Research Handbook On Project Performance by Vittal S Anantatmula

Research
Handbook on
Project
Performance
Vittal S. Anantatmula
and Chakradhar Iyyunni
RESEARCH HANDBOOK ON PROJECT PERFORMANCE
Research Handbook on Project
Performance
Edited by
Professor of Project Management, College of Business, Western Carolina
University, Cullowhee, USA
Chakradhar Iyyunni
Fellow, European School of Governance (EUSG), Berlin, Germany
Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

© Vittal S. Anantatmula and Chakradhar Iyyunni 2023
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system
or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording,
or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.
Published by
Edward Elgar Publishing Limited
The Lypiatts
15 Lansdown Road
Cheltenham
Glos GL50 2JA
UK
Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.

William Pratt House
9 Dewey Court
Northampton
Massachusetts 01060
USA
A catalogue record for this book

is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Control Number: 2023930291
This book is available electronically in the

Business subject collection
http://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781802207613
ISBN 978 1 80220 760 6 (cased)

ISBN 978 1 80220 761 3 (eBook)
EEP BoX
Contents
List of contributorsvii
PART I BACKDROP
1 Introduction to Research Handbook on Project Performance2

Vittal S. Anantatmula and Chakradhar Iyyunni
2 Project performance measures and metrics framework 11

Riaz Ahmed
3 An alternative to traditional project management: using lean OKRs as

a model for value creation for software product companies 23
Bart den Haak
4 Modeling relationships of projects and operations: toward a dynamic

framework of performance 39
Pierre A. Daniel
PART II TACTICS, STRATEGIES, AND RISKS
5 Construction and demolition waste recycling and reuse clause in

standard form of contracts: impact on project performance 55
Nurhaizan Mohd Zainudin, Ahmad Amir Hafiz Ahmad, Rahimi A. Rahman,
and Fadzida Ismail
6 Project monitoring and data integrity 67

James Marion and Tracey Richardson
7 Don’t ask what makes projects successful, but under what

circumstances they work: recalibrating project success factors 75
Lavagnon A. Ika and Jeffrey K. Pinto
8 Understanding the causes and effects of low-risk management:

implementation in projects using the DEMATEL algorithm 92
Chia-Kuang Lee, Wen-Nee Wong, Nurhaizan Mohd Zainudin and
Ahmad Huzaimi Abd Jamil
9 Managing risk in Indian construction projects 115

Chakradhar Iyyunni and Sunil Kumar
10 Risk analytics for project success 133

Ruchita Gupta, Karuna Jain, and Charu Chandra Gupta
v
vi Research handbook on project performance
11 Building capability for project success: examining the preparedness of

emerging professionals using a university capstone project case study 158
Michelle Turner and Guinevere Gilbert
12 Role of project management maturity in project performance 176

PART III NEXT PRACTICES
13 Addressing the performance gap with lean-led design 188

Hafsa Chbaly and Maude Brunet
14 Fixed capacity and beyond budgeting: a symbiotic relationship within

a scaled agile environment 197
Yvan Petit and Carl Marnewick
15 Cross-cultural integration in the next practices of project management:

a qualitative study 214
Dhruv Pratap Singh and Mahesh S. Raisinghani
16 Project management lessons learned: essential safety features 231

Kam Jugdev
17 Projects as vehicles of learning 240

Arthur Shelley
18 Impact of Industry 4.0 on agile project management 254

Vijaya Dixit and Upasna A. Agarwal
19 Performance management in public–private partnership projects:

