Page 265 - Global Project Management Handbook

13-2 COMPETENCY FACTORS IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT

the project manager to assess the “softer” behavioral side of the project management
process to determine the status of the project in relation to its human elements. Second,
the PIP gives project managers the opportunity to focus some of their attention on the
strategic issues of project development. This chapter discusses the project-implementation
process, focusing on 10 critical project success factors identified in a recent study. It
further outlines the ways in which the PIP can be used by project managers. An illus-
trative example of a project that used the PIP to assess the success of implementation is
given.
The study of those factors that are critical to project-implementation success has
remained an area of tremendous interest within the project management field. These fac-
tors, typically referred to as critical success factors (CSFs) are, by definition, considered
to be the structural and process-related constructs that can positively influence the likeli-
hood of project success. As a result, both practitioners and researchers continue to work
to better understand and define the set of CSFs for projects that can demonstrate strong
predictive power yet which are also sufficiently “managerial” in nature that they can be
materially addressed by personnel involved in the project. Put another way, it does little
good to identify CSFs that are beyond the ability of project managers to address (e.g., a
healthy national economy).
A number of important papers have been published in recent years in order to recon-
ceptualize the study of project CSFs and their role both in understanding project success
and in the formation of current project management theory. Soderlund (2002) highlighted
the “critical success factor school” as an example of a normative, planning-based model
that focuses on the management and organization of single projects. Other researchers
have taken a more directed approach in studying the impact of individual factors as
opposed to a collective set of CSFs. For example, Belout and Gauvreau (2004) examined
the direct impact of human resources policies and the personnel employed on a project
and their effect on project success. Turner and Muller (2005) argued that current CSF
research tends to underemphasize the critical leadership role of the project manager as a
key contributor to project success. Thus, both collectively and individually, project CSFs
continue to serve as a fertile source of research and conceptual thought for furthering
project management theory development.
Another way in which researchers have sharpened the focus on studying project CSFs
has been to define specific classes of projects in order to identify, compare, and contrast
factors critical to success across project categories. For example, Wateridge (1998) exam-

ined information technology (IT) projects and contrasted their key CSFs with other proj-
ect types. Pinto and Covin (1989) contrasted the CSFs across the project life cycle for
construction versus research and development (R&D) projects. Amplifying this “one size
does not fit all” philosophy, Shenhar (2001) has long argued for the need to clearly, iden-
tify, and classify project types as a first means for conducting research.
A recent study articulated this nature of the CSF challenge by distinguishing between
three questions that must be answered in identifying the success factors for a project
(Cooke-Davies, 2002). These three questions included
1. What factors are critical to project management success?
2. What factors are critical to success of an individual project?
3. What factors lead to consistently successful projects?

Cooke-Davies found that a number of factors, actions, and attitudes contribute to
what he termed “the real” project success factors, including adequacy of company-wide
training on risk management, adequate documentation of organizational responsibili-
ties, allowing changes to scope only through a mature scope-change-control process,
and so forth. In fact, he noted that although his factors were not, of themselves,
human factors, “the people side of the success factors is woven into their very fabric”