Citation:

Steinfort, P and Walker, D 2007, 'Critical success factors in project management globally and how they may be applied to aid
projects', in D. Baccarini (ed.) Proceedings of the PMOZ Achieving Excellence - 4th Annual Project Management Australia
Conference, Brisbane, Australia, 28-31 August 2007.

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT GLOBALLY AND

HOW THEY MAY BE APPLIED TO AID PROJECTS

Paul Steinfort PMP (BE Hons) Project Management (Civil Eng) FIEAust FAIPM,
PSA Project Management Consultants Melbourne and PhD Candidate at
RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, corresponding author email
paul@psaproject.com.au Website www.psaproject.com.au
Derek H.T. Walker, PhD, MSc, Grad Dip (Mgt Sys), Professor of Project
Management, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

Abstract

This paper reports upon progress towards a doctoral study on the antecedents of project
success in aid/emergency relief projects. We argue that there are useful project management
(PM) approaches that may be universally applied to most, if not all, projects to contribute to
successful PM delivery. However, when reflecting upon field-experience, some of these PM
approaches appear to simply not function in the environment typified by project aid and
emergency relief projects. This raises some interesting questions.

What does the literature on PM success factors take as its underlying assumptions that may not
apply to aid projects? What are some of the more problematic issues that aid project deliverers
face which are significantly different from delivering, for example, commercial projects in
difficult or distressing circumstances? How can we best approach studying such projects and to
summarise in a simple but effective universal framework, the contextual project success
constants and methods for application in any environment, particularly the PM Framework and
application undertaking Aid / Relief Projects. This paper also has the benefit of a PMI research
grant.
.
Keywords: Project Management Success; Research Methods; Aid Projects.

Introduction - Project Management in the Aid / Relief Global Environment - Success /

Failure

A recent series of natural disasters associated with the Earthquakes and Tsunamis that
struck the South East Asia region starting on December 26th 2004, killing hundreds of thousands
of people and leaving many more destitute and homeless, has triggered a surge in research
interest in predictive and disaster response research and, to a lesser extent, how to improve
delivery of critical aid relief projects.

Amongst a range of Institutions, the PMI responded generously with a post-disaster rebuild
methodology (Project Management Institute, 2005). There was also a generous reaction from the
public, as well as governments, to establish disaster relief and rebuilding funds1. With the web
being so accessible, there are many web site locations established to help aid donors make better

1
For an abbreviated list of donors and concerned agencies refer to http://www.google.com/tsunami_relief.html

D:\2002-Printed\refconf\e174-MPOZ-PSDW-v12.doc 1
use of their funds, inform them of current crises and aid hot spots as well as provide access to
communities of practice in the aid relief areas2.
There has, however, been relatively limited research field research work into how to improve
delivery of these kinds of projects from an effective and practical PM perspective that fully
recognises the challenges and difficulties that inhibit PM best practice being applied to these aid
/ relief projects.

The project management (PM) profession has a long record of developing academic theory and
best practice. Interested readers can refer to Morris (1994) for a thorough history of the
profession. The PMI, for example, has a standard body of knowledge that has been refined
several times. The current edition (PMI, 2004) has been extensively extended over previous
versions. However, the PMBOK content still has limitations as pointed out by several PM
profession thought leaders (Morris, Patel and Wearne, 2000; Turner, 2000; Morris, 2001; Morris,
Jamieson and Shepherd, 2006). It also tends to imply that its processes and procedures can be
universally applied and this has been questioned with the re-thinking PM movement (Hodgson
and Cicmil, 2006; Winter, Smith, Cooke-Davies and Cicmil, 2006).

This paper will investigate the questions posed in the paper’s abstract and is structured as
follows. The next section will review and summarise the interest in project types and their nature
in terms of what PM techniques may be applied. This leads to a discussion on what project and
PM success actually means and how it may relate to different project types. We then discuss the
context of the case studies that we propose to study in late 2007 and draw upon reflection on in-
field experiences to date by one of the authors. We will then discuss how research can be
undertaken and justify our approach that will be undertaken during the second half of 2007. We
will conclude with several propositions which will be tested over the mid 2007-2008 period.

Project Success Criteria and Factors in any environment

In her paper profiling the Competent Project Manager, Crawford (2000) addressed the
major concern of the field of project management and a recurring theme of the literature as that
of project success. She highlighted that there are two major strands to this concern – how success
is judged (success criteria), and the factors that contribute to the success of projects (success
factors).

