See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229652151

Project Success as a Topic in Project Management

Journals

Article in Project Management Journal December 2009

DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20137

CITATIONS READS

176 7,149

1 author:

Lavagnon A. Ika
University of Ottawa
31 PUBLICATIONS 417 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Engineering Knowledge Management in Public Sector View project

Special Issue: When Project Management Meets International Development, What Can We Learn? View
project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lavagnon A. Ika on 10 July 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 PAPERS Project Success as a Topic in Project
Management Journals
Lavagnon A. Ika, Universit du Qubec en Outaouais, Gatineau, Qubec, Canada
ABSTRACT
This article highlights the characteristics of
articles on project success published between
1986 and 2004 in the Project Management
Journal (PMJ) and the International Journal of
Project Management (IJPM). The analysis cov-
ers references, concepts like project manage-
ment success, project success, success criteria,
and success factors; features of the samples,
data collection, and analysis techniques used;
and professional disciplines. The results show
that research on project success is character-
ized by diversity except in epistemological and
methodological perspectives. The article sug-
gests a shift to project, portfolio, and program
success and concludes with a discussion on the
traditional state of the research, criticizes its
assumptions, and offers alternative metaphors
and recommendations for future research.
KEYWORDS: project success; project man-
agement success; PMJ; IJPM
Project Management Journall, Vol. 40, No. 4, 619
2009 by the Project Management Institute
Published online in Wiley InterScience
(www.interscience.wiley.com)
DOI: 10.1002/pmj.20137
6 December 2009 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
INTRODUCTION
nterest in project management has grown considerably over the last few
I years, with academics and practitioners alike demonstrating keen inter-
est in the field. More than just a passing novelty, project management
offers organizations the means to be efficient, effective, and competitive
in a shifting, complex, and unpredictable environment. Surging interest
in the field has led to the founding of professional organizations such as
the Project Management Institute (PMI) and the International Project
Management Association (IPMA). We also now have scientific journals ded-
icated to the field of project management, including the Project Management
Journal (PMJ) and the International Journal of Project Management (IJPM),
and they have become well-established references.
Given the specific nature of project managementit is a professional and
scientific specialization that differs from traditional management by the gen-
erally limited, temporary, innovative, unique, and multidisciplinary nature of
projectsit is widely recognized that project management requires its own
tools and techniques (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996). It would be an oversimplifica-
tion to speak of project management as a group of specific tools and
techniques that one simply has to apply toward the attainment of specific
management objectives. Certainly, it is true that project scheduling problems
as well as planning techniques such as program evaluation and review tech-
nique (PERT) and critical path method (CPM) have preoccupied investigators
and practitioners for decades. These people have shared a deep conviction
that the development of better scheduling techniques would lead to better
project management and, thus, project success (Belassi & Tukel, 1996).
Despite such scientific activity and the tireless efforts of practitioners,
projects results continue to disappoint stakeholders (Wateridge, 1995).
Today, as in the past, experienced project managers are all too familiar with
many cases of projects that are considered failures. Without entering into a
detailed discussion and listing failed projects, it can be said that, from a pro-
fessional point of view, it is important to understand the success and failure
of projects. It is no secret that project managers continue to be evaluated, in
their practice, according to the outcomes of the projects they manage,
and that their careers and the success of their organizations depend on per-
formance in these projects. From a scientific perspective, project success
undoubtedly remains a central concern, and much has been written and
said about this specific issue (Cooke-Davies, 2002). It should therefore not
come as a surprise that PMI devoted its entire 1986 symposium, held in
Montral, to this subject (Baccarini, 1999; de Wit, 1988).
Given the specific ambiguity surrounding project success (Belassi &
Tukel, 1996), this issue presents significant problems for investigators. As the
proverb says, Success is one of the names of God. This bit of wisdom is par-
ticularly germane: if studies of project success are popular, they have not led
to a consensus on, a definition of, nor a means for measuring such success
(Pinto & Slevin, 1988a). The second
issue stems from the fact that project
success is dependent on ones percep-
tion and perspective. This leads Baker,
Murphy, and Fisher (1974) to conclude
that there is probably no such thing as
absolute success in project manage-
ment: there is only the perceived suc-
cess of a project. They also point out
that how we evaluate success probably
changes over time. All of the stakehold-
ers in any given project can hardly be
said to hold the same point of view on
this matter (Lim & Mohamed, 1999).
Project success and project failure are
not necessarily opposite or contradicto-
ry notions (Fincham, 2002), nor are they
a black and white issue, to borrow the
expression used by Baccarini (1999).
This ambiguity would appear to
present a serious hurdle to investiga-
tors, and it has provoked lively debate.
There is also a rising tide of criticism of
the research that has been conducted
on project management in general
and on project success in particular
(Sderlund, 2004). In this respect, the
research is often criticized for being
underdeveloped and not founded on
a solid theoretical and conceptual
groundwork (see, for example, Shenhar &
Dvir, 1996). There have been many calls
for an assessment of what has actually
been achieved by the research on proj-
ect management, a profession that
continues to flourish (see, for example,
Kloppenborg & Opfer, 2002a, 2002b).
Admittedly, the idea of stopping to
take stock of research on project man-
agement may appear very tempting. It
would be interesting to see if the inves-
tigators have met expectations concern-
ing the theoretical and social relevance
of their work. However, the prospect of
identifying these issues is even more
exciting in terms of the challenges and
opportunities it represents. Given that
the art of project management (prac-
tice) would appear to take precedence
over the science of project management
(theory), highlighting aspects of research
on project success would give the issue
new life and perhaps inspire others to
take up related subjects in the near
future. This is the objective of this
research. More specifically, it aims to
identify the main points raised in arti-
cles on project success published
between 1986 and 2004 in the two most
important scientific journals on project
management, PMJ and IJPM. Our main
interest is to stimulate reflection on
the issue of project success and lay the
foundation of a new theoretical frame-
work for research into project success.
We will begin by clarifying the
notion of project success, and then we
will discuss the components of the con-
ceptual framework established to attain
the objectives of our analysis. We will
then explore the main elements of the
studys operational framework. Finally,
we will present and discuss our findings
and the assumptions underlying the
research on the project success topic,
along with the research possibilities to
which they lead.
The Concept of Project Success
The concept of project success is diffi-
cult to define. As defined by the
Canadian Oxford Dictionary (1998),
success is the accomplishment of an
aim; a favourable outcome. But what
can be said of project success? Without
venturing onto risky terrain, we can say
that there is no consensus as to what
constitutes project success or project
failure. Pinto and Slevin (1988a) sug-
gested that few concepts in project
management have been addressed
in the literature on a regular basis with-
out the investigators being able to reach
a consensus on definitions. Wells (1998)
goes so far as to complain about how
little attention has been paid to defin-
ing success, except what could be said
in the most general terms. Arriving at a
definition of project success would
appear to represent an enormous chal-
lenge to investigators.
Several authors simply presume that
everyone knows what is meant by proj-
ect success and project failure. The
only thing that is certain in project man-
agement is that success is an ambiguous,
December 2009 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
inclusive, and multidimensional con-
cept whose definition is bound to a spe-
cific context. Without going so far as to
propose a complete definition, we can
nevertheless frame project success in
terms of other concepts such as effi-
ciency and effectiveness. Many authors
and practitioners consider efficiency
and effectiveness synonymous, and this
confusion is often present in the project
