The critical success factors model for project implementation in a consulting

engineering firm

Luckson Mujati

Department of Engineering and Technology Management, University of Pretoria

Master of Engineering (MPM)

Abstract
Research examining the project implementation and key success factors has focused primarily on
project organizations with specific attention directed toward construction projects and product
developments. Key to these project lies the consulting engineer, however not much has been
researched on the consulting firm or consulting contract. Many in the field believe that project
success is depended on a number of success factors of which a few can be regarded as key
success factors. This study suggests a key success factors model for project implementation in a
consulting engineering firm, which was tested through a questionnaire survey targeted at senior
project management personnel.

The study suggests two levels of project success factors, the five higher level success factors
enablers and the nine project key success factors. The results suggest that all the success
factors enablers and the key success factors tested are in key to project success.

The study will contribute to the body of knowledge with respect to project implementation. It is an
application of theory to a specific environment. The study will be useful as a guide to the areas
that need focus in a consulting engineering firm and will assist in providing an extension of project
implementation methodology and management in the consulting engineering firms. The study
was cross-cultural. It shows that successful project implementation, regardless of project
geography and culture, still depends on some key factors to achieve superior project success.

Keywords: Project key success factors, engineering consulting firm, Key success factors
implementation, Project implementation, Project management

1 Introduction

1.1 The role of projects in organisations and their implementation

This paper is on the research into the project management key factors that ensure project
success and mitigate the project implementation barriers that exist in a project environment under
a consulting engineering environment. The consulting engineering context is that of managing
client project. Management of internal projects within the consulting engineering is outside the
context of the research as this is taken to be any other corporate projects environment.

Ever thought of what it means to be an agent to someone? Like agents, consulting engineers
manage projects on behalf of their clients. They rarely manage their own projects (except few
office renovations!). “If you thought project management could be challenging, try doing it in the
consulting environment. For the consultant project manager it’s a case of having four entities to
whom you are responsible; the project; the stakeholders; consulting company management and
client management” Ronald (2007:1). According to Stevens (2008), there are many reasons why
corporate executives turn to external consultants to provide project management support for their
projects. They face the challenges of; sub-par project performance; the potential for lost
credibility; lack of experience with a particular project type; and a lack of internal project
management practitioners.

Project management consulting firms can supply experienced practitioners that offer high-quality
solutions to the complex issues facing project teams. Stevens (2008) gave six ways that project
management consulting firms are making a difference with leading organizations being;
addressing project-related issues; providing advanced project analysis to upper management;
filling an expertise gap; establishing a proactive approach; offering short-term support solutions
and project assurance. Walker (1997) in Brown (2000) gave expertise otherwise unavailable; for
impartiality of perspectives and recommendations; for cost effective improvement and/or short
term additional management effort / capacity enhancement as the reasons for engaging a
consultant.

A project is defined by Stuckenbruck (1982: 1) as “a one-short, time-limited, goal-directed, major

undertaking, requiring the commitment of varied skills and resources. Projects are described as a
combination of human and non human resources pulled together in a temporary organisation to
achieve specified purpose”. A project is completed when the set of project objectives are met in a
finite life time. A consulting engagement may be considered successful if the client is satisfied
that the consultant has met expectations and the consultant is satisfied that his or her reputation
has been enhanced, with expectations of future revenue streams (McLachlin, 1999). Project
success is measured in a number of ways, the most common being the traditional three
constraints of quality, cost and time. Modern approaches suggest strategic project management
view, sustainability and overall societal value.

The Figure 1 below model by Wideman (2001) shows how complex a project environment can
be. The consulting engineering firm has to integrate all the various issues reflected on the figure
for project success. Any one of the areas can go wrong and affect the project.

Several studies have found the most frequently mentioned factor impacting project success to be
a poorly defined scope (Pinto and Slevin, 1988), which is a direct result of the project selection
process and engagement processes. In mature engineering consulting organizations studied,
projects will always have sponsors and well-defined scopes that were developed and approved
by top management, without which these experienced consultants ensure that the project scope
is well defined at the inception, otherwise the project is a failure on day one.

Figure 1: Project management in the corporate environment (Source: Wideman (2001))

In order to understand the role of project management in the organization and the management
of the projects, it is important to link projects and the organization. Organizations achieve their
strategic intents through projects. According to PMBOK (2004), projects are a means of
organizing activities that cannot be addressed within the organisation’s operational limits. Projects
are a means of achieving organisation’s strategic plan, whether the project team is employed by
the organization or the project is outsourced to service providers. The overall perspective of the
position of the various forms of management, strategic management, change management and
project management are depicted in the figure below by Van der Walt and Knipe (1998).
A C
B

Current state

Required state
Strategic
Projects
Management Project A transformed
Management institution/
Management of department/
change division

A= Current State
B= required state
C= Transformation process to move from A to B

Figure 2: Position of strategic and project management in a change process (Source: Van der Walt
and Knipe (1998))

This model shows that the strategic management is all about organization change. The
transformation form current state to desired state is achieved only through projects hence the
importance of proper project implementation. Successful projects means successful strategies
and vice versa. Organisational success is thus measures by how well it implements its projects
(thus strategy).