a perspective from the Indian road sector 265
Dhruv Agarwal, Sagar Deshmukh, and Ganesh Devkar
Index286
Contributors
Dhruv Agarwal received his Master’s in construction engineering and management from
the Faculty of Technology at the CEPT University, Ahmedabad, India. He completed his
Bachelor’s in civil engineering at the R.V. College of Engineering, Bangalore, India. He has
about three years’ work experience in infrastructure projects. He has researched in the area of
public–private partnerships and lean construction.
Upasna A. Agarwal is a professor in organization behavior and human resource manage-
ment at the National Institute of Industrial Engineering. With an MBA and Master’s in labor
law from Symbiosis, Pune, she also has a PhD from the Indian Institute of Technology,
Mumbai. Upasna launched her academic career at the S.P. Jain Institute of Management and
Research and has seven years of corporate experience prior to that. In 2017, she was recog-
nized and awarded the Best Teacher Award by NITIE. In 2018, Upasna received the “AIMS
International Outstanding Young Woman Management Researcher Award”, Association
of Indian Management Scholars, and Best Faculty in Human Resources and Organization
Behavior from the World HRD Congress. In 2019, Upasna was awarded the Higher Education
Forum Best Young Teacher Award. Upasna was identified in the top 2% of scientists list
released by Stanford University in 2021 and 2022. She has over 3,187 citations of her publica-
tions with an h-index of twenty-three.
Ahmad Amir Hafiz Ahmad graduated with a BA in project management (Hons) in 2021
from Universiti Malaysia Pahang. During the final year of his study he began research on
construction and project management under the supervision of Dr Nurhaizan Mohd Zainudin
to complete his degree. Currently, he is working as a site inspector in an oil and gas company
based in Kuala Terengganu.
Riaz Ahmed (PhD, PMP) is professor and Director of Postgraduate Programs at Bahria
University, Islamabad, Pakistan. He obtained his PhD from the University Technology
Malaysia, with distinction, receiving the “Best Postgraduate Student Award”. He is a certified
Project Management Professional from the Project Management Institute, USA. He has been
working in higher education institutions for twenty years. He has published a number of
scholarly articles in reputable journals, including Engineering, Construction and Architectural
Management, Engineering Management Journal, Quality and Quantity, International
Journal of Information Technology Management, International Journal of Modern Project
Management, and International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management.
Vittal S. Anantatmula is a professor in the College of Business, Western Carolina University,
a campus at the University of North Carolina. He was the former director of graduate programs
in project management and was a recipient of excellence in teaching and research awards at
Western Carolina University including the University Scholar Award. Dr Anantatmula is also
a global guest professor at Keio University, Yokohama, Japan and Skema Business School,
France. He is a member of the Project Management Institute’s Academic Insight Team.
Previously, he served as a director and board member of the Project Management Institute
vii
viii Research handbook on project performance
Global Accreditation Center (PMI-GAC) from 2016 to 2021. He serves on the editorial board
of several scholarly journals. In the past, Dr Anantatmula taught at the George Washington
University. He has also worked in the petroleum and power industries for several years as an
electrical engineer and project manager, and as a consultant for several international organi-
zations including the World Bank. Dr Anantatmula has authored more than 100 publications
including ten academic research books. He received his PhD from the George Washington
University and he is a certified Project Management Professional.
Maude Brunet is an assistant professor at HEC Montréal. Her research interests include
governance and innovation of megaprojects, public infrastructure projects, and public–private
partnerships. She is a member of the scientific committee of KHEOPS – the International
Research Consortium on the Governance of Major Infrastructure Projects. She has been a cer-
tified Project Management Professional of the Project Management Institute since 2010. She
has published in several project management and administrative science journals, and has been
an associate editor for the International Journal of Project Management. She has fifteen years
of experience in project management, including as a teacher, consultant, administrator at PMI
Montréal, researcher, and speaker.
Hafsa Chbaly is a postdoctoral researcher at HEC Montréal. She obtained her PhD at the
ÉTS GRIDD Laboratory (Construction Department), and the BATir Laboratory at Université
libre de Bruxelles, under a double-degree program. She obtained a Master’s degree in archi-
tectural engineering at Université de Liège and a Bachelor’s degree in building engineering
at Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya. Her research focuses on the definition of value
generation during complex projects through participatory approaches. She has seven years of
experience in project management, including as a construction engineer, teacher, researcher,
and speaker.
Pierre A. Daniel is an associate professor in project studies at Skema Business School. He is
