Key performance indicators and project success

Key performance indicators and project success

Please read carefully:

The research concerns understanding what success on projects mean, and how to measure success in quantifiable way so that projects can be compared and benchmarked.

Business generally uses KPIs to measure the organizational performance and the success in the quantifiable way. KPIs could employ to measure the project delivery success.

Methodology: This exploratory study, The data collected through “Semi-structured Interview”, with 6 experts in project management, the sample identified through “convenience sampling” method. The interviews recorded and transcribed. Attached the interviews transcript. And they should be analysed in any quantitative analysis method like “thematic analysis”.

The interviews was face to face , online, and by phone , they have been recorder and then transcribed , attached 5 interviews as word file the 6th interview will be uploaded later tomorrow.
The thesis will be around if I want to suggest an outline for the Lit review: the Lit review would start with project success, what is succuss in projects? Success criteria and critical success factors? Project delivery success and project success? Previous work on project success measurement? And if it is measuring the project success or project delivery success or both “Yet some confusion exists between project delivery success and project success, where the latter is obviously influenced by factors beyond the control of the project team and sometimes outside the boundaries of the project itself”. Langston 2013 , attached.

Attached many files, there is 5 Phd desertions attached, each one have a good literature review on project success. And you can refer to the original references used in the Phd dissertations rather than referring to the Phd dissertation itself in your thesis references.

This section would lead to a conclusion that there is still a need for measurement to measure the “project delivery success in quantifiable way” , measurement that reflects the balance between the competing constraints (time, cost, quality) .

Business generally uses KPIs for this purpose, so my suggestion that the second part of lit review will be on KPIs ,and you can start with the performance management and measurement ( attached neely book and papers) , its purpose , requirement of an effective performance measurements, then the measures metrics and kpis , what are the Kpis , why they used ? Characteristics of the good Kpi , and you can finish with the KPis in the project management ( the previous work on that ) .
The thesis should be around 15000 words. In addition to thesis I need and I will order, a 5000 words.. summary of the thesis , a conference paper that suitable for future conference publication. In both cases the work includes a rationale for the research, underpinning and fully referenced literature review, articulation of an appropriate method, collection of data, analysis, discussion and conclusions.
At least 45 peer reviewed journal articles should be used in the research.

Below some ideas on the project success. And in the attachment some Phd dissertations which are so useful in writing the literature review. And many important journal articles that related to the topic. (Langston article is a good start and should be appeared in the references and used in the research) .

Another book should be used in the research its available online:
Project Management Metrics, KPIs, and Dashboards A Guide to Measuring and Monitoring Project Performance
Harold R. Kerzner 2013 .Online access.

All the attached files are important; they will save your time in research. Some are Master thesis with good review on KPis and performance measurement.

If you need any article , please let me know I have access to most of the journals.

Some ideas on the project’s success:

A review of the existing literature shows that a number of researchers have investigated the concept of project success. Project success is an important and a central topic of project management research (Cooke-Davies, 2002). Müller and Jugdev (2012) state that project success “is at the heart of project management” (p.758). However, despite the broad interest in the topic, no general agreement has been achieved on what constitutes project success (Ika, 2009).
The absence of agreement on what constitutes project success has been the reason for failing to evaluate project success (Wai, Yusof, Ismail, & Ng Choon, 2012).

Project success means different things to different stakeholders. Each sector, project team or individual has its own definition and perception of success. Pariff and Sanvido (1993) consider success an intangible perceptive feeling that varies with different management expectations, among people, and with the phases of project. Each stakeholder group has its own project objectives and criteria for measuring success (Chan and Chan, 2004).

A number of studies explore the critical success factors that might contribute to project success; hence, according to the findings of Muller and Jugdev (2012) the list of factors that contribute to project success is continually becoming longer.

According to the observations of Cooke-Davies (2002), the factors of success are those inputs into overall management systems which enhance the likelihood of project success on the basis of its aims and objectives. Crawford (2001) argues that the literature on the critical success factors is more extensive than the success criteria that have evolved from the research conducted on various projects.

Despite several similarities among the research findings, there is no agreement among scholars on the final list of critical success factors. However, a number of researchers suggest that critical success factors can be grouped under several main categories. The value of these research studies is that they identify important factors and preconditions that might contribute to project success, but yet they still do not provide a definition of project success.

A large number of major projects have been completed within the time and budget constraints yet, from a business perspective, they are considered a complete failure, according to the observations of Shenhar and Dvir (2007). In contrast to this, there have been many projects that were not time nor cost effective in their delivery, but are considered a success story. An illustrious case in this regard is the Sydney Opera House.

It was neither cost nor time effective, but it has been remarkable success on the business front and proved to be financially beneficial on a long-term basis, according to the findings of Steinfort and Walker (2007).

Other researchers seek to define the criteria by which a project is judged to be a success or a failure. The classic criterion is the iron triangle, but studies identify many other criteria beyond the iron triangle. Weaver (2012) argues that there is a real need for a new paradigm similar to the iron triangle but better representing the different facets of success. Furthermore, Langston (2013) argues that the lack of a cohesive model for measuring project success is an obstacle to resolve what constitutes a successful project.

Furthermore, a number of researchers differentiate between project success as the project’s final outcome and the project delivery’s success. The success of the project refers to the final outcome of the project and is measured against the overall objective of the project (Ika 2009).
This project management success refers to the delivery of project activities, which is a measure of performance for the cost, time and quality (internal standard) traditional measures as observed by DeWitt (1998), Ika (2009) and Munns and Bjeirmi (1996). However, Atkinson (1999) claims that the cause of project’s delivery failure is the limited set of measurement criteria which define the project’s success (i.e. cost, time and quality). Similarly, Henrie and Sousa-Poza (2005) argue that project managers fail because the criteria for measuring project success is partial and limited to the traditional project constraints.