According to Giga Information Group (2003), the key to best practices in project management is
no mystery; it lies in the execution. Projects benefit from repeatable standard functions. The
process is not about reinventing the wheel, but finding what has worked in the past and applying
it to the present, using strong communication to deliver and manage these processes and paring
away anything that diverts the team from project goals. The ultimate challenge for project
management is to find a repeatable process and communicate it clearly so that multiple levels
within an organization accept and support the benefits.

1.2 Project implementation key success factors

According (Rockart, 1979) in Andersen , Birchall, Jessenand Money A H. (2006), “Critical
success factors are those features of projects which have been identified as necessary to be
achieved in order to create excellent results: if the critical success factors are not present or taken
into consideration, one can largely expect that problems will be experienced which act as barriers
to overall successful outcomes … Project management, given the unique nature of each
individual project, is an area seen as benefiting from focusing management’s attention on such
critical success factors”.

To understand where and how project implementation may fail, it is important to understand the
role of project management. Stuckenbruck (1982) gave five key items of budget and cost control;
schedules; resource allocation; technical quality; and client, customer or public relations. For
successful project implementation, Stuckenbruck (1982) likened project plan to a game and a
‘game plan’ is needed to carefully plan the implementation process answering the key How(s)
and What(s) questions of project implementation. The PMBOK (2004: 11) gives the areas that
constitute project management. The successful project management requires that all knowledge
areas of scope, time, cost, quality, human resource, communications, risk, procurement, project
integration are focused on.

McLachlin (1999) suggested the following six factors of consultant integrity, in particular in putting
the client's interests first; client involvement and readiness to change; a clear agreement
concerning requirements and expectations; client control of the engagement - partly via clear and
limited assignments; consultant competence; and a good fit along a number of dimensions
(including models of consultancy, client expectations, consultant capabilities, and consultant
type).

Van der Walt and Knipe (1998) suggest nine critical factors influencing the effectiveness and
ultimate results of project management. These are leadership; organization structure; knowledge
of the project; skills; systems and procedures; decision making; managerial style; motivation and
reward; and development.

Schultz R. L., Slevin D. P. and Pinto (1987) did a lot of research on the subject and summarises
the key success factors in organisations as clearly defined goals; sufficient resource allocation;
top-management support; project plans and schedules; competent project manager; competent
project team members; adequate communication; feedback capabilities and responsiveness to
clients

Using the factors and models of the previous researchers, a success model for consulting
engineering project contract is suggested and tested through a questionnaire survey.

Companies implement strategies through projects and success in projects builds to the long term
survival of the firm. With the role of consulting engineering firms in the infrastructure and
technology development, it is important that project management be done successfully and
optimally. An investigation into the success of project management and implementation will
enhance development and society at large. A project key success factors model is suggested.

2 The Proposed model

The factor model is believed to include the major factors that added to the general knowledge of
success factors in business strategy, business management (tactical and the general project
management can enhance project success in consulting engineering environment. Works and
research by Pinto (1986), Kerzner (2006) and Holland C, Light B, N Gibson (1999) have been
used to come up with a modified key success factors model for application in a consulting firm
environment.

While the literature review highlighted several key issues to project management, most of these
are general and affects almost all organisations. The project management in consulting
engineering firm model suggests the following key factors:
1. Project Evaluation and selection ;
2. The project manager;
3. Project Organisation and Structures;
4. The project team and Multi cultural teams management;
5. Proactive project risk management;
6. Understanding project technology issues;
7. Managing project schedule and budget;
8. Project resources management;
9. Understanding the project environment.

The proposed model is shown below. The model starts with effective communication and
integration feeding into the factors. Continuous monitoring of performance is required. The results
of improved implementation and project success should be feedback into the system and the
system evaluated continuous for improvements.

While other researchers consider aspects of communication, integration, monitoring,

feedback and continuous improvement as key success factors, the proposed model does not
consider them as success factors but rather a must do/ have and/or the enablers without which
the other factors above are not possible to implement and project success is not possible.
Figure 3: Project success factors model

2.1 Project Evaluation and selection

According to Shtub et al (1994), the evaluation and selection of new products and project
proposals is no easy task, consisting on many interrelated decisions. The complexity comes from
the need to collect variety of data and the difficulty of measuring and assessing projects on the
information derived from such data. Much of the information is subjective and uncertain in nature
and many of these ideas and proposals exist as embryonic thoughts and enthusiasm of the
sponsor. The presence of various organizational and behavioral factors tends to politicize the
decision making process. The cost and benefits of a project only plays a small role in the final
decision. Compatibility with the organization objectives and resources should be the primary
concern.

Before consulting engineering firms bid for a project, client selection processes are applied.
These processes are aimed at reducing projects risks and the probability of project failures. The
consulting engineering firm also undergoes through an internal process to decide whether or not
to bid for a project or to accept a project of it is a direct appointment.