the scientific director of the Specialized Master in Management of Projects and Programmes.
He has focused his research activities on understanding how to manage complexity in meg-
aprojects through the perspective of complex adaptive systems. His domains of expertise are
strategic project management and uncertainty management. He developed a Development
Modeling® Methodology to design and manage complexity in projects and programmes.
Bart den Haak is the industry authority on objectives and key results (OKRs) in Europe. He
is the author of the book Moving the Needle with Lean OKRs. As an international speaker, he
inspires people to start using the OKR methodology that helped realize the transformational
journeys of global giants such as Facebook and Google. He helps executive teams all over the
world like Nike, ING, BinckBank (part of Saxo Bank), NN, Mural, Mambu, Backbase, and
Bol.com to use OKRs to their advantage. He coaches both executive and operational teams in
applying OKRs to their fullest potential. Bart holds a Bachelor’s degree in IT and organization
management and a Master’s degree in software engineering. He has a strong background
(twenty-plus years) in software engineering and agile product development, which makes him
the ideal candidate for advising software as a service (SaaS) companies and their leaders on
how to change the way in which they operate. Having advised and coached hundreds of leaders
and their teams worldwide, Bart decided to use his wealth of knowledge and insight to write
a book that goes beyond the basics of OKRs.
Contributors ix
Sagar Deshmukh is associate director of LEA-India [LASA], which is part of LEA Group
Holdings Inc. Canada and deals in Infrastructure Consultancy services globally. He is an
enthusiastic civil engineering professional working on infrastructure development. He spear-
heads the business operations in the Gujarat state of India. He has over two and half decades
of professional experience in the field of traffic transportation and highways, strategic poli-
cies and planning, institutional development, road asset management, project management,
and innovative designs. He spends quality time at academic and professional institutions as
a member on Board of Studies, expert faculty, and as a jury panellist.
Ganesh Devkar is an associate professor of construction management at CEPT University,
Ahmedabad, India. He holds a doctorate in construction management from the Indian Institute
of Technology Madras (IIT Madras). His doctoral work focuses on competencies in urban
local bodies for implementing water, sanitation, and solid waste management in public–private
partnership projects in India. Ganesh teaches construction quality and safety management,
project appraisal, lean construction, and public–private partnerships. He has done research in
the area of public–private partnerships, lean construction, and megaprojects. He has partici-
pated in four systematic reviews focusing on the delivery of infrastructure like water supply,
sanitation, hygiene, telecom, electricity, and transport. Ganesh received the “Young Research
Scholar Award” from the Project Management Institute, India in 2014.
Vijaya Dixit is an associate professor at the Indian Institute of Management, Ranchi. She
was also associated with the National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai for three
years. She is a Fellow of Indian Institute of Management, Lucknow. She teaches courses on
project management, operations management, operations strategy, procurement, and materials
management. After completion of her Bachelor’s in marine engineering from the Marine
Engineering and Research Institute, Kolkata, she had direct exposure to the shipbuilding
industry as a design engineer. Her contemporary research interests lie in agile project man-
agement, Industry 4.0, project resilience, project risk management, project procurement, and
contracts management. Her research has resulted in seventeen publications in international
journals. In February 2015 she was conferred the “Young Research Scholar Award” by
the Project Management Institute of India. Recently, she was awarded the AIMS-Jaipuria
Outstanding Young Woman Management Researcher Award during the Eighteenth AIMS
International Conference on Management on 5 March 2021.
Guinevere Gilbert transitioned from a construction management career in the UK to higher
education in 1995 when she arrived in Australia. She has lectured at RMIT University
in Melbourne, in the fields of construction management and a range of project manage-
ment courses, including post-disaster project management and project management careers.
Guinevere’s research is in the field of organizational psychology in projects. Her PhD inves-
tigated graduate development programs in construction organizations. Her current research
includes the development of a tool to measure volunteer commitment to a project; all things
career-related for project management students and graduates; and project management matu-
rity in local governments. Guinevere is a founding member of the volunteer group Project
Management for Life, which delivers project management workshops to secondary school
students around Melbourne, Australia. She finds her peace in rural Victoria among gum trees
and kangaroos.
x Research handbook on project performance
Charu Chandra Gupta is a former deputy general manager of Hindustan Aeronautics