In her paper on the Success of Projects in Different Organisational Conditions, Irya

Hyväri (2006) undertook a relevant cross industry study. She compared rankings of importance
of factors and, while it is beyond the scope of our paper, we find it interesting that her
comparison with four other studies found varying rankings of the importance of factors across
these other surveys as well as compared to her survey. She also found that the ranking of her 10
identified factors varied across project phase. Her factors included: project mission; top
management support; project schedule/plans; client consultation; personnel; technical task; client
acceptance; monitoring and feedback; communication; and trouble shooting. This suggests that
while the identity of success factors can be reasonably understood from the literature and there is
general agreement about these factors being important, there is variation both across studies and
phases as to the relative importance of these factors.
2
For example see http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/dbc.nsf/doc100?OpenForm

D:\2002-Printed\refconf\e174-MPOZ-PSDW-v12.doc 2
However, in the measuring success study by Ramage and Armstrong (2005), they find that the
various historical methods for evaluating success encounter barriers to performance
measurement. Difficulties arise in ensuring that measurement instruments guarantee reliability,
validity and responsiveness. To assist in the categorisation of factors impacting on these aspects,
they extend the framework developed by de Lancer and Holzer (2001) to produce a more
comprehensive categorisation of influences. These may align, coincidentally, with the
antecedents to Project Management Best Practice or Success necessary to be in place in the Aid /
Relief Project Management research world.

They conclude that their study provides confirmation that two distinct categories of influences,
namely rational / scientific and political / cultural, exist. They further, and most importantly,
state that it is not possible to fully understand rational / scientific factors without consideration of
political / cultural factors. It is interesting that these points have not been studied in detail to any
great extent in research in the primary project management area to date.

Project Success / Failure

What is project success? How do we define project success and design performance
measures that allow us to recognise the degree of success attained? There has been a great deal
written over the years about project success, project management success and performance
management to deliver success. A number of papers relating to critical success factors emerged
during the late 1980’s—for example see (Pinto and Slevin, 1987) and de Wit (1988) who
viewed success as being judged by the degree to which project objectives have been met. These
views centred on success of project management delivery processes and also acknowledged that
project success is also a matter of the project stakeholder’s perception of the value (in their
terms) of what was delivered.

A study of the “Criteria of Project Success: an exploratory re-examination” (Lim and

Mohamed, 1999) where they look at projects where some stakeholders perceive success and
others do not on the same project. Whilst they also define criteria and factors leading to success
as similar to Crawford (2000), they do look further into the perspectives of project success and
break it down into macro and micro views of project success. They cite examples of projects
which were successful for some but not for others. We have, in Australia, significant examples of
these projects. The Sydney Opera house is generally acknowledged to have been a project
management failure but a roaring project success. It was delivered grossly over time and over
cost budgets and yet it placed Sydney on the map and had many other longer term benefits. More
recently, however, the Redevelopment of the international event venue, the Melbourne Cricket
Ground (MCG) for the staging of the Commonwealth Games, International Cricket and
Australian Football is viewed as a project management success and, interestingly, a project
success, both at the same time. The MCG Project is quite significant and rare at the same time in
that is perceived as a success by all the key stakeholders and more but also satisfies project
success at a micro and macro view as explored in the exploration by Lim and Mohamed (1999).

An earlier paper on determining critical success/failure factors in projects (Belassi and

Tukel, 1996) sensibly works to group critical success factors according to; those related to the

D:\2002-Printed\refconf\e174-MPOZ-PSDW-v12.doc 3
project, those related to the project manager and the team members, those related to the
organisation and those related to the external environment. They further cite that factors which
relate to the project include the “urgency” of a project. They identify that “projects which start
after natural disasters are typical examples and that in these situations, not enough time is
allocated for planning and scheduling projects”. They further identify that in relation to factors
related to external environment, a number of environmental factors such as political, economic,
and social, as well as factors related to the advances in technology or even factors related to
nature affect project performance. They do not, however, cortically review these aspects into heir
study. These aspects as well as the previously cited ones do have a major impact on aid projects.
We will be critically reviewing these in the environment of aid projects but necessarily first need
to conclude on critical success criteria and factors in any project environment. This is the focus
of our research overall.

Sheena et al. (2001: p717) associated four (4) dimensions of success with a timeframe of
expected results. Dimension 1 has a short term goal of project efficiency (meeting cost time
goals). Dimension 2 has a medium term goal of customer success (meeting technical
specifications, functional performance solving customer’s problem that triggered the project
right through to matching intangible and tangible Nuggets (2006) outcomes). Dimension 3 has a
long term goal of business success (commercial success and gaining increased market share that
for aid projects could be generating confidence, satisfaction and also influence). Finally,
Dimension 4 has a very long term goal of preparing for the future (developing new tools,
techniques, products, markets etc).