2.2 Project manager in consulting firms

In engineering consulting, most managers or rather top level staff are engineers. Initially most
people start as engineers and work their way to top management. According to Badawy (1982)
and Sounder (1984) in Shtub et al (1994) the skills required of engineers and different from those
required of managers. Engineers are hands on and in contact with their work whereas mangers
only influence output through others. Engineering is a science charactrised by precision,
reproducibility, proven theories and experimentally verifiable results and engineers derive
satisfaction from their physical creation. On the other hand, management is an art characterized
by intuition, studied judgments, unique events and one time occurrences. Managers get
satisfaction through achievements of their subordinates.
“Engineering is the world of things, management is the world of people”, Shtub et al (1994: 42)
Table 1: Engineering versus Management (Source: Shtub et al (1994: 43))
What Engineers Do What Managers Do
° Minimise risks, emphasise accuracy and ° Take calculated risks, rely heavily on intuition,
mathematical precision take educated guesses and try to be about right
° Exercise care in applying sound scientific
methods. On the basis of reproducible data
° Solve technical problems based on their own
individual skills
° Work largely through their own abilities and get
things done
° Exercise leadership in making decisions under
widely varying conditions, based on sketchy
information
° Solve techno-people problems based on skills in
integrating the talents and behaviours of others
° Work through others to get thing done

Engineers are propelled into management by economic benefits and desire to take more
responsibility. Three key problems were identified in engineers in management by Shtub et al
(1994) as learning to trust others; learning how to work through others; and learning how to take
satisfaction in the work of others. Effective career planning and development through on job and
off job training is suggested as the way through this time requiring, big development step for
engineers.

Another dimension to view the difference between project management and technical excellence
is the project champion view by Kerzner (2006). Project champion bring innovative ideas which
end up as projects, unfortunately these champions become project managers. In some instances
a sound innovative idea fails because of the project champion becoming a project manager. The
different traits from the project management requirement or traits according to the table below
cause such failures.
Table 2: Project Managers versus Project Champions (Source: Kerzner (2006: 19))
Project managers Project champions
° Prefer to work in groups
° Committed to their managerial and ° Prefer working individually
technical responsibilities ° Committed to technology
° Committed to the corporation ° Committed to the profession
° Seek to achieve the objective ° Seek to exceed the objective
° Are willing to take risks ° Are unwilling to take risks; try to test everything
° Seek what is possible ° Seek perfection
° Think in terms of short time spans ° Think in terms of long time spans
° Manage people ° Manage things
° Are committed to and pursue material ° Are committed to and pursue intellectual values
values

The conclusion is that the project champions become attached to the technical side of project that
they become derelict in their administrative responsibilities. The best idea as suggested by
Kerzner (2006) is to include the project champion in a technical role like the project engineer. This
does not imply that technically oriented project managers fail but simply reinforces the idea of an
all facets based project manager selection criterion.

2.3 Structuring the project organisation

Key to successful project management lies on how the project is structured. Most literature deals
with structuring of companies for project mostly research and development, internal product
development and functions. Limited literature exists on structuring the engineering consultant.
Traditional structuring is centred on engineering disciplines with HR, finance and other support
services playing a central supporting role. The project structures according to Elbeik and Thomas
(2000), Steyn et al (2008), Shtub et al (1994), Kerzner (2006) and PMBOK (2004) show the
possible project structures within organizations though some composites and hybrids of these
structures are also common. The products and projectised organization structure are common in
consulting firms.

While the structures are defined as functional, product, matrix, projects and other similar names,
the key to project structuring as defined by Elbeik and Thomas (2000), Steyn et al (2008) and
Shtub et al (1994) are functional; product; customer; territorial and process.
 2.4 Managing the Human Resources
In one of my project management, human resources lectures, by Prof Du Plessis (2008) at the
University of Pretoria, one issue stood very clear to me. In project management, it is critical that
the right people are employed at the right place and time and kept right. In an increasingly
competitive global economy where competitive differences continue to be eroded, and where
companies are now finding it increasingly difficult to create their competitive differentiation, people
are now the sole remaining source of sustainable competitive advantage. The project
management environment is rife with paradoxes. For a start, the goal of every project has at least
three contradictory elements: performance, cost and schedule (the project management triangle).
When one considers that these goal elements are achieved through people, then the people
dimension becomes an overarching element of the project goal. On top of the general personnel
behavioral and motivation issues, important aspects of project human resources management are
conflict management; stress management; managing multicultural teams and managing the
virtual project teams

2.5 Proactive project risk management

Project risk management has been intensively discussed in recent years. Projects are becoming
shared efforts of multiple parties – construction industry is a good example of an area, where the
project outcome is delivered in an extremely complex actor network. Still, research on how the
project risk management should be adopted to the network environment is scarce.

In engineering projects, engineers are faced with such questions like, “what can go wrong and
how likely is it to happen? What range of consequences might be there and how they could be
averted or mitigated? How many risks should be tolerated during normal operations and how it
can be measured, reduced or managed?”, Shtub et al (1994: 130). A formal risk analysis should
answer these questions and quantify the answers.

2.6 Understanding project technology issues

Technology has a competitive impact in two ways according to Shtub et al (1994: 247):
1. It provides a market advantage through differentiation and value added;
2. It provides a cost advantage through improved overall system economies.

To use technology, companies must be explicit about its role through answering questions like;
What is the basis of competition in our industry? To compete, which technologies must we
master? How competitive are we in these areas? What is our technology strategy?

The technology aspect of project management links the engineering, science and management
disciplines. The project manager contributes through the understanding of the links and
connection between product design, process design, support design, cost, schedule, resources
and project success, Shtub et al (1994). Technological management should start at need
identification assessing the feasibility of providing that need and continues though the various
project stages.