Limited, Lucknow, India. He has a PhD in electrical engineering. He has an MSc (Engineering)
and BSc (Engineering) from the Institute of Technology (BHU), India. He brings more than
thirty-four years of high-tech aeronautical industrial experience and eleven years of teaching
experience as professor and head of the department of aeronautical engineering in BBD
National Institute of Technology and Management, Lucknow. He has wide experience across
multiple domains such as R&D, design, manufacturing, maintenance, and quality assurance
with expertise in development of prototypes, lab trials to flight trials, and commercialization of
airborne electrical and avionics systems. He had been a member of the Board of Governors of
the National Safety Council and authorized signatory of the Centre for Military Airworthiness
and Certification (Ministry of Defense). Charu Chandra was recognized as an approved person
for “Release Note Signatory” by the Directorate General of Aeronautical Quality Assurance
(Ministry of Defense). He is the recipient of National Safety Awards for Organization (Green
Tech Safety Award) and also the recipient of the Vikas Shiromani by the Institute of Economic
Studies for his contribution to management.
Ruchita Gupta is a technology, innovation, and project management professor at the
National Institute of Industrial Engineering, currently serving as associate professor in the
area of operations and supply chain. She has a PhD from IIT (Indian Institute of Technology),
Bombay, with an MTech and BE as a gold medalist. She has twenty years of experience in
industry in organizations like Hewlett-Packard and Financial Technologies. Her teaching
and research interests include management of technology and innovation, technology acqui-
sition and transfer, technology forecasting, and project risk management. She has published
more than seventeen research papers in highly reputed A* journals such as Technology
Forecasting and Social Change, Decision Sciences, Telecommunication Policy, and IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management. She is a recipient of the Award of Prominence in
the Field of Technology and Innovation Management 2019 by the International Association
of Management of Technology, USA. Ruchita has been involved in various consultancy and
management development programs across industries.
Lavagnon A. Ika is a project management professor and founding director of the Major
Projects Observatory at the Telfer School of Management of the University of Ottawa
(Canada). He sits on the prestigious academic boards of the US-based Project Management
Institute and Europe-based International Project Management Association (IPMA), two of the
leading project management associations in the world. He is also associate editor for the top
project management journal, International Journal of Project Management. Professor Ika’s
work earned him an Emerald Outstanding Paper in 2017, a Telfer Innovative Researcher
Award in 2017, a Telfer Established Researcher Award in 2021, and an IPMA Global
Research Award in 2017 and 2022.
Fadzida Ismail received her MSc in construction management in 2005 from Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia and Bachelor’s of quantity surveying in 2003 from Universiti Malaya.
She is currently a lecturer in Universiti Malaysia Pahang. Her works revolve around con-
struction project management and academic development. During her free time, she enjoys
translation, editing, and proofreading.
Contributors xi
Chakradhar Iyyunni’s expertise is in risk management and decision-making, mentoring