A critical review of project histories stretching over several decades of one of the author’s past
projects (ranging in size from multi-million dollar IT delivery projects to very large and complex
construction projects) costing hundreds of millions of dollars resulted in key success factors.
These relate to PM processes being adequately carried out which led to a positive project
outcome including extensive front-end planning and project definition work flowing through to
effective project delivery such as:

1. A clear mission/vision and agreed goals with agreed success criteria and clear
understanding of desired and expected values driving the project culture;
2. Key stakeholder/key resource understanding of the goals/objectives with a clear and
agreed statement of outcomes defined;
3. Project plan and programme/method of work being resolved and agreed by all key
parties, including provision of adequate reserves and contingencies;
4. The feasibility of that plan (in terms of resources, contingencies, risks and outcomes)
being resolved and signed off by all key players;
5. Adequate resources being committed for the project based upon detail derived from an
achievable project plan;
6. Clearly stated and understood PM capacity, experience and staff/senior manager's support
including project governance, dispute resolution procedures to engender trust behaviours;
7. Adequate communication and project tools;
8. Project competencies and PM skills, adequate and agreed organisation structure; and
9. Integrity, effective communication, commitment, support, team approach, mentoring, and
learning.

D:\2002-Printed\refconf\e174-MPOZ-PSDW-v12.doc 4
 10. External Influences such as political or cultural awareness and capability.

Others have conducted rigorous research on a wide range of project types and found similar
results. Terry Cook-Davies’ work for example (Cooke-Davies, 2001;2002) widely supports our
field experience highlighted above. He describes 12 ‘real success factors’ as follows (Cooke-
Davies, 2002: p186-189). For on-time performance they are:

1. Adequacy of company-wide education on the concepts of risk management.

2. Maturity of an organisation’s processes for assigning ownership of risks.
3. Adequacy with which a visible risk registers is maintained.
4. Adequacy of an up-to-date risk management plan.
5. Adequacy of documentation of organisational responsibilities on the project.
6. Keep project (or project stage duration) as far below 3 years as possible (1 year is better).
Those that correlate to on-cost performance are:
7. Allow changes to scope only through a mature scope change control process.
8. Maintain the integrity of the performance measurement baseline.
In terms of individual projects he identified a ninth factor:
9. The existence of an effective benefits delivery and management process that involves the
mutual co-operation of project management and line management functions.
His work also considered how projects fit into programs that allow us to better understand
project success in its broader context rather than an individual project:
10. Portfolio and programme management practices that allow the enterprise to resource fully
a suite of projects that are thoughtfully and dynamically matched to the corporate strategy
and business objectives.
11. A suite of project, programme and portfolio metrics that provides direct ‘line of sight’
feedback on current project performance, and anticipated future success, so that project,
portfolio and corporate decisions can be aligned. Since corporations are increasingly
recognizing the need for ‘upstream’ measures of ‘downstream’ financial success through
the adoption of reporting against such devices as the ‘balanced scorecard’.
12. An effective means of ‘learning from experience’ on projects, that combines explicit
knowledge with tacit knowledge in a way that encourages people to learn and to embed
that learning into continuous improvement of project management processes and
practices.

With all of the above papers, it becomes clear that success needs to be investigated from the
perspective of active project team stakeholders as well as from that of their client/benefit
recipients and in the theoretical and empirical/practical review of critical success criteria and
factors on any project and then, in particular, on aid / emergency relief projects. Success at the
same time is, overall, seen as a collaborative achievement involving joint-team action to identify
problems and solutions to these problems and taking action to effectively deliver action, while
learning from the process and fine tuning strategy and tactics employed in a constructive and
reflective way. This leads to viewing project work that leads to successful outcomes as a process
of problem solving, action research and learning that triggers a cycle of continuous improvement
in PM practice.

D:\2002-Printed\refconf\e174-MPOZ-PSDW-v12.doc 5
But most critically it is defined by the need to define criteria and factors leading to success on
any projects and then how that is to be effectively applied to aid / emergency projects.

The Project Process - Projects, Problem Solving, Action Research and Learning

The alignment and commonality of core processes between projects. problem-solving, action
research and learning has been undertaken in Australia in the context of capacity building
projects involving Australian indigenous communities (McIntyre, 2002). McIntyre’s paper has a
very relevant approach to its research and program/project development is very relevant to our
study. McIntyre’s approach was utilisation of an adapted version of a Community of Practice
(COP) involving Participatory Action Research3 (PAR) with communities. McIntyre (2002: p57)
suggests that other communities could benefit from the process that was developed for her
project and that “Learning by doing” (through PAR) builds “spiritual wellbeing”. She also makes
the point that PAR is potentially empowering if the participants who learn by the doing own the
process. She stresses the need for empowerment, i.e. “helping people to achieve greater
confidence and power in the following areas: resources, relationships, information and decision
making”– all of which are also key to project management success.

Reflect, learn, research, plan, act, monitor, evaluate, reflect cycle

There is quite a degree of alignment /synergy/serendipity in the process of a research

project, the process of the Project Monitoring and Evaluation PM practice of Aid Projects
(Action and Reflection) and the Action Research process and other change related process
projects. Action research is a process that starts with planning, then flows through to taking the
planned actions, deeply reflecting upon the results of that action, consciously learning from that
learning and then repeating the cycle (Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988; Greenwood and Levin,
1998; McKay and Marshall, 2001; Smith and O'Neal, 2003; Coghlan and Brannick, 2005).