2.7 Managing project schedules and budgets

Scheduling deals with planning of timetables and the establishment of dates during which various
resources such as equipment and personnel will perform the activities required to complete the
project. Project schedules are the cornerstone of planning and control integrating the information
on the several aspects of the project, including the estimated duration of activities, the
technological precedence relationship among activities, constraints on resources availability and
the due dates requirements, Shtub et al (1994).

Tools are available to deal with the scheduling from simple timetable, to Gantt charts and other
sophisticated computer models. Dealing with scheduling is normally not a major problem for
consulting engineers as most master the concepts of such packages as Microsoft office projects,
Prince 2 etc. The key issue for scheduling is not the output of computer simulation or the
Microsoft Project charts and figures, but the information or data entered. The key issue is the
determination of the various tasks accurately, the estimation of their duration and the resource
requirements. Only if such information is accurate will a schedule be valuable tool for project
implementation.

The budgets of organizations are linked to their goals reflecting decisions on project selection,
resource allocation and the desired rate of progress on the projects themselves. The primary tool
for resource allocation is the budget process, which give force to the objectives and strategies
intended to be accomplished. Jauch & Glueck (1989: 308) concludes “the resource allocation
decisions about how much to invest in which areas of the business reinforce strategy and commit
organisation to its chosen strategy”.

2.8 Project Resources management

Resources are defined by Barney & Hesterly (2006: 76) as “the tangible and intangible assets
that a firm controls which it can use to conceive of and implement its strategies”. Barney &
Hesterly (2006: 76) defines capabilities as “ a subset of a firm’s resources and are tangible and
intangible assets that enable a firm to take full advantage of other resources it controls. That is
capabilities alone do not enable a firm to conceive of and implement its strategies but they enable
a firm to use other resources to conceive of and implement its strategies … examples of
capabilities are a firm’s marketing skills and teamwork and cooperation among managers”.

Kerzner (2006) classify project and company resources into six categories of money, manpower,
equipment, facilities, materials and information technology. Thompson et al (2005) suggested that
it is not adequate to compile a list of resources and competencies without telling how powerful
they are in the market place. The four tests to evaluate the resources according to Thompson et
al (2005) and Barney & Hesterly (2006) are; Is the resource strength hard to copy? Is the
resource strength durable- does it have staying power? Is the resource really competitively
superior? Can the resource strength be trumped by the resource strength and competitive
capabilities of rivals?

2.9 Understanding project environment

The influence on the project by each of these stakeholders will vary. For example, interaction
between the project manager and top management will be at a much higher level than the
interaction between the project manager and the project team.

Never underestimate the need to manage stakeholders. Identify the stakeholders that could stop
the project and ensure that they are at worst neutral to the project. Identify who could influence
them, select the information that should be communicated to them, and communicate when the
time is right. Eliminating the negative stakeholders does not guarantee success. The
stakeholders that could aid the project by either supporting the project or by approving the next
phases should also be informed.

Stakeholder relationship management is a process related to process management, knowledge

management and technology management.

3 Research methodology
According to Saunders, Lewis and Thornhill (2003: 3), research is defined as “something that
people undertake in order to find out things in a systematic way, thereby increasing their
knowledge”. Ghauri and Gronhang, 2002) in Saunders et al (2003) gave the importance of
systematic in research definitions in that research should be based on logical relationships, not
just beliefs. They also pointed out that numerous purposes are possible for research including
describing, explaining, understanding, criticising and analysing. Saunders et al (2003) gave the
research characteristics as; data are collected systematically; data are interpreted systematically;
and there is a clear purpose.

Studying a problem through the use of statistical data analysis usually involves four basic steps
of; defining the problem; collecting the data; analysing the data; and reporting the results. A
general plan of how the research question is answered is important for any research. The
strategy contains clear objectives, specifies data sources and the constraints faced, Saunders et
al (2003). The strategy is the overall approach adopted and forms the base for the research
tactics, which gives the finer details of data collection and analysis. The research strategies that
can be employed according to Saunders et al (2003) are experiment, survey, case study,
grounded theory, ethnography, action research, cross sectional and longitudinal studies and
exploratory, descriptive and explanatory studies.

The study began with a comprehensive review of relevant materials from textbooks, refereed
journals, conference proceedings, professional articles, project management consultants,
circulars, and company profiles of firms offering engineering and project management
consultancy services. The objective of the review was to gather information on the key success
factors in engineering projects and factors that may affect performance. Previous work on project
implementation key success factors identifies numerous variables that either help or hinder
project implementation mostly in a generalized project environment. Not much research exists for
engineering consulting firms project. The research uses existing simplified project success factors
and implementation models and suggest a suitable success factors for application and testing
within the consulting engineering environment through a questionnaire survey as the primary data
gathering tool.

In carrying out this research, it was recognized that the strategies do not exist in isolation; they
actually can be mixed and matched. Different methods can be used for different purposes in a
study. The questionnaire was combined with some structured and unstructured interviews and
participation in group discussions with some of the respondents prior to designing the
questionnaire. A 5-point Likert-type survey was constructed with questions concerning the project
success factors enablers, the success factors and implementation of the success factors.
Participants were asked to respond to statements by indicating how strongly they felt about each
statement. Possible responses included strongly disagree (or to no extent), disagree (or to some
extent), neither agree nor disagree (or to small extent), agree (or to a large extent) and strongly
agree (or to a great extent).