management literature (Belout, 1998).
As described by the famous American
author Peter Drucker, efficiency is to do
things right, or to maximize output for
a given quantity of inputs or resources,
and effectiveness is to do the right
things, or to attain the projects goals
and objectives. Drucker considers effec-
tiveness more important than efficiency
(see OShaugnessy, 1992, p. 13, among
others). Project success therefore corre-
sponds to a projects efficiency and
effectiveness (Belout, 1998).
As proposed here, the definition of
the concept of success remains very
broad. Implicitly or explicitly, the authors
generally discuss project success with
the conviction that they are talking
about project management success or
more than successful project manage-
ment (the project success). Within the
conceptual framework of this review, a
distinction is necessary between proj-
ect management success and project
success. Project success has long been
considered the ability to fall within
time, cost, and quality constraints. The
time/cost/quality triangle or iron
triangle, or the golden triangle, that
some professionals call the Holy
Trinity or the triangle of virtue suf-
ficed as a definition of project success
(Atkinson, 1999; Hazebroucq & Badot,
1996, p. 35; Westerveld, 2003). However,
projects have often enough been deliv-
ered within time, cost, and quality, only
to be considered failures (this is the case
of the second generation of the Ford
Taurus car that was completed on time
in 1995 but turned out to be a disap-
pointing business experience [Shenhar
et al., 2005]). At the same time, other
projects that have exceeded time or cost
7
 Project Success as a Topic in Project Management Journals
PAPERS
constraints are generally considered
successful (Pinto & Slevin, 1988a). The
Thames Barrier, the Fulmar North Sea
Oil project, the Concorde, the Sydney
Opera House, and the first generation of
the Ford Taurus car are several good
examples (Lim & Mohamed, 1999;
Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996; Shenhar et al.,
2005). The percussion effect, to borrow
from Hazebroucq (1993), would appear
to apply: projects that were perceived as
failures at their launch would later
become models of success, while others
considered successes at their launch
turned into catastrophes. A project team
may therefore be wrongly congratulated
or blamed, depending on when a project
is considered a success or failure.
It was this apparent paradox that led
de Wit (1988) to suggest a distinction
between project success and project
management success. Considering the
tautological perspective under which a
project only exists in terms of prede-
fined objectives (Hazebroucq & Badot,
1996, p. 35), de Wit (1988) takes issue
with the equation: project objectives
project management objectives. For
Munns and Bjeirmi (1996), the project
management objectives differ from the
project objectives, and we can no longer
afford to confuse strict adherence to the
time/cost/quality trianglethe most success criteria.
common objective of project manage-
mentwith project success.
This dichotomy is very important,
because in terms of this review it enables
us to draw a distinction between articles
that discuss success as project manage-
ment success from articles that treat
project success as more than project
management success.
The concept of project success
remains vague and ambiguous, to the
point that the literature on project
management does not reach a broader
consensus on its definition and meas-
urement than to say that it involves effi-
ciency and effectiveness. The authors
we reviewed nevertheless agree on its
importance and on the existence of
project success criteria and critical fac-
tors. This conceptual framework will
8 December 2009 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
be discussed in more detail in the next
section.
Project Success Criteria and Critical
Success Factors
Research on project success generally
falls into one of the following cate-
gories, depending on the subject of
study: either they deal with project suc-
cess criteria (or dimensions) or they
examine critical success factors (CSFs).
On occasion, we observe a hybrid cate-
gory that acts as a bridge between CSFs
and success criteria. It is important to
clarify these two concepts, because it is
not unusual to come across a discus-
sion that blurs the distinction between
them or even takes them for synonyms
(Lim & Mohamed, 1999).
The Canadian Oxford Dictionary
(1998) suggests that a criterion is a
principle or standard that a thing is
judged by, while a factor is a circum-
stance, fact, or influence contributing
to a result. Project success criteria may
therefore refer to a group of principles
or standards used to determine or judge
project success, and critical success
factors refer more specifically to condi-
tions, events, and circumstances that
contribute to project results. We will
now take a closer look at the project
scientific basis for success that compris-
A classic solution to the problem of
how to measure project success is to
propose a simple formula that is
unequivocal, that can easily be applied,
and that the parties can agree to (Dvir,
Raz, & Shenhar, 2003; Pinto & Slevin,
1988a). Hence, the triangle of virtue:
time, cost, and quality as criteria for
measuring success. Some writers main-
tain that the quality criterion involves
meeting functional and technical spec-
ifications. Many more lay out a bolder
proposal: quality is an ambiguous, mul-
tidimensional, and subjective concept
that lends itself to different interpreta-
tions by various project stakeholders
(see Wateridge, 1995). The limited
scope of this trilogy has been singled
out for criticism (Hazebroucq & Badot,
1996). Baker et al. (1974) added the
issue of client satisfaction. Project suc-
cess therefore becomes a virtuous
square of criteria: time, cost, quality,
and client satisfaction. In subsequent
articles (see Baccarini, 1999; Lim &
Mohamed, 1999; Shenhar, Levy, & Dvir,
1997, among others), project success
becomes a hexagon, where, in addition
to the traditional dimensions of time,
cost, and quality, we find the realization
of the strategic objectives of the client
organization that initiated the project,
the satisfaction of end users, and the
satisfaction of other stakeholders. If
project success criteria are known, the
fact remains that there are a certain
number of conditions that must be met
in order for a project to be successful.
Research on critical success factors,
the levers that a project manager can
employ to bolster a projects odds at
success, began by focusing attention on
different aspects of project control
(Westerveld, 2003). Then Baker,
Murphy, and Fisher (1974) suggested
replacing the time/cost/quality triangle
by a measure of perceived success.
These studies usually consisted of prac-
titioners summarizing their experience
and were not the result of scientific
empiricism (Hazebroucq, 1993). It was
Slevin and Pinto (1986) who proposed a
es ten key success factors: project mis-
sion, top management support, project
schedules/plan, client consultation,
personnel, technical tasks, client
acceptance, monitoring and feedback,
troubleshooting, and communication.
These ten factors are more or less man-
ageable by the project team. Pinto and
Slevin (1988b) then extended this list
with four additional factors considered
outside the project implementation
process and therefore outside the teams
control: characteristics of the project
team leader, power and politics, envi-
ronmental events, and urgency. Many
CSF lists and frameworks have been pro-
posed by different authors, and some
studies were done on the specific rela-
tion between a particular CSF and proj-
ect success (see Jugdev & Mller, 2005).
For example, Henderson (2004) studied
the association between the project
managers communication competency
and project success.
Given the uniqueness of projects
and their temporary nature, research on
CSFs will also take the project life cycle
into account (Pinto & Slevin, 1988b).
Again, according to these authors, in the
project design phase, project mission
and client consultation would appear to
be the most important factors. In the
project planning phase, the key success
factors are project mission, top manage-
ment support, client acceptance, and
urgency. During project execution, the
key factors are project mission, charac-
teristics of the project team leader, trou-
bleshooting, project schedules/plan,
technical tasks, and client consultation.
Finally, at project closing phase, the key
success factors are technical tasks, proj-
ect mission, and client consultation.
Ultimately, Pinto and Slevin
(1988b), among others, have drawn
several lessons from the CSFs. But the
exercise is more productive when we
take into account both project success
factors and success criteria.
Very few articles discuss both suc-
cess factors and success criteria, and
few empirical studies have sought to
examine important links between CSFs
and success criteria (Tan, 1996). In
1994, in an editorial on developments
in project management, Turner made
the following observation:
A lot has been written over the past
ten years about how to achieve proj-
ect success (the key factors).
However, very little has been written
about how success is measured or
judged (the criteria). A PhD student
of mine was able to find only two ref-
erences. How can you say what the
correct success factors are until you
have identified the criteria?
Hence, there is the need to clarify
project success criteria, select project
CSFs at project start-up, and ensure