Project Synergies / Different Backgrounds - PMBOK , Logframe, Project Monitoring /

Evaluation and Results Based Management

The PMBOK’s formulation was geared to responding to highly visible and tangible projects
such as those found in the construction, aerospace and shipbuilding industries. Interest in
appropriate PM practices and approaches has also been focussed on project types for many years
(Turner and Cochrane, 1993; Shenhar and Dvir, 1996; Shenhar and Dvir, 2004). There appears to
be an appreciation that management of some projects, particularly those with difficult to define
sub-goals (beyond the obvious highest level goal) requires managing complementarities
(Pettigrew and Whittington, 2003; Whittington and Pettigrew, 2003) - achieving high levels of
flexibility while maintaining structure. Managing projects in a particularly chaotic environment
appears to best characterise the experience of one of the authors in delivering aid projects in
post-disaster situations.

The gap that the above thought leaders have identified in PM practice as it is currently evolving
in the commercial PM world is mirrored by observations in the field of how aid projects function

3
PAR is a form of action research where the research actively takes part as a participant rather than being a
bystander or advisor to others taking action (Action research will be discussed later).

D:\2002-Printed\refconf\e174-MPOZ-PSDW-v12.doc 6
and a growing body of literature that is critical of PM techniques being applied in what may be
viewed as inappropriate situations. This suggest that there are a range of project planning and
performance measurement approaches better suited for ambiguous or poorly defined aid or social
service delivery projects (Sigsgaard, 2002; Earle, 2003; Ramage and Armstrong, 2005)

Project Monitoring and Evaluation

Aid agencies are required to conform to stringent project reporting requirements in order to
satisfy the wide range of stakeholders. Project monitoring and evaluation (M&E) information
systems (IS), frequently a requirement for funding, are believed to inform the reporting process
(Shenhar and Levy, 1997; Crawford and Bryce, 2003). The logical framework approach (LFA) is
another tool widely used throughout the aid industry for project design and appraisal (Baccarini,
1999), and although much of the literature also promotes the use of the LFA for the purposes of
M&E, it has proved inadequate (Earle, 2003).

The nature of the research question that interests us is firstly Project Monitoring and Evaluation
(P.M. & E.) as a process which is used extensively in the aid world and also has the potential to
be brought to bear effectively on a whole range of projects previously submitted to the PMBOK
(product development/phases/management). What is outstanding about this form of project
delivery is it gives a lot more power to learn and drive to those at the working community level
yet it is still able to be planned and managed effectively. The further point of interest here is the
point of Action Research and involving not just project management experts in Project
Management Research. This can then be extended to action learning workshops and even Action
Science (Greenwood and Levin, 1998).

Project Logframe

It becomes clear that there are different types of projects with very different needs and
demands upon them and very different characteristics and, yet, professional bodies continue to
assume a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach is appropriate—the PMI with the PMBOK (PMI, 2004), or
in many of the aid projects the logical framework approach (Logframe) that stresses an
hierarchical cascade of identified objectives linked to assumptions in terms of goal, purpose,
outputs and inputs presented in a how-why chain (Baccarini, 1999) or variations on this theme
that take into account means of verification and a time dimension (Crawford and Bryce, 2003).

Results Based Management

Results Based Management, also referred to as Performance Management, is best defined

as a broad management strategy aimed at achieving important changes in the way project
agencies operate, with improving performance on projects (achieving better results) as the
central orientation in a comprehensive report by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC)
Working Party on Aid Evaluation. The development co-operation (or donor) agencies whose
experiences are reviewed include USAID, DFID, AusAID, CIDA, Danida, the UNDP and the
World Bank. Results based management with performance measurement is the process an
organization follows to objectively measure how well it’s stated objectives are being met.

D:\2002-Printed\refconf\e174-MPOZ-PSDW-v12.doc 7
This document also addresses how to enable the effective incorporation of Logframe and Risk
Management into Results Based Management whilst, at the same time, keeping a critical eye to
their limitations. It concludes by pointing out that the challenge is to balance project performance
monitoring needs at all LogFrame hierarchy levels, without overburdening the monitoring
system or having it displace evaluation or implementation activities. The related factor here is
also that most NGO /Aid agencies are typically under resourced and under trained in project
management or measurement of any critical form.

Very relevant to all this is the Evaluation Journal of Australasia titled “Measuring Success”
(Ramage & Armstrong 2006) They look at the Balanced Scorecard methodology which analyses
an organisation’s overall performance from four perspectives: communities, learning and growth,
internal processes and financial. This alignment and similar process leads to papers such as “An
Adapted Version of a Community of Practice Approach to Evaluation Owned by Indigenous
Stakeholders” (in Australia) (McIntyre, 2002). Her work also explains how she helps other
facilitate the setting up of COP’s to use PAR as an iterative means to assess its value and impact
on improving governance, guiding and designing future development. This approach to problem
solving and research and improving governance and management is owned by the participants
and supports existing initiatives and priorities i.e. good project management.

