Defining 'project success' for a complex project - The case of a nuclear engineering development

 

 

S.I. van Niekerk^{I, II};H. Steyn^II

^IPebble Bed Modular Reactor, Centurion, South Africa
^IIGraduate School of Technology Management, University of Pretoria, South Africa. herman.steyn@up.ac.za

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

The case of a nuclear engineering project was investigated to establish the relevant success criteria for the development of complex, high-technology systems. The project was first categorised according to an existing scheme, and the Delphi method was used to determine the criteria for project success that apply to this specific case. A framework of project success dimensions was extended to include criteria that are of specific importance for the project under consideration.
While project efficiency (delivery on time and within budget) obviously still needs to be controlled, the results provide empirical evidence for the notion that, for 'super high tech' projects, this is relatively less important. The relative importance of the dimensions of success was also evaluated and presented on a timeline stretching from project execution to 10 years after project completion. This provided empirical evidence for certain concepts in the literature.

---

OPSOMMING

Die geval van 'n kern-ingenieursprojek is ondersoek om die relevante kriteria vir sukses vir die ontwikkeling van komplekse hoë-tegnologiesisteme te bepaal. Die projek is eerstens geklassifiseer volgens n bestaande skema, en die Delphi-metode is vervolgens gebruik om die relevante kriteria vir projeksukses vir die betrokke geval te bepaal. n Bestaande raamwerk van dimensies vir projeksukses is uitgebrei om kriteria wat van spesifieke belang vir die betrokke geval in te sluit.
Terwyl tydige aflewering, binne begroting natuurlik steeds belangrik is, voorsien die resultate empiriese bewys vir die nosie in die literatuur dat hierdie aspekte van relatief minder belang is in die geval van 'super hoë-tegnologie'-projekte. Die relatiewe belangrikheid van die dimensies van sukses is ook evalueer, en aangedui op n tydlyn wat strek van projekuitvoering tot 10 jaar na die afhandeling van die projek. Dit lewer empiriese bewys vir sekere bewerings in die literatuur.

---

 

 

“Full text available only in PDF format”

 

 

REFERENCES

[1] Pinto, J.K. & Slevin, D.P. 1987. Critical factors in successful project implementation, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 34(1), pp 22-28.         [ Links ]

[2] Pinto, J.K. & Slevin, D.P. 1989. The project champion: Key to implementation success, Project Management Journal, 20(4), pp 15-21.         [ Links ]

[3] Pinto, J.K. & Mantel, S.J. 1990. The causes of project failure, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 37(4), pp 269-276.         [ Links ]

[4] Delone, W. & Mclean, E. 1992. Information systems success: The quest for a dependant variable, Institute of Management Sciences Journal, 3(1), pp 60-92.         [ Links ]

[5] Turner, J.R. 2004. Five necessary conditions for project success. International Journal of Project Management, 22, pp 349-350.         [ Links ]

[6] PBMR (Pebble Bed Modular Nuclear Reactor Company). http://www.pbmr.co.za, accessed 16 November 2009.         [ Links ]

[7] Shenhar, A.J. & Dvir, D. 2007. Reinventing project management: The diamond approach to successful growth and innovation, Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.         [ Links ]

[8] Fortune, J. & White, D. 2006. Framing of project critical success factors by a systems model, International Journal of Project Management, 24, pp 53-65.         [ Links ]

[9] Shenhar, A.J. & Dvir, D. 1996. Toward a typological theory of project management. Research Policy. 25, pp 607-632.         [ Links ]

[10] Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., Shenhar, A.J. & Tishler, A. 1998. In search of project classification: A non-universal approach to project success factors, Research Policy, 27, pp 915-935.         [ Links ]

[11] Shenhar, A.J., 2001. One size does not fit all projects: Exploring classical contingency domains, Management Science, 43(3), pp 394-414.         [ Links ]

[12] Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Lechler, T. & Poli, M. One size does not fit all - True for projects, true for frameworks, Proceedings of PMI Research Conference 2002, pp 99-106.         [ Links ]

[13] Shenhar, A., Dvir, D., Milosevic, D., Mulenburg, J., Patanakul, P., Reilly, R., Ryan, M., Sage, A., Sauser, B., Srivannaboon, S., Stefanovic, J. & Thamhain, H. 2005. Toward a NASA-specific project management framework. Engineering Management Journal. 17(4).         [ Links ]

[14] Sauser, B., Reilly, R. & Shenhar, A. 2009. Why projects fail? How contingency theory can provide new insights - a comparative analysis of NASA's Mars Climate Orbiter loss, International Journal of Project Management, Article in press.         [ Links ]

[15] Freeman, A. & Beale, P. 1992. Measuring project success, Project Management Journal, 4(3), pp 9-12.         [ Links ]

[16] Atkinson, R. 1999. Project management: Cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria, International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), pp 337-342.         [ Links ]

[17] Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O. & Maltz, A.C. 2001. Project success: a multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Planning, 34, pp 699-725.         [ Links ]

[18] Crichter, C. & Gladstone, M. 1998. Utilising the Delphi technique in policy discussion: A case study of a privatised utility in Britain, Public Administration, 76(3), pp 431-449.         [ Links ]

[19] Cantrill, J.A., Sibbald, B. & Buetow, S. 1998. Indicators of the appropriateness of long term prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom: Consensus development, face and content validity, feasibility and reliability, Quality in Health Care, 7, pp 130-135.         [ Links ]

[20] Barry, M.L., Steyn, H. & Brent, A. 2008. Determining the most important factors for sustainable energy technology selection in Africa: Application of the Delphi technique, IAMOT 2008 (Dubai).         [ Links ]

[21] Mullen, P. 2003. Delphi: Myths and reality, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 17(1), pp 37-52.         [ Links ]

[22] Delbecq, A.L., Van De Ven, A.H. & Gustafson, D.H. 1975. Group techniques for program planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes, Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman and Company,         [ Links ]

[23] Melnyk, S.A., Calantone, R.J., Luft, J., Stewart, D.M., Zsidisin, G.A., Hanson, J. & Burns, L. 2005. An empirical investigation of the metrics alignment process, International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 54(5/6), pp 312-324.         [ Links ]

[24] Project Management Institute. 2008. A guide to the project management body of knowledge, 4^th ed. Newton Square, Pennsylvania: Project Management Institute.         [ Links ]

 

 

* Corresponding author.
1 The author was enrolled for an M Eng (Project Management) degree at the Graduate School of Technology Management, University of Pretoria.