that all stakeholders agree with their
definition (Wateridge, 1995).
Research in the area of CSFs and
success criteria has demonstrated that
it is simply impossible to develop an
exhaustive list that will meet the needs
of all projects. This stems directly from
the fact that success criteria and CSFs
can differ so much from one project to
another due to variables such as project
scope, uniqueness, and complexity
(Wateridge, 1998). However, the idea of
a universal set of project success crite-
ria, on one hand, and a universal
grouping of CSFs, on the other, would
appear to be garnering more attention
(Lim & Mohamed, 1999; Westerveld,
2003). This is an idea that runs through
articles linking success factors with suc-
cess criteria, and these articles should
not be categorized as either work
on project success criteria or work on
success factors.
Operational Framework
The objective of this study is to high-
light the characteristics of published
research on project success. This sec-
tion deals with the methodological
aspects of the work. In this instance, we
needed to begin by selecting the jour-
nals and articles to include in our
review. As a point of departure, we con-
structed a search statement comprising
the terms project management suc-
cess (or project success), project therefore address references, the mean-
success criteria, and project success
factors, and looked for bibliographic
entries in the ABI/INFORM GLOBAL
database. (Note that ABI/INFORM
GLOBAL is one of the worlds first elec-
tronic databases covering business,
management, economics, and a wide
range of related fields. It contains cita-
tions with abstracts to articles appear-
ing in more than 2,700 international
periodicals, 75% of which are published
in the United States. ABI/INFORM has
been a premier source of business
information for more than 30 years.
[http://www.proquest.com/prod-
ucts_pq/descriptions/abi_inform.shtm
l, retrieved November 30, 2006]). This
statement was based on the need to
make a distinction between project
December 2009 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
management success and project suc-
cess and the desire to examine research
on project success criteria, studies of
CSFs, and articles linking project suc-
cess factors with success criteria. The
research statement was therefore:
(project management success or proj-
ect success) or project success criteria
or project success factors. This query
generated 13,054 notices containing at
least one of the terms, whether in the
title, in keywords, or in the abstract,
including 5,232 notices from scientific
journals, many of which came from the
Project Management Journal and
the International Journal of Project
Management. We decided to limit our
review to articles published in PMJ and
IJPM from January 1986 to March 2004.
Our review then covers 76 out of the 82
issues of PMJ and 70 issues of IJPM, and
we were able to retrieve 179 notices
from PMJ and 66 notices from IJPM. The
decision to keep a notice turned on an
analysis of the notices content and from
January to March 2004, 30 scientific arti-
cles were finally selected and analyzed.
(See the Appendix for the rationale lead-
ing to the selection of only PMJ and
IJPM among all the scientific journals,
of the 30 articles and the period from
January 1986 to March 2004.)
The critical analysis of articles will
ings given to project management
success or project success, objects of
study related to success (success crite-
ria, success factors, or links between
success factors and success criteria),
features of the samples, data collection
and analysis techniques used, and pro-
fessional disciplines. Also, a retrospec-
tive look of the development of the field
is suggested.
A review of references will be used
to capture the journals interest in proj-
ect success. The meanings given to
project success, whether project man-
agement success or project success, are
pertinent to developing an opinion on
the more or less explicit conception that
the authors have of project success.
The objects of this study, project success
9
 Project Success as a Topic in Project Management Journals
PAPERS
criteria, success factors, and links
between project success factors and
project success criteria, will be used to
get closer to the traditional categories
found in the literature on project suc-
cess. Sampling aspects, how data is col-
lected, and data-analysis techniques
will enable us to address methodologi-
cal concerns. Finally, professional disci-
plines encountered in the review will
indicate the areas of knowledge in
which project success has been stud-
ied. The following section presents our
findings.
Presentation and Analysis of
Findings
The 30 articles selected will be analyzed
according to the seven rubrics previ-
ously mentioned.
References
Table 1 shows the number of articles
published on project success in each of
the two journals between January 1986
and March 2004. Project success would
appear to receive the same amount
of attention in PMJ and IJPM. The first
eight articles were of course published by
PMJ between 1986 and 1992, because
IJPM was not easily accessed before
1992, the year that ABI/INFORM began
including it in the index (see Kloppenborg
& Opfer, 2002a, 2002b). IJPMs interest in
project success becomes apparent from
1995 to 1999 when it published ten arti-
cles on the subject, or a third of all the
publications in the study period (1986
2004). At least this was the observation
made by Themistocleous and Wearne
in 2000 when they analyzed the themes
taken up in the two journals. Themisto-
cleous and Wearne underscored the
growing attention IJPM appeared to be
paying to project success. They thought
that the change was rooted in an eco-
nomic environment characterized by
recession and progressively tighter
budgets.
As we expected, most of the articles
on success were published in the 1990s.
It is still surprising, however, that PMJ
has only published one article on proj-
ect success between 2000 and 2004.
10 December 2009 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Meanings Given to Project
Year PMJ IJPM Total
Management Success and Project
1986 1 1 Success
1987 1 1 Either implicitly or explicitly, the arti-
cles reviewed would appear to treat
1988 3 3 project success as more than project
1989 management success. (The exceptions
are articles by Beale and Freeman
1990 1 1 [1991], Freeman and Beale [1992], Paek
1991 1 1 [1995], Clarke [1999], and Jang and Lee
[1998], which treat success as project
1992 1 1
management success; i.e., they rather
1993 tacitly consider success to be compli-
1994 ance with time, cost, and quality
constraints.) In other words, 25 of 30
1995 2 2 articles take criteria other than time,
cost, and quality into consideration in
1996 2 2 4
their definitions of project success
1997 1 1
(in order to avoid any confusion,
1998 3 3 Baccarini [1999] prefers to speak of
1999 2 3 5 product success): satisfying the expec-
tations of clients, end-users, and stake-
2000 holders. This finding stands in stark
2001 contrast with the traditional notion of
success (the triple-constraint criteria of
2002 1 1 project management success) held by
2003 1 2 3 practitioners and investigators. Perhaps
this surprising finding is explained by
Jan. to 3 3
March this studys relatively small sample and
2004 the fact that one-half of the articles
reviewed are conceptual.
Total 14 16 30
Table 1: Number of articles published per A Retrospective Look at the
journal, January 1986 to March 2004. Development of the Field Over
the Years
Because our understanding of project
success is evolving (Jugdev & Mller,
Does this indicate a lack of interest on 2005), it is useful to see how the field of
their part, or is it simply a coincidence? research on project success develops
It is difficult to ascertain. Maybe this is over the years. Table 2 portrays trends
due to the late 1990s criticism against regarding project management success/
research on project success. project success and shows the gradual
It is also important to point out that understanding weve had on project
a total of 15 conceptual articles out of success. The framework involves three
30 appeared in the two journals (six in periods. Period 1 (1960s1980s) illus-
PMJ in the period leading up to 1992 trates the supreme reign of the iron tri-
and nine in IJPM). One could conclude angle (project management success) as
that IJPM appears to publish more con- the criterion of success. During that
ceptual articles on success, but such an period, the literature was theoretical
assertion should be moderated by the and provided anecdotic lists of critical
fact that IJPM is published six to eight success factors. Instead, Period 2
times per year, while PMJ is published (1980s2000s) was dominated by empir-
on a quarterly basis. ical work such as Pinto and Slevins
 Period 1 Period 2 Period 3
Research Focus 1960s1980s 1980s2000s 21st Century
Success criteria Iron triangle Iron triangle Iron triangle
(time, cost, quality) Client satisfaction Strategic objective of client organizations
Benefits to organization (org) and business success
End-users satisfaction End-users satisfaction
Benefits to stakeholders Benefits to stakeholders
Benefits to project personnel Benefits to project personnel and
symbolic and rhetoric evaluations of
success and failure
Success factors Anecdotic lists CSF lists and frameworks More inclusive CSF frameworks and
symbolic and rhetoric success factors
Emphasis Project management Project/product success Project/product, portfolio, and program
success success and narratives of success and
failure
Table 2: Measuring success across time.