Mission and Cultural Awareness

However, the Measuring success study finds that the various historical methods for evaluating
success encounter barriers to performance measurement. Difficulties arise in ensuring
measurement instruments guarantee reliability, validity and responsiveness. To assist in the
categorisation of factors impacting on these aspects they extend the framework developed by de
Lancer Julnes and Holzer (2001) to produce a more comprehensive categorisation of influences.
These may align coincidentally with the antecedents to Project Management Best Practice or
Success necessary to be in place in the Aid / Relief Project Management research world.

Their research extended to the rational / scientific and political / cultural influence in both
implementation and use. They implemented surveys and within certain limitations found the
results indicate that with both political / cultural and rational scientific influences present that
performance management was still seen as successful by a clear majority of participants from all
levels of organisation and community.

The above literature, our experience on projects in Australia and the PMBOK (PMI, 2004) does
strongly support stakeholder engagement for both external groups as well as project team and
supply chain stakeholders, but there is an underlying assumption that remains tacit. This is the
cultural dimension of stakeholder engagement whether in decision making or communication
about progress, impact and other matters of interest. This is a relatively new area of study for the
PM profession with a growing interest at the margins of the PM community that is gaining
attention. The cultural factors, organisational and cross-national, have been understood from
models of cultural traits developed in the general management literature (Hofstede, Neuijen,
Ohayv and Sanders, 1990; Hofstede, 1991; Trompenaars, 1993; Trompenaars and Hampden-
Turner, 2004; Trompenaars and Prud'homme, 2004). These factors relate to an individual’s or
group’s norms and behaviour being influenced along 5 dimensions. These are: power distance

D:\2002-Printed\refconf\e174-MPOZ-PSDW-v12.doc 8
(respect for and understanding of the sources of authority); Uncertainty avoidance (propensity to
rely on rules regulations and to interpret these more or less literally); Individualism (degree of
focus on the individual to the collective interest); Gender (adherence to a more macho or more
feminine set of values); and Time Orientation (focus on long term or short term and seeing time
as fixed (as in years months days etc) or seasonal).

Top Down, Bottom Up – Learning Driving Projects

The PMBOK stresses the need for deciding what a project should deliver and how to plan to
deliver that objective with a predominance for consider scoping project using a work breakdown
structure (WBS) approach (PMI, 2004). However, we see a tension between generally taking a
top down and bottom up approach when defining the scope of a project. The bottom up approach
essentially relies on a large number of well understood and well identified components that can
be grouped into assemblies and these configured into subsystems, and thence into systems. A
project becomes the summation of these systems that delivers a need. The point here is that the
scope of delivery moves beyond delivery of ‘things’ to include ‘services’ i.e. knowledge of how
to most effectively use the ‘thing’ delivered and how to ensure that maintenance of performance
standards are optimised on these highly customised project deliverables (Hobday, 2000).

It is interesting to contrast the above tangible projects with how PM and planning for control is
handled in other industries where different paradigms prevail, for example in the areas where
creative PM teams craft an emergent strategy (Mintzberg, 1987) through action learning rather
than developing rigidly complete specification in a set design to address a particularly well
defined position.

Using Africa as a case study, Muriithi and Crawford (2003) explore the applicability of project
management approaches, as represented in the most widely distributed and accepted knowledge
and practice guides (PMBOK1 Guide, APMBoK (4th edition) and Australian National
Competency Standards for Project Management) to projects in developing and emerging
economies. Issues identified by them include: the need to cope with political and community
demands on project resources; recognition that economic rationality and efficiency, assumed as a
basis for many project management tools and techniques does not reflect local realities; and that
use of such tools and techniques will not enhance project success if they run counter to cultural
and work values. They have tested the findings from analysis of secondary data, against case
studies of application in projects in East Africa and drawn final conclusions and implications for
project management of international development projects.

The tools and techniques of PM themselves will not deliver successful projects if they run
counter to the cultural and work values. They concluded that in Africa there is a particular need
to cope with political and community demands on the project’s resources. Muriithi and Crawford
(2003) conclude that there is urgent need for empirical work to: formalise a project management
framework for Africa (or developing countries and aid projects in general in that context),
confirm which tools and techniques of the present project management orthodoxy work, which
ones do not and why, and articulate an effective indigenous approach to project management in
differing cultural backgrounds.

