliver a unique result together, (2) Focus an organizations’ efforts and energy on the desired result,

(3) Reaching the goal of a project

(4) Making a clear delegation of tasks, responsibility and authority, (5) Anticipations of probable risks,

(6) Use of ‘Go’ or ‘No-Go’ decisions during the process,

20

Twynstra Gudde (2008) made a comparison between these three methods; they noticed several aspects that showed resemblance between them. These resemblances are mentioned in table 1.

TABLE 4: ASPECTS OF RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN PMW, PRINCE2 AND PMBOK (TRANSLATED OUT OF TWYNSTRA GUDDE, 2008) Aspect

Executing and thinking guided by a pre-known result (deliverable of product) Distinction between responsibility for goal and result

Balance between human factor and method Think first, then act

Focus on collaboration, not on negotiating

Initiation, executing, controlling and handing over of a project Central role of the buyer (client)

Early involvement of users and controllers with the project Formulation of goals before execution of the project

Formulation of schedule, margins and risks before project starts (formulation of project control) Availability to ‘Go’ or ‘No-Go’ (stop) when project is being carried out

Assessing projects by using a start document (business case) Clear delegation of tasks, responsibility and authority Change management when discrepancies occur

The involvement of stakeholders at the right time for the right subject

Communication between project organization and the rest of the organization and its environment

Next to the resemblances between the three methods, there are also several differences that can be noticed. Twynstra Gudde (2008) listed these differences; they are listed in table 2. PMBoK and Prince2 are handbooks that help an organization form its PMP. PMW is a conceptual framework based focusing on the human factor in the process.

TABLE 5: ASPECTS OF DIFFERENCES OF PMW, PRINCE2 AND PMBOK (TRANSLATED OUT OF TWYNSTRA GUDDE, 2008)

Aspect PMW Prince2 PMBoK

Contents of sequence of image

Phasing, controlling, deciding, collaboration and

conformance

Controlling, deciding,

conformance, collaboration and phasing

Managing, deciding, collaboration and phasing

Use of formats and standards

Guidance to formulating standards and ‘fit to environment’ formats

Sets of uniform formats and

standards Set of techniques

Area of usage All sorts of true projects Focus on ICT projects Technical projects

Central direction Focus on results Management of project

processes

Management of project processes

Emphasis at introduction Advising, training, teaching,

participating and practice Describe, train en certify Describe, train and certify

21

2.1.6. P

(

)

Every program, project, or product has certain phases of development known as life-cycle phases (Kerzner, 2009). A clear understanding of these phases enables managers and executives to better control resources to achieve goals. Kerzner (2009) mentions that project management methodologies often work best if they are structured around life-cycle phases. There has been partial agreement about the life-cycle phases of a product. However, there is no agreement among industries, or even companies within the same industry, about the life-cycle phases of a project (Kerzner, 2009; Schwalbe, 2007). This is understandable because of the complex nature and diversity of projects. Jugdev & Müller (2005) define the PLC as a collection of generally sequential project phases whose name and number are determined by the control needs of the organization or organizations involved in the project. Most PLCs include phases of conceptualization, planning, execution (and/or testing) and termination. Munns and Bjeirmi (1996) describe the PLC as a six-staged process, shown in figure II. The stages being:

1. Conception phase: The idea for the project is birthed within the client organization and its feasibility determined.

2. Planning phase: The method to achieve the original idea is planned and designed 3. Production: The plans are converted into physical reality.

4. Handover: The finished project is handed over to the client for use. 5. Utilization: The client makes use of the finished project.

6. Closedown: The project is dismantled and disposed of at the end of its useful life.

22

The focus in this research will be upon the first four stages, conception till the handover. Jugdev & Müller (2005) made a difference between the product life cycle and the project life cycle. Taking into consideration the PMBoK the project life cycle consists out of three stages: (1) initial phase, (2) intermediate phase, and (3) final

phase. The intermediate phases can consist out of one or more phases. The usage of the projects outcome and

closedown or termination of the projects outcome are not considered to be part of the project life cycle. Rather, these are part of the product life cycle. It is however important that the closure of a project is not confused with the closure of a projects outcome. Closing a project means handing it over to the line organization. Closing a projects outcome is the ‘death’ of a product delivered by the project that delivered it.