professionals and facilitating start-ups, group work and team building, project management
and engineering R&D. He is a fellow, European School of Governance, associated with the
East Side Institute, New York City and a former faculty at the Larsen & Toubro Institute of
Project Management. He has a deep interest in human systems behavior in construction project
performance. Dr Iyyunni’s multi-domain experience spans oil, gas, transportation, civil
infrastructure, energy, and utilities, including renewable, nuclear, and conventional power
plants, automotive, aerospace, pharmaceutical, life sciences, biomedical engineering and
devices, and marine/ship structures. He has worked with project directors, cluster heads, senior
project managers, and execution and construction managers with some of the project budgets
exceeding billions of US dollars. Dr Iyyunni has published nine large case studies and seven
research papers and has made a number of presentations and taught courses at reputable insti-
tutions, including in India IIM-Ahmedabad, NITIE, NMIMS-Shirpur, and HAL Academy. He
supported six graduate students and a PhD student and served as examiner for two doctoral
scholars. He actively reviews research paper submissions from international conferences and
journals. Dr Iyyunni received his mechanical engineering degree from IIT Banaras, MS from
Virginia Tech, and PhD from the University of Houston.
Karuna Jain received her PhD degree in industrial engineering from the Indian Institute of
Technology, Kharagpur, India in 1987. She was a postdoctoral fellow in operations manage-
ment from the University of Calgary, AB, Canada in 1992. In 1995, she joined the Shailesh
J. Mehta School of Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, where she was
selected as the head in 2007 and served for two terms (2007–2012). She was a director with
the National Institute of Industrial Engineering, Mumbai, India from 2013 to 2019. She has
published extensively in national and international journals and participated in international
conferences in the area of technology and operations management. Dr Jain was the recipient
of the Distinguished Fellow Award in 2019 by the Project Management Institute, India in rec-
ognition of her inspired leadership and valuable contributions and the Distinguished Service
Achievement Award in 2019 by the IAMOT Board for her exemplary service in the area of
technology management.
Ahmad Huzaimi Abd Jamil is a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Industrial Management,
Universiti Malaysia Pahang. He obtained his PhD in project management from Universiti
Teknologi Malaysia, 2020 and MBA in technology management at Universiti Utara Malaysia,
2013. His main research interests include investigating the various dimensions of building
information modeling (BIM) legal and contractual challenges encountered by the various
collaborators and contributors to the project procurement process. This also provides an
immediate insight into contractual issues, which could influence the effectiveness of BIM
implementation, usage, and collaboration within the project team.
Kam Jugdev (PhD, PMP) joined Athabasca University in 2003 following a career as a project
manager. She is currently working as a professor in project management and strategy at
Athabasca University. Kam enjoys being able to relate theory to practice with students and
through her collaborative research initiatives. Her research program spans project manage-
ment as a source of competitive advantage using the resource-based view of the firm, project
management lessons learned, project management tools and techniques, and project success/
failure.
xii Research handbook on project performance
Sunil Kumar is an experienced project management professional in the power industry. He