10 CSF framework (1988b). Although

Success Success
the iron triangle is still very important,
Year Criteria Factors Links Total
other success criteria are welcomed
(Atkinson, 1999), and the emphasis 1986 1 1
shifts from project management suc-
1987 1 1
cess to project/product success
(Baccarini, 1999; Shenhar et al., 1997). 1988 1 1 1 3
Period 3, as we envisage it, will welcome 1989
other context-dependent and, most
important, project/product, portfolio, 1990 1 1
and program success criteria and CSFs 1991 1 1
(see, for example, Cooke-Daviess 12
CSF framework, 2002), as well as sym-
1992 1 1
bolic and rhetoric ones. In fact, strategic 1993
project management will be an issue
1994
(see, for instance, Jugdev & Mller, 2005;
Shenhar et al., 2005), and narratives of 1995 1 1 2
success and failure will have their fair 1996 2 2 4
share of papers (Fincham, 2002).
1997 1 1
Objects of Study 1998 1 2 3
Table 3 reveals that the preferred sub-
1999 3 1 4
ject of authors writing on project suc-
cess is CSFs. There were a total of 15 2000
articles on success factors, or half of the 2001
articles reviewed: eight on success cri-
teria and seven on the links between 2002 1 1 2
CSFs and success criteria. This finding 2003 2 1 3
lends support to the notion that studies
on project success are too often
Jan. to March 2004 1 2 3
focused on success factors and not Total 8 15 7 30
often enough on the criteria or, more
Table 3: Number of articles on success published between 1986 and March 2004, by object of study.
specifically, the links between success