4 Research Results

4.1 Demographics
It was noted that while the major respondent organisation is the consulting engineering firm, the
roles on projects are fairly diversified. The main roles as expected are the consulting engineers’
project manager and technical staff representing 73% of the total response with consultant project
manager being the highest at 47%. The client project manager and executive management are
fairly represented at 9% and 7% respectively. The other represented roles are the research and
academic and contractor management. 80% of the respondents had over 5 years of experience,
62% had more than 10 years and almost half the responses (49%) were from those with more
than 15 years project experience.

4.2 Project success factors enablers

Previous researchers as analysed and highlighted in the literature view all agreed that the factors
of communication, integration, monitoring, feedback and organisation learning, continuous
improvement & innovation are the most important. The research questions aimed to check how
valid this assumption is by asking respondents on the extent of the influence of these enablers.

Based on the results, 89%of the respondents strongly agree, with 11% agreeing that
communication is a key enabler. That’s all the respondents fully support the key role of
communication. Only 4% of the respondents are not sure on integration with the remaining 96%
fully supportive on integration. On monitoring and control, only 1% were not sure with 99% fully
supportive. Feedback had 3% not sure with 97% fully supportive. The only negative response of
3% was obtained on learning on growth. 11% are not sure on the influence of learning and growth
on project success, with the remaining 86% fully supportive. Irrespective of the 14% who are not
supportive, the 86% positive response is still high to validate the factor. The results prove that the
aspects of communication, integration, monitoring, feedback, organisation learning and
continuous improvement are more than just key success factors but important enablers for the
other factors as suggested by the model.

4.3 Key success factors

On project selection, three questions were asked and 89%, 95% and 96% were fully supportive of
the role of business and project strategy, team involvement and project scope clarity respectively
during project evaluation and selection. This strongly suggests that project evaluation selection is
an important factor of project success.

The survey results showed that the respondents strongly believe the project manager is an
important determinant of success with 92% in full support. Only 5% are not sure with 3%
disagreeing. On the aspects of the project champions and technical innovators becoming project
managers, the survey results show that 5% strongly agree, 30% agree, 36% are not sure, 23%
disagree and 5% strongly disagree. With only 35% in support, it is clear that the project
champions are not taking project management roles. The survey also sought opinion on whether
the champions should become project managers. The results prove that it is not important for
them to become project managers with 87% fully supportive, 12% not sure and a mere 1%
believing that project champions should be project managers.

On the project structuring, the results suggest that top management support and involvement is
an important determinant of project success with 78% fully in support, 15% not sure and only 7%
do not agree. The respondents also strongly support the notion that structuring should consider
nature of project and client organisation with only 5% not sure and 3% disagreeing. The 92% fully
support suggest that structuring should change for each project depending on the project nature
and client.

On project team selection and management, the results show that 96% fully in support basing
team selection on link between individual competences and project activities, 91% strongly
support the notion that experience and motivation are key considerations. 86% fully support and
agree that multi cultural teams are an important consideration and require the attention of project
management with 82% fully agreeing to the influence of virtual organisation and the need to
develop skill to manage these types of emerging organisations.

The results show that project team is a key consideration in project implementation for consulting
firms. The consulting business is centred on offering an intellectual product hence the strong link
with project team.

With 100% respondents fully supporting the need for proactive risk management, 91% in support
of the need to communicate risks as soon as they become evident, and 84% fully agreeing that
the consultant can advise clients on alternative approaches to projects that may offer optimal
solutions, the importance of risk management cannot be overemphasised.

On the use of technology, 97% of the respondents fully support the importance of technology in
project implementation, 3% are not sure. For technology to be of value to a project, it should
enhance human productivity as the human being is the main resource and technology is regarded
as support in a consulting engineering set up. It is important to link the acquisition development
and maintenance to the human resource competences that the organisation has; otherwise the
technology becomes absolute

The implication of managing the constraints is clearly shown by the responses. 99% of the
responses fully supported that detailed budgets and schedules are important for projects. 100%
fully agree that project progress should be linked to the schedule information and such
information should be continuously reviewed. 96% fully agree that the schedule and budget
information should be communicated to the teams regularly.
The research also asked on the project resources management generally. 82% agree that the
human resource is the most important, 14% are not sure and only 4% disagree. The results show
that the fact that the human resource is the most important for consulting firms is undisputed. In
order to strategically manage the human resource, it is important to train project staff and equip
them with project management skills. 92% of the responses fully support training and
development of technical staff and engineers before being assigned the role of project
management, with only 8% not sure. The results prove that strategic management of the human
resource is important.

The results on key success factors tested concluded by showing that 80% fully support managing
the macro environment, with 19% not sure and a mere 1% disagreeing. 89% believe environment
scanning should be undertaken continuously with only 11% not sure. 81% agree sustainability is
important, 18% are not sure on sustainability and only 1% do not agree.

4.4 Key factors implementation

It is important to realise that excellence is nothing if it does not result in profit. A business that
cannot make profit is not a business. At least it can still be called an institution! The
implementation of the key success factors is an important measure of their validity and how they
influence business.