has more than eighteen years of experience in leading large construction projects at macro-
and microlevel for green- and brownfield projects in India and Bhutan. Sunil is comfortable
linking theory with practices. He is knowledgeable in construction strategy, productivity,
resource-optimization, delay analysis, and lean construction. Sunil has published research
papers and case studies and developed innovative games as part of experiential learning. He
has taught at the Larsen & Toubro (L&T) Institute of Project Management since 2009. He
delivers training programs and provides consulting services for L&T, the World Bank, Suzuki
Motors, Aditya Birla, Hindustan Petroleum, and Tata Group. He holds a Bachelor’s of tech-
nology degree in mechanical engineering from GBPUAT, Pantnagar, and a graduate degree
in business management from XIMB Bhubaneshwar. Sunil is a member of the Institution
of Engineers (India) and the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (UK), and is a doctoral
student at XLRI School of Management, Jamshedpur, India.
Chia-Kuang Lee is a senior lecturer and head of research in project management, with more
than twelve years of experience in R&D works, specifically in construction management and
project management. He has worked as the head of program for the Bachelor’s of project
management with honors and Master’s in project management at Universiti Malaysia Pahang,
and has been recognized with several teaching and research awards during his career, such as
the Most Promising Academician Award 2018.
James Marion is an associate professor with Embry–Riddle Aeronautical University
Worldwide. He is currently the chair of the department of decision sciences. His experience
includes leading large organizations in multiple product launches in the US, Europe, and Asia,
as well as significant experience with Japanese companies including NEC and Panasonic.
Dr Marion has a PhD in organization and management with a specialization in information
technology management (Capella University). He holds an MS in engineering (University
of Wisconsin-Platteville) and an MSc and MBA in strategic planning, as well as a postgrad-
uate certificate in business research methods (Edinburgh Business School of Heriot-Watt
University).
Carl Marnewick is a professor at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa. The focus of
his research is the overarching topic and special interest in the strategic alignment of IT pro-
jects with the vision of the organization. A natural outflow of this research is the realization of
benefits to the organization through the implementation of IT/IS systems. His research to date
has identified impediments in the realization of benefits, which is part of a complex system.
He is currently the head of the information technology project management knowledge and
wisdom research cluster. This research cluster focuses on research in IT project management
and includes governance, auditing, assurance, complexity, IT project success, benefits man-
agement, sustainability, and agile project management.
Yvan Petit has been a professor at the Business School of the University of Quebec at
Montréal (ESG UQAM) since 2010. After being the program director for the postgraduate
programs in project management, he was the associate dean for international relations at ESG
UQAM between 2018 and 2021. He has taught in Canada, France, Algeria, Vietnam, and
Sweden and in 2017 he received the Teaching Innovation Award at UQAM. His research
interests are in portfolio management, agile approaches, and uncertainty management. He has
over twenty-five years of experience in project management, primarily in software develop-
Contributors xiii
ment and R&D in the telecommunications industry. He has served as a member of the Project
Management Institute Standards MAG (Member Advisory Group) and on the Canadian
section for ISO standards on project management.
Jeffrey K. Pinto is the Andrew Morrow and Elizabeth Lee Black Chair in Management
Technology at the Black School of Business, Penn State–Erie, the Behrend College, Erie,
PA, USA. He is the author or editor of more than twenty-five books on project management.
Professor Pinto’s research has been published in Management Science, Research Policy,
Journal of Management, Expert Systems with Applications, Sloan Management Review,
Journal of Management Studies, Journal of Product Innovation Management, and IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management. One of the most frequently cited scholars in the
field of project management, he has received career research awards from both the Project
Management Institute and the International Project Management Association.
Rahimi A. Rahman is a senior lecturer at Universiti Malaysia Pahang in the Faculty of Civil
Engineering Technology. His research group explores a wide range of topics to realize sus-
tainable development in the construction industry, including decision-making (e.g., decision
support tools, assessments), green construction (e.g., waste management, green building), and
construction technology (e.g., building information modeling (BIM), technology adoption).
To achieve that goal, his team explores new and alternative approaches for enabling a more
rigorous process in decision-making, identifying the “right” size and composition of project
teams, and creating action plans for recruiting or developing individuals for the workforce.
The team is currently exploring topics related to decision support tools for design and build
projects, project managers’ decision-making processes toward environmental regulations,
assessments for designing buildings, and tools for evaluating BIM capabilities.
Mahesh S. Raisinghani is a lead professor of management information systems in the
MBA (executive track) at Texas Woman’s University’s (TWU’s) College of Business,
a senior fellow of the Higher Education Academy in the UK, and the director of strategic
partnerships for the Association of Information Systems’ SIG-LEAD. Dr Raisinghani was
awarded the Distinguished Research Award by the Association of Business Information
Systems in 2022, ISACA’s Excellence in Education award in 2021, TWU’s 2017 Innovation
in Academia Award, the 2015 Distinction in Distance Education Award, the 2008 Excellence
in Research & Scholarship Award, and the 2007 G. Ann Uhlir Endowed Fellowship in
Higher Education Administration. He was also awarded the 2017 National Engaged Leader
Award by the National Society of Leadership and Success and the 2017 Volunteer Award at
the Model United Nations Conference for his service to youth and government by the Model
United Nations Committee. He has published over a hundred manuscripts in peer-reviewed
journals, conferences, and book series; edited eight books; and consulted for a variety of
public and private organizations on IT management and applications. Dr Raisinghani serves
as the editor-in-chief of the International Journal of Web-Based Learning and Teaching
Technologies; member of the Board of Directors of the Global IT Management Association;
advisor for the National Society of Leadership and Success chapter at TWU; and an advisory
board member of Enactus and X-Culture.org. He is included in the millennium edition of
Who’s Who in the World, Who’s Who among Professionals, Who’s Who among America’s
Teachers, and Who’s Who in Information Technology.
xiv Research handbook on project performance
Tracey Richardson is an associate professor of project management at Embry–Riddle