December 2009 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj 11

 Project Success as a Topic in Project Management Journals
PAPERS
factors and success criteria, as previ-
ously mentioned.
We also observe that it was only in
1995 that concerns began to emerge for
discovering links between project
success factors and project success
criteria, and these issues began to be
regularly discussed in articles on proj-
ect success. Beginning that same year,
five out of seven articles dealt with links
between project success factors and
project success criteria. Tables 4, 5, and
6 list articles by object of study.
Slevin & Pinto, 1986, PMJ, 17(4)
Pinto & Slevin, 1988b, PMJ, 19(3)
Hubbard, 1990, PMJ, 21(3)
Beale & Freeman, 1991, PMJ, 22(4)
Lidow, 1999, PMJ, 30(4)
Paek, 1995, PMJ, 26(4)
Belassi & Tukel, 1996, IJPM, 14(3)
Jiang, Klein, & Balloun, 1996, PMJ, 27(4)
Belout, 1998, IJPM, 16(1)
Jang & Lee, 1998, IJPM, 16(2)
Cooke-Davies, 2002, IJPM, 20(1)
Dvir, Raz, & Shenhar, 2003, IJPM, 21(1)
Finch, 2003, PMJ, 34(3)
Sderlund, 2004, IJPM, 22(3)
Belout & Gauvreau, 2004, IJPM, 22(1)
Table 4: Success criteria.
Pinto & Slevin, 1988a, PMJ, 19(1)
Freeman & Beale, 1992, PMJ, 23(1)
Shenhar, Levy, & Dvir, 1997, PMJ, 28(2)
Wateridge, 1998, IJPM, 16(1)
Lim & Mohamed, 1999, IJPM, 17(4)
Atkinson, 1999, IJPM, 17(6)
Baccarini, 1999, PMJ, 30(4)
Diallo & Thuillier, 2004, IJPM, 22(1)
Table 5: Success factors.
12 December 2009 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Ashley, Lurie, & Jaselskis, 1987, PMJ,
18(2)
de Wit, 1988, PMJ, 6(3)
Wateridge, 1995, IJPM, 13(3)
Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996, IJPM, 14(2)
Tan, 1996, PMJ, 27(2)
Clarke, 1999, IJPM, 17(3)
Westerveld, 2003, IJPM, 21(6)
Table 6: Linking success factors and success
criteria.
Samples Used
Investigators conducting empirical
research on project success undoubtedly
prefer a large sample certainly because of
the dominant objectivist tradition (see
Discussion and Conclusion). Although
sample size varies from one study to
another, it rarely has less than 30 subjects
and often exceeds 100. Only one study
draws from a sample of under 30 subjects
(16 projects).
The diversity of projects in the sam-
ples is also noteworthy. The projects are
essentially in the fields of construction,
information technologies, communica-
tions, research, and development. Even
if the projects were undertaken by a
wide variety of companies, they were
mostly carried out in North America
and Europe, and rarely in Africa or Asia.
International development projects
were quite rare; in fact, there was only
one (Diallo & Thuillier, 2004), out of 30
articles! According to Themistocleous
and Wearne (2000), there would be sev-
eral reasons for this recurring observa-
tion, but the most important could very
well be that the two journals, PMJ and
IJPM, are published in the developed
countries, and writers who hope to
publish articles on development would
be more drawn to journals specializing
in development issues.
Knowledge production on project
success usually relies on information
obtained from project managers, but
investigators have also relied on many
other professionals, such as managers,
senior management, engineers, infor-
mation system analysts, programmers,
sponsors, and users.
Data-Collection Techniques
Investigators writing on project success
tend to use questionnaires sent out by
mail and then use the Likert scale. They
prefer evaluative or exploratory ques-
tions to open techniques like an in-depth
interview. In this perspective, subjects
are considered to have much the same
framework of reference and the
same perception of the measurement
scale, but this is clearly not always the
case. Cost savings are often cited as
the reason for this method. But it is clear
that, more or less implicitly, investigators
believe that they have discovered or
revealed the laws or rules governing rela-
tionships between different aspects of a
social reality represented by a project
and therefore adopt an objectivist
approach in their study of project suc-
cess. Several studies have nevertheless
used questionnaires and interviews to
reduce the risk of responses from subjects
who do not fulfill the conditions required
for participation in the study and who,
due to the anonymity of their responses,
would have otherwise biased results.
Data-Analysis Techniques
Research on project success is, by
and large, quantitative. The time/cost/
quality triangle, we will recall, has two
dimensions that are easily quantifiable;
hence, the use of statistical techniques
for analyzing data. It is revealing that no
study has used content analysis in the
articles published between January
1986 and March 2004. In fact, the ratio-
nalist/normative view is the prevailing
one in project management research
(Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006; Fincham,
2002; Packendorff, 1995).
There is no shortage of descriptive
statistics in most of the studies of
project success; they use numerical
methods of calculation to obtain data
on central tendency and dispersion
(mean, median, mode, rank, frequency,
etc.) or make use of graphs (distributions
of frequencies, for example). Such sta-
tistics summarize project cost and proj-
ect duration or classify project success
criteria or project success factors by
order of importance. One article,
Wateridge (1998), produced only a fre-
quency analysis.
Because project success is multidi-
mensional, multivariate statistical
techniques have been widely used.
Early on, particular attention was paid
to multivariate analysis such as multi-
ple linear regression and analysis of
variance that used explanatory vari-
ables. Regression analysis dominated
studies on project success until 1997
(accounting for 9 articles out of 14).
This use of statistical analysis is
undoubtedly not neutral: regression
analysis is not only a statistical tech-
nique, but it is also a means to perceive
a social reality (Abbott, 1988). The
underlying idea is that the same causes
should produce the same effects; proj-
ect success factors, for example, are
universal and transcend projects and
project managers, and paying special
attention to these success factors
should, all other things being equal,
logically lead to project success.
Even if investigators do not, for the
most part, appear to have abandoned
regression analysis, beginning in 1997
we see a growing interest in the use of
descriptive multivariate analysisin
this case, factor analysisand, more
precisely, principal components analy-
ses (three articles). Descriptive multi-
variate analysis is used to reduce a table
of data to several factors or constructs
underlying the original variables that
are often too numerous for correlation
or regression analysis, which require a
limited number of variables. Diallo and
Thuillier (2004) used multinomial logis-
tic regression to avoid the problems
associated with normality, linearity,
and homoscedasticity violations, which
hamper multiple regression analysis.
Professional Disciplines
Given the multidisciplinary nature of
projects, articles on project success
would obviously appear to be studied in
project management, but it is also stud-
ied in construction, in information and
communications technology manage-
ment, and in research and develop-
ment. This confirms the findings of
Kloppenborg and Opfer (2002a, 2002b)
in their assessment of the current state
of research in project management.
Based on a review of 3,554 articles, they
found that studies on project manage-
ment are most often conducted in
construction and information systems
settings (21% and 21%, respectively). As
previously mentioned, international
development is by and large neglected
or under-represented.
Discussion and Conclusions
This article has analyzed articles on
success from two scientific journals
on project management, PMJ and IJPM.
We have found that research on project
success may very well be characterized
by diversity except in epistemological
and methodological perspectives:
diversity in meanings given to the
terms, in samples, and in techniques
used in data collection and analysis.
This finding matches quite well our
expectations before the study and justi-
fies our contribution. In fact, project
success is an object of study that is
inclusive, ambiguous, and multidimen-
sional. It defies consensus on its
definition and measurement. It should
require different approaches to its
study, but until now, the dominant line
is the objectivist one.
In our journey toward a comprehen-
sive understanding of project success,
one should not confuse any more
between project management success
and project success. Semantically, proj-
ect management success refers to
efficiency, an internal concern to the
project team, and project success
embraces concerns for efficiency and
effectivenessin other words, all con-
cerns, whether internal or external,
short-term or long-term (Shenhar et al.,
1997). Time and the measurability of
specific project management objectives
December 2009 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
provide some parameters for drawing a
distinction between the concepts of
project success and project manage-
ment success. As Baccarini (1999)
explained, the hard dimensions of a
project (e.g., time, cost) are tangible,
objective, and measurable, while the
soft dimensions (e.g., stakeholders sat-
isfaction) are subjective, subtle, and
more difficult to measure (see Crawford
& Pollack, 2004, for a discussion of hard
and soft aspects of projects). The former
dimensions are clearly tied to a project
that has reached completion; hence, the
tendency to measure project success by
project management success (Munns &
Bjeirmi, 1996). Obviously, from project
managers point of views, the end of a
project coincides with product or serv-
ice delivery, and under this perspective
there is no need to consider the down-
stream effects of a project (Munns &
Bjeirmi, 1996; Wateridge, 1995, 1998).
Project management success may
ultimately lead to project success, but
the opposite is not true: it is reasonable
to assume that failure in project man-
agement may lead to project failure,
except under fortuitous circumstances,
but that the project can also fail despite
successful project management. Ceteris
paribus, project management success
would be neither a necessary nor a sat-
isfactory condition for project success.
This is a troubling conclusion for proj-
ect managers, who are often sacrificed
at the altar of efficiency and effective-
ness but also are obliged to face com-
plexity. As pointed out by Hazebroucq
(1993), because of the specific and
complex nature of projects, project
managers increasingly resemble travel-
ers desperately trying to climb aboard a
train: they are encumbered with heavy
luggage and laden with documents and
information (self translation).
The last decades experienced a
gradual understanding that project suc-
cess requires broader definitions than
project management success (Jugdev &
Mller, 2005) despite the fact that this
traditional triangle view of success is
still prevailing (Turner, 1999). Most of
13
 Project Success as a Topic in Project Management Journals
PAPERS
the researchers, although they recog-
nize that there are other criteria for
project success, would, in fact, attach
more importance to the time/cost/
quality triangle (White & Fortune, 2002).
As the emphasis is more and more put
on the links between project, portfolio,
and program (Bredillet, 2006; Cicmil &
Hodgson, 2006; Jugdev & Mller, 2005;
Shenhar et al., 2005), we envisage a
trend toward project, portfolio, and pro-
gram concerns in project success litera-
ture, as portrayed by Table 2. In fact, as
Shenhar et al. (2005, p. 3) put it:
Strategically managed projects are
focused on achieving business results
while operationally managed projects
are focused on getting the job done.
With this emphasis on project, portfolio,
and program success, it is reasonable to
expect that knowledge production on
project success rely more on senior
managers, project sponsors or owners
and anyone involved in project selec-
tion and design. In the same vein, as
much of the research is done in engi-
neering, construction, and information
technology, we think that this might
have a bearing on the dominance of the
triangle view of project success. Indeed,
in the softer industries and the public
sector where the emphasis on portfolio,
and program management is high, it is
safe to claim that the triangle view will
shift toward one of project, portfolio
and program success. In any case, if the
triangle has reigned supreme, this is
probably due to the fact that project
management is not that mature in those
sectors, and they have been copying
from the older project-oriented, domi-
nated industries. In particular, research
on international development project
success is overdue.
Some comments are needed
regarding the limits of this study.
First, by only examining articles that
appeared in two periodicals, we have
disregarded work from other journals,
even articles cited by authors published
in PMJ and IJPM. Even though this may
be a real limitation, however, it is the
dividing line, albeit not always clear,
14 December 2009 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
between articles on project success
(product success) and articles that con-
sider success to be project management
success. Confusion seems to persist
between the project quality criterion
and the client satisfaction criterion.
There may not be a consensus on quali-
ty as strict compliance with functional
and technical specifications. Another
investigator could object, maintaining
that quality is found in all the properties
and characteristics of a product or serv-
ice by which not only the clients explic-
it needs but also implicit needs can be
satisfied. This definition, as proposed by
the International Organization of
Standardization (ISO), clearly shows
that there is not a clear demarcation
between the project quality criterion
and the client satisfaction criterion.
Given the scope and fine distinction
to be drawn in our notions about proj-
ect success, it is also important to con-
sider research approaches and avenues
that would be worth exploring. Project
success is such a rich concept, and the
literature is so abundant that we cannot
possibly have covered all its many char-
acteristics. One research avenue that
immediately comes to mind is extend-
ing our study and casting a wider net
over management journals listed in the
ABI/INFORM databasemore specifi-
cally, articles that show an interest in
project management.
Perhaps the most important line of
research suggested by this study would
be an examination of project success in
terms of its multidimensional nature.
This was suggested by Dvir, Lipovetsky,
Shenhar, and Tishler (1998), who pro-
posed abandoning fruitless research
into universal success criteria and fac-
tors for a contingent approach to the
study of project success. It is far from
clear that success criteria and factors
transcend projects and stakeholders in
time and space, given the unique
nature of projects and their specific
management context. If the dominant
paradigm used to understand project
success is the time/cost/quality trian-
gle, its limitations are now very clear. To
reduce project success to project man-
agement success would be a vindication
of the quantitative approach to studying
project success. On the other hand, the
idea that we could find an unequivocal
means to measure success is nothing
short of utopic. For Hazebroucq and
Badot (1996, p. 37), the time/cost/qual-
ity triangle does not account for what
Franois Jolivet, first Director General of
the Channel Tunnel TransManche Link,
called the breeder effect of a project,
in which a project generates more total
wealth than it consumes, in terms
of human, financial, and technical
resources, for all the actors, both inter-
nal and external, involved. Project man-
agement success is also a mechanistic
vision of project success, in which
actors seek Taylors one best way to do
things. Fifty years later, the rhetoric
behind the time/cost/quality triangle
would appear to have created an unre-
alistic vision that may be better or worse
(Atkinson, 1999), but under which the
entire project is reduced to these three
dimensions. In addition, research on
CSFs, albeit the dominant line, has
remained inconclusive (Fortune &
White, 2006; Jugdev & Mller, 2005). It is
time for authors to address the absence
of empirical research about project suc-
cess in different organizational contexts
(Hyvri, 2006).
Whatever meaning the authors we
review give the term, project success is
seen in terms of the projects predefined
objectives, be they constraints of time,
cost, quality, or satisfaction. Such a tau-
tological perspective of projects suggests
determinism, which is fundamental to
the modern paradigm (Hazebroucq &
Badot, 1996, p. 37). Project objectives
therefore represent constraints on proj-
ect managers and their promoters and
serve as guidelines for evaluating suc-
cess. However, the inherent ambiguity of
project success and the lack of consen-
sus on its definition, its measurement,
and its softer aspects open up a third and
significant avenue of research: the emer-
gence of a subjectivist point of view
and an ideographic and qualitative
 Common
Assumptions
Project success A universal set of criteria
and CSF exists in practice.
Aim of the research Objectivist view of project
on project success success grounded in ideal
sets of criteria and CSF.
Research undertaken as
survey of large samples
of projects.
Research metaphor Project success framework
for project success as a universal tool for
achieving goals and
objectives.
Table 7: Common and alternative assumptions on project success.
Alternative 1:
Contingent Approach
There is no one best way account for
project success; only idiosyncratic criteria
and CSFs exist for specific projects and
contexts.
Situational view of project success
grounded in specific sets of criteria and
CSFs. Research undertaken as unique
or multiple case studies.
Project success framework as a
context-specific tool for achieving
goals and objectives.
Alternative 2:
Subjectivist Approach
Success and failure are not
only subjectively perceived and
constructed by people, but
they are entwined in meaning
and action.
Subjectivist view of project
success grounded in empirical
narratives of success and
failure. Research undertaken
as comparative case studies.
Project success as a social
construct.