While the survey did not compare the new business and existing clients directly, the results
clearly shows that both clients are important. It is however clear that the existing client and repeat
business is more important to a firm than the new business. Repeat business can only be
guaranteed by successful project implementation.

Judging on the results it is clear that the sole service provider and consultant to consultant
agreements (lead and sub-consultant arrangements) are the most common followed by joint
ventures and working as part of a large consortium. The survey suggests that working as part of
client organisation is the least common consulting strategy. The results do not suggest
importance of the other strategy over the least common but it simply shows what is happening
within the market and consulting trends being followed. They suggests that clients are more than
willing to fully pass risk to a consulting engineer irrespective of the contracting agreements
between the consulting firms. The survey shows that consortiums and joint ventures are as
common as sole providers of services. The results on the ground support the survey results. It is
common for consulting firms to pull resources together during tendering and execution of
projects.

On the motives for partnering, it was clear that consulting firms partner mostly to reduce exposure
and increase resources (skills) base. The need to meet the skills requirements also results in
“tapping” knowledge form competitors as suggested by the results. The survey also notes that
previous working relations, similar culture and partnering with firms local to the project location
are important considerations. While the empowerment laws exist in countries like South Africa
were previously disadvantaged groups are given some preference, the results of the survey so
not show the need to meet empowerment regulations as a key determinant of who to partner
with. The results also gave interesting conclusions that political connections are not as important
as partnering with knowledgeable firms though it is still evident that political connection has
influence to some extent considering the 39% large to great extent score. Cosmetic partnership
are not supported as well though evidence of their existence is there given 22% full support score
obtained.

The survey asked respondents for the structuring forms of their firms and what factors they
consider. The factors were suggested are professional/ discipline specific; business group /
market; client requirements; project evolutionary structure; and combination reviewed periodically.
The survey results suggested that all the factors are important considerations with structuring
based on the professional discipline and business market being most prevalent. The survey
suggests that structuring around client requirement is also important but not as key as the
professional considerations. Project evolutionary structures and a combination that is reviewed
are the least factors affecting consultant structures.

On the aspects of firm specific factors, as already supported by the survey results on the success
factors the project manager, resources and capabilities and the use of appropriate technology
(&IT) are very important. The survey also suggests that it is important to build a relationship with
the client. This factor has also reinforces the idea that existing clients are very important to a
consulting firm. The survey suggests further that age, size and reputation of a consulting firm are
very crucial as well. It is also important to note that political connections are the least in
influencing the likelihood of successful implementation of a project as already suggested under
the consulting strategies.

It is important to note that clients need the consulting contract to add value to their organisations,
apart from the full and successful implementation of project deliverables. It was deduced from the
survey results that internal skills development and nurturing is key to the survival of a consulting
firm. The training of young talent through sponsorships and youth cadetships is fully supported.
Innovation is clearly an important factor that consulting firms should consider. The survey also
brings an interesting area of skills transfer and development of client capacity. It is evident that
this is being applied. Client skills transfer comes in form of training and development of their
human resources. Usually no extra effort is required apart form full involvement and participation
of the client teams under the supervision of consultants. Some clients actually specify skills
transfer as a deliverable of certain projects.

Survival in the consulting business may not depend on the skills and capabilities of the consulting
firm. Like any other business, the consulting engineering firms face fierce competition within their
market. In order to survive and grow the business, strategic management of the firm is as
important as the management of any other business. In my view management of a consulting firm
is very complex because it involve mostly if not entirely managing people. People are the
important resource to any firm but also the most difficult. If well managed the human resource will
also mange all the other resources very well, however if not well managed the complexity comes
from the fact that human resources are the only resource capable of instituting “individual action”.
The future of the consulting firms is thus centred on managing and growing the human resource
base.

The tested future survival strategies were; grow and lead local markets; diversify business;
getting international partners; entering international markets; developing virtual organisation; PPP
& Design build capabilities; work with client in research and innovation ; improve political image
and focusing on sustainability. The results show that all the suggested strategies are important. It
should be noted that the results suggested that the consulting firms should grow their local
markets before diversifying, getting international partners and entering international markets.
Working with the client is also an important growth strategy. It is also clear that sustainability
should be taken into consideration fully. Consulting firms should not just offer solutions, they
should offer sustainable solutions to their clients if they are to grow their business and survive
competition. Sustainable solutions alone in my view can offer competitive advantages.

It is also important to note that the least important strategy of those tested is to improve political
image. The survey however shows that politics has some influences in the consulting business
market to some extent.

5 Conclusions and Recommendations

5.1 Key success factors

Organizations are as alike and unique as human beings. Similarly, group processes can be as
straightforward or as complex as the individuals who make up the organization. The output of a
group is as good as the group makeup. The process of project management is not an event and
the stages are not discrete but rather the processes are a continuum. The later processes or
stages are only as good as the former. The research results show that the project implementation
as a process require coordinated approach from the selection of a project, to selecting or
appointing the project managements and team, to executing and managing the team. Key is to
manage the various links between the project and environment.