Aeronautical University Worldwide. She has a doctorate of organizational leadership
from Argosy University and is a certified Project Management Professional and a Project
Management Institute Risk Management Professional. Tracey is a retired United States Air
Force Aircraft Maintenance Officer.
Arthur Shelley is a collaborative community builder, experienced international project
manager, multi-awarded postgraduate learning facilitator, and creative education designer
with over thirty years of professional experience across the international corporate, govern-
ment, and tertiary education sectors. He is the author of four books, has worked in twelve
countries, is a mentor in several international communities, and has supervised PhD candidates
in five countries. His project-based learning programs have been facilitated in formal univer-
sity programs (MBA, MPM) and in executive education in Australia, Thailand, Singapore,
Russia, and Vietnam. Arthur is on the editorial board of the Journal of Applied Learning and
Teaching, supports several other journals as a peer reviewer, and is the assessor on several
international awards including the Most Innovative Knowledge Enterprise and Knowledge
Ready Organisation. He has collaborated with organizations as diverse as NASA, Cirque
du Soleil, local and national governments, universities, start-ups, SMEs, and multinational
corporations.
Dhruv Pratap Singh is a research analyst and the coaching program coordinator at X-Culture,
USA. He graduated with a Master’s specializing in international project development from
the NEOMA Business School, France. Under his leadership, his team won the “Best Team
Award” among 1,047 global virtual teams participating in the international business con-
sulting project. At the age of twenty, he cleared the examination to become PMI® Certified
Associate in Project Management (CAPM)® and a month later earned the PRINCE2®
Practitioner in Project Management certification by AXELOS®. Additionally, he has mem-
bership in the APM (Association for Project Management) and was a sponsored participant
for the IPMA–YPMY 2020 (International Project Management Association – Young Project
Manager of the Year 2020). Dhruv is the founder president of the American Society of Civil
Engineers – UPES Chapter; he regularly mentors students and shares his experiences/advice
on fundraising, event management, public speaking, leadership, and project management.
Michelle Turner is an associate professor at RMIT University in Australia. Michelle teaches
in the undergraduate and postgraduate project management programs and supervises research
students. Alongside her teaching, Michelle conducts research on student employability,
resilience, and well-being. Michelle’s work is published in project management, construction
management, and education journals. In 2017, she developed a measure of student resilience
that has been used internationally to develop and promote well-being across a range of higher
education disciplines. Michelle’s research takes a systems perspective that recognizes the
interaction between the university and the student in shaping employability, resilience, and
well-being. Prior to entering academia, Michelle worked as a project manager in industry for
more than fifteen years and led diverse projects in multiple industries.
Wen-Nee Wong was a final-year student of the Faculty of Industrial Management at Universiti
Malaysia Pahang. She graduated in 2020 with a Bachelor’s degree in project management
(Hons) and obtained the “Best Paper Award” for her final-year thesis writing. Wen-Nee
also earned her professional qualification as a Certified Associate in Project Management
Contributors xv
(CAPM)® from the Project Management Institute under the supervision of Dr Chia Kuang
Lee in 2021.
Nurhaizan Mohd Zainudin is a senior lecturer and the head of program for project manage-
ment at the Faculty of Industrial Management, Universiti Malaysia Pahang. She practiced as
a quantity surveyor and worked in the oil and gas industry prior to joining the university as
a faculty member. She received her Master’s of project management from the Queensland
University of Technology, Australia and her doctorate degree from the Iowa State University,
USA. She has led and been involved in several research projects and closely participated and
engaged in the development and accreditation of the project management degree program. Her
research areas include workers’ safety, risk management, project management, and construc-
tion management. Her research team is currently working on topics related to decision-making
processes by exploring tools such as Space Syntax in building design assessment.
PART I
BACKDROP
1. Introduction to Research Handbook on Project
Performance
Vittal S. Anantatmula and Chakradhar Iyyunni
Without exception, an organization typically strives to create value for its shareholders by
achieving its strategic objectives, thereby creating a healthy profit. More often than not,
projects are the instruments by which an organization pursues accomplishment of its strategic
objectives. While achieving strategic objectives or higher profit, projects are driven by project
management principles of effective and efficient use of resources. This is where project per-
formance assumes great importance.
Project performance also aims to improve the success of a project and project management.
Project success is seen from the perspectives of the project sponsor, the client, and the end user,
whereas project management success is important for the project manager and the project team
who focus on completing the project faster, better, and cheaper while accomplishing all the
project objectives and goals. The successful efforts of the project team lead to project success
in terms of project deliverables meeting clients’ expectations such as cost, time, quality, and
value. Both project success and project management success depend on a variety of factors.
In spite of recent advances in the project management profession – largely due to efforts
led by professional associations such as the Association for Advancement of Cost Engineering
International (AACEI), Project Management Institute (PMI), and International Project
Management Association (IPMA) – research efforts suggest that many projects fail. One of the
main reasons for this failure is the absence of a desired level of project performance.
Effective project performance also underlines the important role of a project manager.
Specifically, the project manager’s leadership role is of great importance in motivating people
and creating an effective working environment for the project team to meet emerging chal-
lenges in today’s global economy. Further, sustainability has become undeniably important;
along with ensuring profits, projects need to consider thought-leadership practices for both
people management and minimizing the impact on our planet’s environment.
This research handbook presents a number of chapters written by accomplished researchers
and the topics vary widely. We organized them into three parts. The first part, “Backdrop,”