point of view. This may represent a
clean break from current preoccupa-
tions, but it is worth exploring because
it will probably shed some light on
other less explored areas of research
on project success. The objective would
be to understand project success as it is
perceived subjectively and as it is con-
structed by managers and other stake-
holders. The research would involve
in-depth interviews and would, for
example, allow project actors to tell
their professional life stories or talk
about success factors. Are not words, by
their very nature, infinitely richer than
numbers? Does reliance on numbers
not capture a social reality (the project)
in a rigid structure, reducing the role of
project managers to elements that are
subject only to the influence of a group
of more or less deterministic forces:
project success factors?
Building on the work by the
Scandinavian school and especially
by Packendorff (1995), who is very criti-
cal of the traditional project manage-
ment research and, for that reason, sug-
gests a change in metaphor from proj-
ects to temporary organizations, we
argue that there are two alternatives to
the recurring objectivist view of proj-
ect success found in the bulk of 30 arti-
cles covered in this analysis. The first
one is termed contingent or situation-
al, and the second one is called
subjectivist. Table 7 summarizes the
common assumptions and the alterna-
tive assumptions underlying research
on project success, as well as a much
more needed shift from the current
metaphor to alternative metaphors. In
the current traditional project success
research, project success framework is
seen as a universal tool for achieving
goals and objectives. In contrast, in the
contingent approach, project success
framework is seen as a context-specific
tool, whereas in the subjectivist
approach, project success is considered
a social construct (see Fincham [2002]
for the last metaphor).
The first two metaphors are ground-
ed in the instrumental view of project
success and in the tradition of natural
sciences, where rationality, universali-
ty, objectivity, value-free decision-
making, the possibility of generating
law-like predictions, the belief in pro-
gressive, and cumulative character of
knowledge are fundamental assump-
tions (Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006, p. 111).
The third and last metaphor has its
intellectual roots not in the engineering
science and applied mathematics like
the first two but in the social sciences,
such as sociology, organization theory,
and psychology (Sderlund, 2004, p. 3).
This change in metaphor in the
research on project success leads to dif-
ferent research foci of the project suc-
cess topic (summarized in Table 8).
Instead of looking for a simplistic for-
mula for measuring success and a uni-
versal list of CSFs that exist in practice
and transcend projects and stakehold-
ers in time and space, we argue that one
should turn to context-specific and
even symbolic and rhetoric project suc-
cess criteria and CSFs. In this last case,
success and failure are not seen as
objective, discrete, polarized states or
end points but as a complex double act
entwined in meaning and action. They
form an interactive discourse. They are
narratives (i.e., they are like generic
recurring themes across diverse stories;
Fincham, 2002). Also in this subjectivist
approach, one might welcome research
on the cognitive aspects of project suc-
cess and failure (see, for example,
Robertson & Williams, 2006).
Given the limits of the modern
paradigm (Hazebroucq & Badot, 1996,