D:\2002-Printed\refconf\e174-MPOZ-PSDW-v12.doc 9
Research Approaches

One of the authors, a project manager for over 36 years who heads a consultancy in
Melbourne with experience in managing over 3 AUD$ billion of projects in IT, construction and
Telco projects, was commissioned by one NGO to undertake a review of the Tsunami relief
effort (confidential report uncited here) and the evidence that he gathered on that assignment,
plus other consulting assignments since, suggest that current ‘best practice’ PM processes can be
applied to these projects, but that there are numerous antecedents to application of PM practices
that need to be better understood. PM practice antecedents are the underlying assumptions that
project managers take for granted when managing projects. These are the conditions and contexts
that make PM practices effective in given contexts.

The proposed research project is focussed on improving our understanding of how to manage aid
relief projects through coping with the chaos and extreme turbulence associated with such
projects while maintaining a structured PM approach. Its need is based upon direct observation
by the author and presenter while undertaking a (confidential and thus uncited) report
commissioned by a non-government organisation (NGO), Care Australia, into the scope of the
PM task and performance for post-Tsunami disaster relief and reconstruction in Indonesia. He
then undertook several further missions for a range of agencies over the following two years with
direct filed observation and feedback from many aid workers ‘on the ground’.

Research methods

The entire research follows a staged model, recognising that the steps are not necessarily
sequential and that the model should be cyclic, thus relevant for continuous quality improvement
processes and particular for further research as follows:
Stage 1 Observation and Literature Review leading to Problem Clarification
Stage 2 Proposition Formulation leading to the definition research Concepts, Construct
and Model
Stage 3 Development of Project Success Criteria and a List of ‘theorized’ Critical Project
Success/Failure factors, gathered from the Literature Review - plan phase.
Stage 4 Conduct semi-structured pilot study interviews at the three identified levels: with
project personnel supervising projects in the field (level 1) their board level
project sponsors (level 2) and those that work on the ground with supervising
project managers (level 3) - research action phase
Stage 5 Further refinement of Final Project Critical factors of Success/Failure, project
management tools and techniques and Project Success Criteria reflection and
analysis stage 1 - 3 phase and with possible survey review of findings for
verification.
Stage 6 Validation workshop (qualitative research) of Project Practitioners to validate/
prove/ confirm/ add to the Critical factors reflection and analysis stage 2 phase.
Stage 7 Further in-depth interviews (semi-structured) using a Soft Systems Methodology
SSM / Action Research (AR) to study the drivers and impediments to using best
identified practice project management tools and techniques that are relevant for
these type of projects – research action phase.

D:\2002-Printed\refconf\e174-MPOZ-PSDW-v12.doc 10
Stage 8 Data analysis feedback and proposal of actions for improvement from stage 7
based on critical factors from stage 6 and proposal of how (models, processes,
templates etc) to ameliorate problems identified in stage 8 of this study relating to
antecedents of the PM best practice that need to be addressed - reflection and
analysis.
Stage 9 Interpretations and Conclusions
Stage 10 Presentation and thesis write up and defence.

Progress and Discussion

Work is presently in overlap between Stages 4 / 5. Solid progress has been achieved to date and
there is more than sufficient material to work with coming from all the research outlined above
and so far. The key focus is on their core clarification, simplification, integration leading to
reliable and agreed set of constants for project management theory and application verification
leading through the following stages as set out in the preceding pages.

A progress report and conclusions to date will be outlined at the presentation and a further action
learning workshop may be run at the PmoZ 2007 Conference further to all of the above..

References

Baccarini, D. (1999). “The Logical Framework Method for Defining Project Success.” Project
Management Journal. 30 (4): 25-32.
Belassi, W. and Tukel, O. I. (1996). “A New Framework for Determining Critical
Success/Failure Factors in Projects.” International Journal of Project Management. 14
(3): 141-151.
Coghlan, D. and Brannick, T. (2005). Doing Action Research in Your Own
Organization.Second.London Sage Footprint.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2001). Towards Improved Project Management Practice: Uncovering the
Evidence for Effective Practices Through Empirical Research. PhD. Leeds, Leeds
Metropolitan University.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). “The "Real" Success Factors on Projects.” International Journal of
Project Management. 20 (3): 185-190.
Crawford, L. (2000). Profiling the Competent Project Manager. Project Management Research
at the Turn of the Millenium, Paris, France, 21 - 24 June, Project Management Institute,
Sylva, NC: 3-15.
Crawford, P. and Bryce, P. (2003). “Project monitoring and evaluation: a method for enhancing
the efficiency and effectiveness of aid project implementation.” International Journal of
Project Management. 21 (5): 363-373.
de Lancer Julnes, P. and Holzer, M. (2001). “Promoting the Utilization of Performance Measures
in Public Organizations: An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Adoption and
Implementation.” Public Administration Review. 61 (6): 693-708.
de Wit, A. (1988). “Measurement of project success.” International Journal of Project
Management. 6 (3): 164-170.
Earle, L. (2003). Lost in the Matrix: The Logframe and the Local Picture. INTRAC's 5th
Evaluation Conference, Measurement, Management and Accountability?, The
Netherlands, 31st March - 4th April, INTERAC: 17pp.