TABLE 6: OVERVIEW OF PROJECT AND PRODUCT LIFE CYCLES (PMBOK GUIDE, 2002)

Phases Construction Pharmaceutical Defense Acquisition Software Development

P rodu ct L ife C ycl e Initial Phase: Conceptualization, Planning P roject Li fe C ycl e

Feasibility Discovery & Screening

Concept Exploration &

Definition Proof of Concept Cycle

Intermediate Phase: Production / Implementation Planning and Design Pre-Clinical Development Demonstration &

Validation First Build Cycle

Production Registration(s) Workup

Engineering & Manufactering Development

Second Build Cycle

Final Phase: Handover Turnover and Start Up Post-Submission Activity Production & Deployment

Final Cycle Including Testing, Final Build

Operations:

Utilization Operations & Support Deployment

Decommissioning:

Closedown

FIGURE X: THE STAGES IN A PROJECT LIFE CYCLE, AND THE PARTIES INTERESTED IN EACH STAGE

23

Further, research also acknowledges the variation of critical success factors along the PLC (Söderlund, 2002; Pinto & Slevin, 1988a; Pinto & Prescott, 1988; Fortune & White, 2006). During the PLC, and therefore the PMP, several factors have to be taken into account. Various researchers tried to identify the critical success factors (CSFs) of projects. Some by using a theoretical approach (Avot, 1969; Jonason, 1971; Archibald, 1976; Martin, 1976; Hughes, 1986; Schultz, Slevin & Pinto, 1987), others took an empirical approach (Baker, Murphy and Fisher, 1983; Morris and Hough, 1987; Pinto & Prescott, 1988; Pinto and Slevin, 1989; Pinto & Prescott, 1990; Chau et al, 1999; Brockhoff, 2006). All of these researchers have found different factors for the success and/or failure of a project.

In this research the empirically developed CSFs of Schultz, Slevin & Pinto (1987) will be used. The so-called ‘project implementation profile’ (PIP), is developed through field research and identified ten CSFs related to project management success. Taking these factors into account during the PMP, project management success can be enhanced.

TABLE 7: EMPIRICAL DEVELOPED CSFS BY SCHULTZ, SLEVEN & PINTO (1987)

Factor Definition

1. Project Mission The importance of initial, clearly defined goals and general directions must be spelled out in the beginning.

2. Top Management Support Willingness of top management to provide the necessary resources and authority/power for project success. Making it clear to personnel involved that they support successful completion of the project. 3. Project Schedule/Plan A detailed plan of the required steps in the implementation process needs to be developed, including

all resource requirements.

4. Client Consultation Communication, consultation, and action listening to all impacted parties. The clients, or parties for whom the project is ultimately intended, either inside or outside the organization, need to be consulted in order to better determine their specific needs.

5. Personnel Recruitment, selection, and training of the necessary personnel for the project team. Considering both the technical implementation as the logistic support

6. Technical Tasks Availability of the required technology and expertise to accomplish the specific technical action steps. The project must be managed by people who are familiar with it, who possess adequate technical skills, and who have the technology to perform their tasks.

7. Client Acceptance The act of “selling” the final project to its ultimate intended users. This because the ultimate success of a project rests with the client’s decision of whether or not to accept it.

8. Monitoring and Feedback Timely provision of comprehensive control information at each stage in the implementation process. Key personnel receive feedback on how the project compares to the initial projections at each stage of the project implementation process.

9. Communication Adequate communication channels (both formal and informal) are extremely important, not only within the project, but between the team and the organization, as well as with the project’s clients. Therefore it is essential to provide an appropriate network and necessary data to all key actors in the project implementation.

24

troubleshooting mechanisms. This concerns the ability to handle unexpected crises and deviations from plan.

All of these ten factors are considered to be important factors when managing and controlling a project. However, these factors are subject to change at different points in the project. Factors differ in importance during the projects start to end. Pinto & Prescott (1988) did research on how these different factors differed in importance during the phases in the project life cycle. We will arrange the factors Pinto & Prescott (1988a) found using the three phases of the PLC defined by the PMBoK (2000). It is no surprise that in the initial phase of the project the project mission defined by, and in consideration with the clients’ wishes is of great importance. These two factors relate to the conceptualization part of this phase. In the planning phase top management support, project mission and client acceptance were found critical to project success. During the intermediate phase (Pinto & Prescott (1988) named this the execution phase), five factors are of importance. Most noticeable is the importance of the schedule/plan CSF. Since the project is being executed, initial schedules become increasingly important to the project management success.