December 2009 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj 15

 Project Success as a Topic in Project Management Journals
PAPERS

Research
Metaphor Project Success Project Success Project Success
Research Framework as a Framework as a Framework as a
Focus Universal Tool Context-Specific Tool Social Construct
Success criteria A simplistic formula, unequivocal, Context-specific measures of success Symbolic and rhetoric
easy to access, and agreed upon for different projects and environments evaluations of project success
and failure
Success factors A universal list or grouping of An idiosyncratic list or grouping of CSFs Symbolic and rhetoric CSFs
CSFs that objectively exist in that objectively exist and vary according
practice and transcend projects to projects and environments
and stakeholders in time and
space
Table 8: Research foci of the project success topic in different metaphorical settings.

p. 50), one could imagine a postmodern
view of projects and, by extension, proj-
ect success. In this respect, the following
remarks made by Doug DeCarlo (cited by
Thomsett, 2002, p. 21) are very instruc-
tive: project managers suffer from a
Newtonian neurosis, a sort of pathologi-
cal need to bring structures to projects.
What is needed is a quantum view of the
world in which chaos, change, uncer-
tainty, and relaxation of control are
accepted as a means of gaining control.
More important, we need to rethink
projects and reconsider the very defini-
tion of project management, even if
that is beyond the scope of this work.
Turners (1996) remarks should not
leave anyone indifferent: Project man-
agement is the art and science of con-
verting vision into reality. But will this
definition be acceptable to all parties?
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the two anony-
mous reviewers of PMJ for their helpful
comments and Professor Pierre Cossette
of UQAM for his great comments. I also
extend my thanks to Michael Hougham
of Henley Management College.
References
Abbott, A. (1988). Transcending gener-
al linear reality. Sociological Theory, 6,
169186.
Ashley, D. B., Lurie, C. S., & Jaselskis, E. J.
(1987). Determinants of construction
project success. Project Management
Journal, 18(2), 6979.
Atkinson, R. (1999). Project manage-
ment: Cost, time and quality, two best
guesses and a phenomenon, its time
to accept other criteria. International
Journal of Project Management, 17,
337342.
Baccarini, D. (1999). The logical frame-
work method for defining project suc-
cess. Project Management Journal,
30(4), 2532.
Baker, B. N., Murphy, D. C., & Fisher, D.
(1974). Factors affecting project suc-
cess. In D. I. Cleland & W. R. King
(Eds.), Project management handbook
(pp. 902919). New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.
Beale, P., & Freeman, M. (1991). Success-
ful project execution: A model. Project
Management Journal, 22(4), 2330.
Belassi, W., & Tukel, O. I. (1996). A new
framework for determining critical
success/failure factors in projects.
International Journal of Project
Management, 14, 141151.
Belout, A. (1998). Effects of human
resource management on project
effectiveness and success: Toward a
new conceptual framework.
International Journal of Project
Management, 16, 2126.
Belout, A., & Gauvreau, C. (2004).
Factors influencing project success:
The impact of human resource
management. International Journal
of Project Management, 22, 111.
Bredillet, C. N. (2006, October). Investi-
gating the future of project management:
A co-word analysis. Paper presented at
the IRNOP conference in Xian, China.
The Canadian Oxford Dictionary.
(1998). Don Mills, Canada: Oxford
University Press.
Cicmil, S., & Hodgson, D. (2006).
New possibilities for project manage-
ment theory: A critical engagement.
Project Management Journal, 37(3),
111122.
Clarke, A. (1999). A practical use of
key success factors to improve the
effectiveness of project management.
International Journal of Project
Management, 17, 139145.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The real
success factors on projects.
International Journal of Project
Management, 20, 185190.
Crawford, L., & Pollack, J. (2004).
Hard and soft projects: A framework
for analysis. International Journal
of Project Management, 22,
645653.
de Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of
project success. Project Management
Journal, 6(3), 164170.
Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2004). The
success dimensions of international