D:\2002-Printed\refconf\e174-MPOZ-PSDW-v12.doc 11
Greenwood, D. J. and Levin, M. (1998). Introduction to action research : social research for
social change.Thousand Oaks Sage Publications.
Hobday, M. (2000). “The project-based organisation: an ideal form for managing complex
products and systems?” Research Policy. 29 (7-8): 871-893.
Hodgson, D. and Cicmil, S. (2006). Making Projects Critical.Basingstoke, UK Palgrave
MacMillan.
Hofstede, G. (1991). Culture and Organizations: Software of the Mind.New York McGraw-
Hill.
Hofstede, G., Neuijen, B., Ohayv, D. D. and Sanders, G. (1990). “Measuring Organizational
Cultures: A Qualitative and Quantitative Study across Twenty Cases.” Administrative
Science Quarterly. 35 (2): 286-316.
Hyväri, I. (2006). “SUCCESS OF PROJECTS IN DIFFERENT ORGANIZATIONAL
CONDITIONS.” Project Management Journal. 37 (4): 31-41.
Kemmis, S. and McTaggart, R. (1988). The Action Research Planner.3rd.Victoria, Australia
Deakin University Press.
Lim, C. S. and Mohamed, M. Z. (1999). “Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-
examination.” International Journal of Project Management. 17 (4): 243-248.
McIntyre, J. (2002). “An adapted version of a community of practice approach to evaluation
owned by indigenous stakeholders.” Evaluation Journal of Australisia. 2 (2): 57-59.
McKay, J. and Marshall, P. (2001). “The Dual Imperatives of Action Research.” Information
Technology & People. 14 (1): 46-59.
Mintzberg, H. (1987). “Crafting Strategy.” Harvard Business Review. 65 (4).
Morris, P. W. G. (1994). The Management of Projects A New Model.London Thomas Telford.
Morris, P. W. G. (2001). “Updating the Project Management Bodies of Knowledge.” Project
Management Journal. 32 (3): 21-31.
Morris, P. W. G., Jamieson, A. and Shepherd, M. M. (2006). “Research updating the APM Body
of Knowledge 4th edition.” International Journal of Project Management. 24 (6): 461-
473.
Morris, P. W. G., Patel, M. B. and Wearne, S. H. (2000). “Research into revising the APM
project management body of knowledge.” International Journal of Project Management.
18 (3): 155-164.
Muriithi, N. and Crawford, L. (2003). “Approaches to project management in Africa:
implications for international development projects.” International Journal of Project
Management. 21 (5): 309-319.
Nogeste, K. (2006). Development of a Method to Improve the Definition and Alignment of
Intangible Project Outcomes with Tangible Project Outputs. Doctor of Project
Management, DPM, Graduate School of Business. Melbourne, RMIT.
Pettigrew, A. and Whittington, D. (2003). Complementarities in Action: Organizational Change
and Performance in BP and Unilever 1985-2002. Innovative Forms of Organizing.
Pettigrew A., R. Whittington, L. Melinet al. Thousand Oaks, CA., Sage: 173-207.
Pinto, J. K. and Slevin, D. (1987). “Critical Factors in Successful Project Implementation.” IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management. EM-34 (1).
PMI (2004). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge.3rd Edition.Sylva, NC,
USA Project Management Institute.
Project Management Institute (2005). Post-Disaster Rebuild Methodology, Report. Newtown
Squate, PA, Project Management Institute: 82.

D:\2002-Printed\refconf\e174-MPOZ-PSDW-v12.doc 12
Ramage, P. and Armstrong, A. (2005). “Measuring success - Factors impacting on the
implementation and use of performance measurement within Victoria’s human services
agencies.” Evaluation Journal of Australisia. 5 (2): 5-17.
Shenhar, A. J. and Dvir, D. (1996). “Toward a Typological Theory of Project Management.”
Research Policy. 25 (4): 607-632.
Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O. and Maltz, A. C. (2001). “Project Success: A
Multidimensional Strategic Concept.” Long Range Planning. 34 (6): 699-725.
Shenhar, A. J. and Levy, O. (1997). “Mapping the dimensions of project success.” Project
Management Journal. 28 (2): 5-14.
Shenhar, A. L. and Dvir, D. (2004). How Projects Differ, and What to Do About It. The Wiley
Guide to Managing Projects. Morris P. W. G. and J. K. Pinto. New York. Wiley: 1265-
1286.
Sigsgaard, P. (2002). “MSC approach - Monitoring without indicators.” Evaluation Journal of
Australisia. 2 (1): 8-15.
Smith, P. A. C. and O'Neal, J. (2003). “A Review of Action Learning Literature 1994-2000: Part
1 – Bibliography and Comments.” Journal of Workplace Learning. 15 (2): 63-69.
Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Cultural Diversity in
Business.London Economics Books.
Trompenaars, F. and Hampden-Turner, C. (2004). Managing people : across
cultures.Chichester, England Capstone.
Trompenaars, F. and Prud'homme, P. (2004). Managing change across corporate
cultures.London Piatkus.
Turner, J. R. (2000). “The Global Body of Knowledge, and its Coverage by the Referees and
Members of the International Editorial Board of this Journal.” International Journal of
Project Management. 18 (1): 1-6.
Turner, J. R. and Cochrane, R. A. (1993). “The Goals and Methods Matrix: Coping with Projects
With Ill-defined Goals and/or Methods of Achieving Them.” International Journal of
Project Management. 11 (2): 93 - 102.
Whittington, R. and Pettigrew, A. (2003). Complementarities Thinking. Innovative Forms of
Organizing. Pettigrew A., R. Whittington, L. Melinet al. Thousand Oaks, CA., Sage:
125-132.
Winter, M., Smith, C., Cooke-Davies, T. and Cicmil, S. (2006). “The importance of `process' in
Rethinking Project Management: The story of a UK Government-funded research
network.” International Journal of Project Management. 24 (8): 650-662.