TABLE 8: RELATION OF PINTO & PRESCOTT (1988A) CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS IN RELATION TO THE PMBOK (2004) PROJECT LIFE CYCLE

Phase Critical Success Factor

Initial Phase:

Conceptualization, Planning

Project Mission Client Consultation Top Management Support Client Acceptance Intermediate Phase: Production / Implementation Project Mission Trouble-Shooting Schedule/Plan Technical Tasks Client Consultation Final Phase: Handover Technical Tasks Mission Client Consultation

25

communication forms are a facilitator for project management success: (1) A balance of formal and informal communication; (2) Maintaining regular (daily or weekly) face-to-face meetings; and (3) providing quantitative data to analyze performance where appropriate and as required by the client.

2.1.7. P

Stakeholder management is an important issue in project management as a project can be seen as a temporary coalition of stakeholders having to create something together (Jepsen & Eskerod, 2008). Stakeholders are the people involved in or affected by project activities. Jepsen & Eskerod (2008) refer to a project stakeholder as “… a person or a group of persons, who are influenced or able to influence the project”. Stakeholders can be internal to the organization, external to the organization, directly involved in the project, or simply affected by the project (Schwalbe, 2007). Internal project stakeholders generally include the project sponsor, project team, support staff, and internal customers for the project. Other internal stakeholders include top management, other functional managers, and other project managers. Projects can influence other organizational members indirectly by for instance using organizational resources. Thus, while additional internal stakeholders may not be directly involved in the project, they are still stakeholders because the project affects them in some way. Since the purpose of project management is to meet project requirements and satisfy stakeholders, it is critical that adequate time is taken to identify, understand, and manage relationships with all project stakeholders. Or as Jepsen & Eskerod (2008) state in their article, “…the continuing development of relationships with stakeholders for the purpose of achieving a successful project outcome”.

It is widely agreed that a project has many stakeholders, whose interest may be related or in conflict (Wang & Huang, 2006). In order to achieve success, stakeholder input is needed in order to measure the degree of project success

2.2. G

ENERAL LITERATURE ABOUT PROJECT SUCCESS

26

De Wit (1988), Wateridge (1998) and Wang & Huang (2006) stress the importance of including various stakeholders’ perspectives in defining project success. Only focusing on the traditional values as time, budget and requirements will generate a narrow view of project success. However, the criteria of project success are broader, incorporating the stakeholder view during the entire project life cycle is essential (Morris & Hough, 1987; Shenhar et al., 2005). This all relates to the subjective nature of project success that Shenhar & Dvir (2001) mention. The concept of project success remains ambiguously defined (Belassi & Tukel, 1996; Liu & Walker, 1998; Lim & Mohamed, 1999). This because the varying perceptions, leading to disagreements about whether a project is successful not. Several researchers have suggested the need for additional project success criteria, besides the traditional ones. Profitability, business success, meeting user expectation, fulfilling customer needs, meeting technical specifications (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007) are just a few of these additional criteria. Due to the subjective nature of project success and the different views on the criteria that should be used, each company will create its own criteria for project success. Some further explanation about project success is needed to ensure a common view for this research.

2.2.1. F

P

There are different forms of project success. Several researchers (Baccarini, 1999; Cooke-Davies, 2002; and Agarwall & Rathod, 2006) divide the project success into two components. Baccarini (1999) divides into product

success and that of project management success. Cooke-Davies speaks (2002) of project success and project management success. Agarwall & Rathod (2006) contend that success criteria focus on two aspects of a project: (1)

the internal characteristics and (2) the external characteristics. The internal characteristics are criteria like time, cost and scope attainment. The external ones relate to customer satisfaction with the project outcome. Lim and Mohamed (1999) did comparable research; they defined macro and micro viewpoints of success. The micro viewpoint contains the traditional factors as time, quality, cost, performance and safety. Subsequently, the macro viewpoint contains satisfaction of the end user or client.