Traditional approaches and previous research and work on project implementation key success
factors had always suggested the key role of communication, integration, monitoring, feedback
and continuous improvements. The research work by Pinto (1986), Kerzner (2006) and Holland
C, Light B, N Gibson (1999) all agreed that these are key factors. Taking from these research
works and the strength of the responses, this research suggested that these are more than mere
factors but can be regarded as enablers without which project implementation success is not
guaranteed. The PMBOK (2004) recognises these as not just factors and rather as knowledge
areas among others.

The research suggested and tested nine factors important for a consulting engineering managed
project to master. These factors are viewed in the context of a project under the implementation
and management of a consulting engineering firm. Based on the previous research works, the
PMBOK (2004) knowledge areas and the interviews with key professionals in the consulting
engineering industry the factors had been carefully selected to exclude those factors that apply to
any other organisation. This resulted in the factors of communication, integration, monitoring,
feedback and continuous improvements being viewed as the backbone for a consulting
engineering contract. The other factors are enabled by these more important or critical enablers.

The research factors initially selected and reviewed under the conceptual model were all
validated. All the nine key success factors received full support by at least 78% of respondents
with a fair majority of the factors receiving more than 90% acceptance as key factors. Considering
the carefully selected respondents’ experience with project management, these factors can be
accepted. These factors can thus be considered as the guiding principles for a consulting
engineering contract. There is also close link between these factors and the PMBOK (2004)
knowledge areas further validating these as acceptable factors.

The research suggests that the project evaluation and selection should involve the project
manager and team members. At the selection process, the consulting engineer should link the
project requirements to the company strategic project management processes. The selection
process should consider company resources, work loads expected and the individual team
members. It should be noted that team selection should consider experience and motivation
above the usual qualifications criteria. Motivation drives performance and even the best qualifies
technocrats cannot perform if not well motivated or willing to be part of a project. Project
technology issues are also very important. The consultants need to maintain the right technology
for their projects.

Project resources for consulting engineering firm are primarily and to a great extent human
resources. Managing these resources ensures success. The management of the consulting
engineering resources goes beyond traditional human resources management issues. The
research singled out two important management skills or focus areas for project managers.
1. The management of a multi cultural project implementation team. Such a process should start
at project selection which in a consulting engineering firm is primarily project proposal stage.
2. The management of virtual organisations which has become very important for consulting
engineering firms. Most projects are undertaken by project team members who have not met
physically yet they are supposed to achieve the same goals. This brings the importance of
communication, integration, feedback and monitoring considering the barriers that come with
virtual teams.
 5.2 Factor implementation
The research has resulted in some interesting findings in terms of the implementation of the
success factors and the trends in the consulting engineering firms. These results are form a fair
mix of project environments and well experienced project managers and technical staff from both
the consulting firms, clients, financiers, academics and contractors.

The results suggest that existing clients are more important to a consulting firm. It was also noted
that the market is indifference with regard to a consulting strategies, with all forms from sole
service providers, partnerships, joint ventures, to being part of a client organisation being existing
form to at least some large extent. The client organisation strategy is the least preferred probably
because the client wants to pass risk in any case. In selecting a consulting partner or strategy, it
is important to consider project requirements and skills of the partnering organisation ahead of
any other issue as the key issues are to reduce exposure and learn or tap knowledge from the
partners. Previous working experience, similar cultures and partners local to the project
environments are important consideration. It is interesting to note that meeting empowerment
requirements and partnering with politically connected firms are not important strategies for
consulting engineering firms. Political connections or political standing are the least of the tested
factors in ensuring project success.

Project structuring should take all key consideration into account. The least important for the
factors tested in to structure organisations according to geographical location. This only
reinforces the existence of multi cultural and virtual teams. Structures should reflect the
professional disciplines at the start and should not be left to evolve and reviewed periodically. The
client requirements, client knowledge and the importance of the project to a client should
influence the project structures.

There are some important considerations for project implementation. The suggested important
project implementations considerations are skills transfer to client ; youth cadetships; internal IT;
innovation and implementation of the innovation projects; and multi cultural teams;

The consulting firm should therefore work with the client teams and understand their
developmental needs. The work programs should ensure transfer of skills to the client teams. The
consultants should also work closely with academic institutions and develop some youth training
and cadetship programmes. These are at the centre of consulting engineering firms’ performance
and innovation hence ensuring survival and growth.

In terms of the future strategies, the following are the key areas for consulting engineering firms:
1. Growing and leading local markets;
2. Diversify and entering international markets and/ or partnering with international firms;
3. Developing virtual organisation skills;
4. Developing Private Public Partnerships (PPP) & Design build capabilities (or
partnerships) including working with client in research and innovation projects;
5. Focusing on project sustainability.

It is also interesting to note that developing political connections or improving political image is
the least preferred strategy. Consulting firms should not just offer solutions, they should offer
sustainable solutions to their clients if they are to grow their business and survive competition.
Sustainable solutions alone in my view can offer competitive advantages.

5.3 Why do we still fail

To conclude the research, in practice it is noted that some projects are still not successful. Most
projects have flexibility in duration, budget and even the scope. This leaves the measurement of
success a bit difficult to determine considering that most of the projects have a lot of variations.