16 December 2009 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

development projects: The perceptions
of African project coordinators.
International Journal of Project
Management, 22, 1931.
Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., Shenhar, A., &
Tishler, A. (1998). In search of project
classification: A non-universal
approach to project success factors.
Research Policy, 27, 915935.
Dvir, D., Raz, T., & Shenhar, A. (2003).
An empirical analysis of the relation-
ship between project planning and
project success. International Journal
of Project Management, 21, 8995.
Finch, P. (2003). Applying the Slevin-
Pinto project implementation profile
to an information systems project.
Project Management Journal, 34(3),
3239.
Fincham, R. (2002). Narratives of suc-
cess and failure in systems develop-
ment. British Journal of Management,
13, 114.
Fortune, J., & White, D. (2006).
Framing of project critical success fac-
tors by a systems model. International
Journal of Project Management, 24,
5365.
Freeman, M., & Beale, P. (1992).
Measuring project success. Project
Management Journal, 23(1), 817.
Hazebroucq, J.-M. (1993). Les facteurs
cls de succs dans le management de
projets. Revue Internationale en
Management et Gestion de Projets, 1(1),
2740.
Hazebroucq, J.-M., & Badot, O. (1996).
Le management de projet. Paris:
Presses Universitaires de France.
Henderson, L. S. (2004). Encoding and
decoding communication competen-
cies in project managementAn
exploratory study. International
Journal of Project Management, 22,
469476.
Hubbard, D. G. (1990). Successful utili-
ty project management lessons
learned. Project Management Journal,
21(3), 1923.
Hyvri, I. (2006). Success of projects in
different organizational conditions.
Project Management Journal, 37(4),
3141.
Jang, Y., & Lee, J. (1998). Factors influ-
encing the success of management
consulting projects. Project
Management Journal, 16(2), 6772.
Jiang, J. J., Klein, G., & Balloun, J.
(1996). Ranking of system implemen-
tation success factors. Project
Management Journal, 27(4), 4953.
Jugdev, K., & Mller, R. (2005). A retro-
spective look at our evolving under-
standing of project success. Project
Management Journal, 36(4), 1931.
Kloppenborg, T. J., & Opfer, W. A.
(2002a). Correspondence. Project
Management Journal, 33(4), 7172.
Kloppenborg, T. J., & Opfer, W. A.
(2002b). The current state of project
management research: Trends, inter-
pretations, and predictions. Project
Management Journal, 33(2), 518.
Lidow, D. (1999). Duck alignment theo-
ry: Going beyond classic project man-
agement to maximize project success.
Project Management Journal, 30(4),
814.
Lim, C. S., & Mohamed, M. Z. (1999).
Criteria of project success: An explana-
tory re-examination. International
Journal of Project Management, 17,
243248.
Munns, A. K., & Bjeirmi, B. F. (1996).
The role of project management in
achieving project success.
International Journal of Project
Management, 14, 8187.
OShaugnessy, W. (1992). La faisabilit
de projet. Une dmarche vers lefficience
et lefficacit. Trois-Rivires: Les di- Themistocleous, G., & Wearne, S. H.
tions SMG.
Packendorff, J. (1995). Inquiring into
temporary organisation: New direc-
tions for project management
research. Scandinavian Journal of
Management, 11, 319333.
Paek, J. H. (1995). Critical success fac-
tors of the construction management
service in the dual-role contract.
Project Management Journal, 26(4),
2328.
December 2009 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988a).
Project success: Definitions and
measurement techniques. Project
Management Journal, 19(1), 6772.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988b).
Critical success factors across the proj-
ect life cycle. Project Management
Journal, 19(3), 6774.
Robertson, S., & Williams, T. (2006).
Understanding project failure: Using
cognitive mapping in an insurance
project. Project Management Journal,
37(4), 5571.
Shenhar, A., & Dvir, D. (1996). Toward
a typological theory of project man-
agement. Research Policy, 25, 607632.
Shenhar, A., Dvir, D., Guth, W., Lechler,
T., Panatakul, P., Poli, M., et al. (2005).
Project strategy: The missing link. Paper
accepted to Academy of Management
Annual Meeting, Honolulu, Hawaii,
USA.
Shenhar, A., Levy, O., & Dvir, D. (1997).
Mapping the dimensions of project
success. Project Management Journal,
28(2), 513.
Slevin, D. P., & Pinto, J. K. (1986). The
project implementation profile: New
tool for project managers. Project
Management Journal, 17(4), 5770.
Sderlund, J. (2004). Building theories
of project management: Past research,
questions for the future. International
Journal of Project Management, 22,
183191.
Tan, R. R. (1996). Success criteria and
success factors for external technology
transfer projects. Project Management
Journal, 27(2), 4556.
(2000). Project management topic cov-
erage in journals. International Journal
of Project Management, 18, 711.
Thomsett, R. (2002). Radical project
management. New York: Yourdon Press.
Turner, J. R. (1996). Editorial:
International Project Management
Association global qualification, certi-
fication and accreditation.
International Journal of Project
Management, 14, 16.
17
 Project Success as a Topic in Project Management Journals
PAPERS

Turner, J. R. (1999). Editorial: Project
management: A profession based on
knowledge or faith. International Jour-
nal of Project Management, 17, 329330.
Wateridge, J. (1995). IT projects: A
basis for success. International Journal
of Project Management, 13, 169172.
Wateridge, J. (1998). How can IS/IT
projects be measured for success?
International Journal of Project
Management, 16, 5963.
Wells, W. G. (1998). From the editor. Proj-
ect Management Journal, 29(4), 46.
Westerveld, E. (2003). The project
excellence model: Linking success cri-
teria and critical success factors.
International Journal of Project
Management, 21, 411418.
White, D., & Fortune, J. (2002). Current
practice in project managementAn
empirical study. International Journal
of Project Management, 20, 111.
Lavagnon A. Ika is a professor of project manage-
ment (PM) in the Department of Administrative
Sciences at the Universit du Qubec en
Outaouais (UQO), Canada. He holds an MSc in proj-
ect management. He is about to complete his PhD
in business administration with a specialization in
international development PM at Universit du
Qubec Montral, a joint program with three
other Montreal universitiesConcordia, HEC, and
McGill. His PhD dissertation is focused on study-
ing the key success criteria and factors for inter-
national development projects from the perspec-
tive of the World Bank Task Managers and National
Project Coordinators. His research interests
include the study of project, program, and portfo-
lio management in nontraditional settings such as
international development.

18 December 2009 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj

APPENDIX: Selection of the
Journals and the Articles
A quick review of the notices generated
by ABI/INFORM after the query revealed
that the issue of project success was
addressed in a variety of journals,
including Information Technology &
People, AACE International Transac-
tions, Research Policy, and, of course,
PMJ and IJPM. The last two scientific
journals, considered the authoritative
sources in English on project manage-
ment (Themistocleous & Wearne, 2000),
have published 15 of the 56 preliminary
best articles candidates, approximately
27%, to appear between 1960 and 1999.
(They were felt to be so on a subjective
basis without an attempt to define what
a seminal or even best article should
View publication stats
entail. There may be other articles that
deserve to be on any best article list
[Kloppenborg & Opfer, 2002b, p. 14]).
Given that 89% of the articles
reviewed were published in the 1980s
and 1990s, compared to 1% in the 1960s
(Kloppenborg & Opfer, 2002a, 2002b),
we decided to limit our review to articles
published in PMJ or IJPM and only con-
sider articles from the period beginning
in 1980. Articles dealing with project
control that simply made reference to
the concept of project success were
removed from the list. The decision to
keep a notice turned on an analysis of
the notices content. As a result, we kept
only those articles in which both the
title and the keywords included terms
from the research statement or the their titles during the selection process.
December 2009 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj
qualifier successful. Hence, articles
with titles such as Current Practice in
Project ManagementAn Empirical
Study, where the title does not explicit-
ly mention project success but the list of
keywords and the summary mentioned
project success criteria, were rejected.
However, some exceptions were made
to this rule. Articles dealing with the PIP
(project implementation profile), an
instrument that deals explicitly with
project success, were retained, even if
their titles did not include the terms
success or successful. Given the
fact that certain articles could have
rather general keywords or none at all
(Themistocleous & Wearne, 2000), we
decided, in this case, to consider only
19