Project Plan Planned values: - time - budget - requirements Project Delivery Actual values: - time - budget - requirements Project Execution Compare Success/Failure

27 TABLE 9: SUMMARY OF PROJECT SUCCESS COMPONENTS BY AUTHORS

Project success

Component 1 Component 2

Baccarini (1999) Project management success Project success

Cook-Davies (2002) Project management success Product success

Agarwall & Rathod (2006) Success on internal project characteristics Success on external project characteristics

Lim & Mohamed (1999) Micro viewpoint of success Macro viewpoint of success

It is clear that project success has to be divided into two forms. All of the researchers mentioned earlier divided project success into two parts. In this research the distinction for project success of Baccarini (1999) will be used, that of product success and project management success. Following his research it is essential that a distinction is made between product success and the success of project management effort.

2.2.1.1.

P

Product success deals with the effects of the project’s final product (Baccarini, 1999). Product success has three components: (1) meeting the project owner’s strategic objectives (project goal), (2) satisfaction of users’ needs (project purpose), and (3) satisfaction of stakeholders’ needs where they relate to the product (Baccarini, 1999). Meeting the projects main goal is often closely related to the organizations’ strategic objectives. E.g. a project goal can be to enhance profitability, market share, or technological advancement.

2.2.1.2.

P

M

S

Project management success focuses upon the project process and, in particular, the successful accomplishment of cost, time and quality objectives (Baccarini, 1999). These three objectives show the operational mindset used assessing project management success. Project management success also considers the manner in which the PMP was conducted.

Product Success Project management Success

Inputs Outputs

Purpose Goal

Project Success

28

Bearing in mind that successful project management can increase the degree of project success, but is unlikely to be able to prevent failure (De Wit, 1988). Hence, as stated earlier the importance of successful project management is relevant considering the degree of project success. Successful project management is an important part in project success (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996).

2.2.2. M

In this section the criteria for measuring project success will be discussed. Furthermore, when measuring project success, one must consider the objectives of all stakeholders throughout the PLC at all levels in the management hierarchy (De Wit, 1988). Implying that objective measurement of project success is somewhat of an illusion. However, with thorough research each company should be able to identify the success criteria that are crucial in their project environment.

In the early years of project management, and still, there has been a lot of focus on three measures mentioned in the so-called “Iron-triangle” (Jha & Iyer, 2007; Norrie & Walker, 2004). This project management model states that there are three criteria on which projects should be managed and to which project success could be measured. The three measures were: time, cost (sometimes referred to as ‘budget’) and quality (Norrie & Walker, 2004; Atkinson, 1999).

29

FIGURE XIV: PROJECT MANAGEMENT SUCCESS CRITERIA BY NORRIE & WALKER (2004)

Contrary to Atkinson’s model (1999), Norrie & Walker (2004) added an additional, fourth, criteria to the ‘triangle’. On-strategy, or strategy, was added in the center of triangle, making it a quad constrained model. Placing the on-strategy measurement in the middle of the model made clear that this measurement is central to the achievement of the other three traditional constraints. Nowadays there is a lot more focus on ‘strategy’, it has become essential for project to be in line with the business strategy. This is because of the fact that projects should enhance the business performance of the organization by being in line with the organizational strategy.

Shenhar et al. (2001) created several measures of project success and divided those onto four success dimensions, found in table 10. These measures contain the time, cost, quality and strategy measurements mentioned by Atkinson (1999) and Norrie & Walker (2004). These focus on the PMP. Some other factors focus on the impact of the outcome on the customer; does it meet technical and/or functional requirements? Does the outcome satisfy the customer? These can be measured after the PMP. The other two (business success and preparing for the future) are long-term focused, and focus on the product success part of project success. One limitation to these two is that these criteria are hard to measure in the short-term, and sometimes even in the long-term (Jugdev & Müller, 2005). Earlier it was already stated that project success can fail on the short-term measurements, but eventually succeed in the long-term measurements. For the purpose of this research both the short- and long-term measurements will be taken into account. However, the main focus will be on the short-term success criteria, since these can be influenced by the PMP.

TABLE 10: SUCCESS DIMENSIONS FOR PROJECTS ACCORDING TO SHENHAR ET AL. (2001)

Success dimension Measures

1. Project efficiency 1. Meeting schedule goal 2. Meeting budget goal