The complex relationship between the success factors, the factor enablers and their
implementation needs to be closely managed. Every factor is related or dependent to all the other
factors, however trying to understand this linkage relationship brings a complex dimension. The
implementation failure web model is also suggested as follows:

Figure 4: Project success failure web

In trying to link all the factors and the factor enablers to each other and the project success, a
complex web is developed. This is the web for project failure. It depicts how the real environment
is interlinked and how failure can easily happen in the uncertainty still associated with the project
environment. With such complexity, failure is still likely.

The conclusion from the web is HENCE KEEP IT SIMPLE ALWAYS!

References
Andersen E S., Birchall D, Jessen S A, Money A H., 2006, Exploring project success, Baltic Journal of
Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 127
Barney, J. B. & Hesterly, W. S. (2006) Strategic Management and Competitive Advantage, Concepts and
Cases, Pearson Education Limited, New Jersey.
Beer, M. and Eisenstat, R. A. (2000) The Silent Killers of Strategy Implementation and Learning, Sloan
Management Review, Massachusetts Institute Of Technology.
Brown K. L (2000), Analyzing the role of the project consultant: Cultural change implementation, Project
Management Journal; 31, 3;
Bryson J. M. and Bromiley P., (1993) Critical Factors Affecting the Planning and Implementation of Major
Projects, Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 319-337, John Wiley & Sons
Du Plessis, Y, 2008 “Project human resource management IHR801 lecture notes", University of Pretoria
Elbeik, Sam., Thomas M. (1998), Project skills , Oxford : Butterworth-Heinemann,
Fevzi Okumus, (2001) Towards A Strategy Implementation Framework, International Journal Of
Contemporary Hospitality Management, Mugla University, Mugla, Turkey.
Giga Information Group, Inc (2003), Planning Assumption -Project Management Best Practices: Key
Processes and Common Sense, www.gigaweb.com
Holland C, Light B, N Gibson (1999), A critical success factors model for enterprise resource planning
implementation, Proceedings of the 7th European Conference on Information, Manchester Business
School
http://www.it-c.dk/courses/SPLS/F2008/Stakeholder-Analysis.pdf
http://www.learnwell.org/dilemmas.htm
Jauch, R. J & Glueck, W. F. (1989) Strategic Management and Business Policy, (3rd edn),
Kerzner, H. (2001), Strategic planning for project management using a project management maturity
model, John Wiley & Sons, United States of America.
Kerzner, H. (2006) Project management : a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling, 9th
ed, Hoboken, J. Wiley, N.J.
McLachlin R D. (1999), Factors for consulting engagement success, Management Decision, London
Pinto, J. K. (2000), “Understanding the role of politics in successful project management”, International
Journal of Project Management, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 85-91.
Pinto, J K. (1986) Project implementation : a determination of its critical success factors, moderators and
their relative importance across the project life cycle, Ann Arbor : University Microfilms International
Porter M. E. (1985), Competitive Advantage, Free press, New York.
Project Management Institute (2004), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 3rd ed,
Project Management Institute
Ronald L. (2007), Challenges to Project Management in the Consulting Environment, PM World Today,
Vol. XI, Issue XI, website http://www.pmforum.org/viewpoints/2007/PDFs/Look-11-07.pdf
Salem, M. Al-Ghamdi, (1998) Obstacles to Successful Implementation of Strategic Decisions: The British
Experience, European Business Review, Volume 98.
Saunders, M., Lewis P. and Thornhill A. (2003) Research Methods For Business Students, (3rd edn),
Pearson Education, Singapore.
Schermerhorn, Jr, J. R., Hunt, J. G. & Osborn, R. N. (2005), Organizational Behavior, 9th Edition,
Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Schultz R. L., Slevin D. P. and Pinto J. K. (1987), Strategy and Tactics in a Process Model of Project
Implementation, Interfaces, Vol. 17, No. 3, Implementation pp. 34-46
Shtub, A. Jonathan F Bard, Shlomo Globerson (1994), Project management : engineering, technology and
implementation, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. : Prentice Hall
Slevin, D. P., (1987) Balancing Strategy and Tactics in Project Implementation , Sloan Management,
Review, 29:1 p.33
Smit G. P and Merritt G. M (2002), Proactive Risk Management, Productivity Press, NY
Stevens T. P. (2008) Confronting Project Management Challenges by Adding a Project Management
Consulting Firm to Your Team, PMAlliance, Free Online Articles Directory website
http://www.articlesbase.com/project-management-articles/confronting-project-management-challenges-by-
adding-a-project-management-consulting-firm-to-your-team-676993.html
Steyn H. [et al.]. (2008) Project management: a multi-disciplinary approach 2nd ed, Pretoria, South Africa
Stuckenbruck C. (1981) The Implementation of project management : the professional's handbook , Drexel
Hill, PA : Project Management Institute,
Thompson, A. A , Strickland, A. J. & Gamble E. J. (2005) Crafting and Executing Strategy – The Quest for
Competitive Advantage: Concepts and Cases, (14th edn), McGraw Hill, New York.
Van Der Waldt G. and Knipe A. (1998) Project management : for strategic change and upliftment,
Johannesburg : International Thomson Publishing
Vonsild S (1996), Management of Multicultural Projects, World Congress on Project Management,
International Project Management Association, Paris.
Wideman M. (2001), Managing the Project Environment, A E W Services, Vancouver, B.C., Canada,
http://www.maxwideman.com/papers/projenviron/projenviron.pdf