Acknowledgement
We wish to acknowledge the support of the PMI for this research project for funding of the
research project entitled “Understanding the Antecedents of Project management Best Practices:
Lessons to be learned from Aid Relief Projects” under their ‘Open Topic’ call for competitive
research grants awarded in 2007.

D:\2002-Printed\refconf\e174-MPOZ-PSDW-v12.doc 13
PMOZ 2008 Page 1 of 2

SPEAKER INFORMATION

The following information is provided for speakers who are interested in submitting an abstract in the PMOZ program.

ONLINE ABSTRACT SUBMISSIONS ARE OPEN

Submit an Abstract Online and Register

Speakers Guidelines
Conference Themes and Sub-themes

Speaker Registration
All accepted speakers and workshop presenters MUST be registered to attend the conference and are entitled to register at a
discounted Speaker Registration rate. All accepted speakers MUST confirm their attendance with full registration payment before
Friday 29 February 2008. A special speaker registration rate of AUD$890 is available. Speakers who are not accepted into the
program will have the opportunity to cancel their conference registration without financial penalty, and will receive a 100% refund if
cancellation is received in writing by the conference secretariat before Monday 23 June 2008. Cancellations received after this date will
be subject to a standard registration cancellation fees (please refer to the conference website for registration terms and conditions).

Speaker Registration entitles you to attend conference sessions on Monday afternoon, Tuesday and Wednesday, provides arrival tea
and coffee, morning and afternoon teas and lunches as applicable on the days registered, one (1) ticket to the Joint Welcome
Reception, one (1) ticket to the PMOZ conference dinner, conference satchel and materials, conference workbook and conference
proceedings. In addition, speakers also receive substantial promotion on the PMOZ website, in e-marketing campaigns, in the
registration brochure and conference workbook and CD as well as extended promotion nationally and internationally through
PMGlobal’s network and supporting partner networks.

Focus of Paper
There are three areas of focus for abstracts - Refereed/Academic, Practitioner and Tool/Techniques. When submitting an abstract, it is
essential that speakers select the focus relevant to their paper. An explanation of each focus is outlined below. When submitting an
abstract, it is essential that speakers select the focus relevant to their paper. An explanation of each focus is outlined below.

1. Refereed/Academic: Papers submitted with this focus will be discussing project management theory and case studies, research
and development. Authors will be affiliated with a University.

Refereed papers will go through a formal and rigorous double-blind refereeing process. Papers submitted to be refereed must adhere
to full academic requirements.

http://www.webls.info/weblease/tpcommon/src/tp1FullPage.cfm?idPageCopy=12698&idClient=893 21/01/2008
PMOZ 2008 Page 2 of 2

A Referee’s Report will be provided to the Referees to complete, which will then be sent to the paper author(s). The Chair of the
Referees Panel has the final decision where referees are unable to agree on the acceptability of a submitted paper.

Full papers which have been successfully reviewed will be identified on the conference CD proceedings and in the Conference
workbook as a Refereed Paper.

2. Practitioner: Abstracts with a Practitioner focus will most often be submitted by persons with practical project/portfolio/program
experience. Specific topics may include "how to” papers detailing tried and tested methods, case studies and war stories.

3. Tool or Technique: A paper that focuses on "tools or techniques" will provide project managers with the 'means' to deliver
benefits in a complex world. Tool/Technique presentations will focus on practical examples of tools, techniques and processes which
can be used in project management and presentations will relate these to the sub-theme selected. Advertorial papers will not be
accepted.

Strict guidelines must be adhered to for the call pf papers. Please refer to the Speaker’s Guidelines for information on
requirements for speakers.

http://www.webls.info/weblease/tpcommon/src/tp1FullPage.cfm?idPageCopy=12698&idClient=893 21/01/2008