includes this chapter as an introduction to the book and chapters that deal with project per-
formance concepts and methods. The second part, “Tactics, Strategies, and Risks,” presents
a series of chapters on the tactics, strategies, and risks associated with project performance.
Finally, the third part, “Next Practices,” includes chapters that deal with next practices and
new trends in project management that can have a major impact on project performance.
CHAPTER 2
Ahmed outlines the current understanding of project performance measures and metrics from
a project management perspective. Project performance success criteria and its different
2
Introduction 3
dimensions have been defined for different phases and facets of projects. The author highlights
the nonavailability of a performance standardized framework and proposes a comprehensive
framework that can be adopted by various types of projects, organizations, and industries to
enhance project performance success. Additionally, the chapter discusses different maturity
levels for project performance and suggests a hierarchy or classification for prioritizing perfor-
mance measures and metrics to increase the likelihood of project management success.
CHAPTER 3
Den Haak integrates lean thinking with ambitious goal setting of an objectives and key results
(OKR) framework for improving project performance. This approach achieves a hyper-focus
on one goal, fosters necessary behavioral changes, encourages experimentation, and builds
devotion to continuous, long-term learning while eliminating inefficiencies; it is outcome (not
output) driven. The author suggests including a value creation model (VCM) for company
culture in the lean thinking plus OKR framework. Such an approach brings in the agility
and flexibility required of the leadership to maintain the OKR cycle and keep it relevant and
focused. This VCM is a necessity for digital product companies to stay relevant for their cus-
tomers by aligning activities to measurable outcomes.
CHAPTER 4
Daniel presents a basic tension in the project performance literature that features two contrast-
ing perspectives: output-orientation, which is focused on project efficiency such as meeting
triple constraints, and outcome-orientation, with its focus on project success of realizing
short- and long-term social benefits of project deliverables (outputs). The author highlights
the need to go beyond the classical view of the project management life cycle (and output
delivery) toward operationalizing outputs (outcomes) and obtaining benefits, which is the core
intent and nature of projects; this view is indispensable for emerging topics of megaprojects
and sustainable project management. The tenuous and dynamic interaction between project
outputs and project outcomes is poorly understood and this resulting dynamic is crucial to
understand project performance.
The author introduces a multi-level framework of project performance based on projects,
operations, and outputs feeding into outcomes. Project benefits and outcomes are realized as
a value chain of operations. Each operation is a specific function. The value chain, therefore,
highlights a new functional system or one whose functional performance is now improved,
through the implementation of the project or program. The author exquisitely characterizes
project delivery as a (value) chain of sociotechnical systems contributing to the strategic
performance of the project, outcomes, and new resources necessary for efficient operations.
The performance of these sociotechnical systems is steered by key performance indicators that
measure the targeted outcomes (not outputs) and additionally by specifications that clarify the
necessary qualities/features of the new resources required to achieve the outcomes.
4 Research handbook on project performance
CHAPTER 5
Zainudin et al. raise a very topical challenge to the construction industry of construction and
demolition waste (CDW). Globally, many environmental problems have been associated with
CDW. Therefore, CDW recycling is seen as necessary, given the rapidly growing amount of
CDW over the years. The inclusion of a clause on CDW recycling in national Standard Form
Contracts can encourage contractors to recycle CDW, hence improving construction waste
management. The authors evaluate the contractor’s perception of the inclusion of CDW recy-
cling as a mandatory clause in Standard Form Contracts.
The results of a survey questionnaire responded to by contractors show that the inclusion of
the CDW recycling clause in Standard Form Contracts would not benefit contractors and con-
sequently hurt their project performance. Despite the fact that most contractors are aware of
the environmental problems caused by CDW, the CDW recycling clause is seen as a constraint
rather than an enabler but the inclusion of such clauses is necessary. It is indicated that the
government could take a more strategic approach to CDW recycling (and probably research
into construction methods for reducing the production of CDW itself).
CHAPTER 6
Richardson and Marion discuss the lack of predictability in project monitoring efforts.
Organizations use the results of the project monitoring systems to provide information and
help in making decisions such as allocating resources, budgets, and strategic selection of
future projects. Despite being studied for decades, project monitoring is still more of an art
than a science and, if left unchecked, the results can be a culmination of guesswork.
This chapter illustrates the challenges in documenting project progress when progress is not
visible. Status reporting is often left to those working on the project, but without the awareness
of the significance of quality inputs, the impatience and incompetence of those giving inputs
scupper the quality of monitoring. These data inputs may not be accurate. As they are founda-
tions of the project monitoring system, they often would lead to erroneous project monitoring
systems. The authors suggest that the data integrity problem could be adequately addressed by
adding the role of “monitoring” to the project’s change control board.
CHAPTER 7
Ika and Pinto raise a hugely pertinent and paradigm-shifting challenge to understanding
project success. While characterization of projects, its enablers and risks, has preoccupied the
literature on success factors, “context is king” in projects. This contextual specificity arises
from a number of factors such as project design, owners’ and contractors’ organizational
design and risk tolerance, partnerships, PESTLE (Political, Economic, Social, Technological,
Legal, and Environmental) conditions, site conditions, and contracts. With an extensive
literature review, the authors underline the importance of understanding the conditions for
success against a backdrop of complexity and uncertainty. Success conditions, “circumstances
or pre-requisites that must exist or emerge for project success to occur,” are necessary ele-
ments to be in place before or during a project. For this purpose, they consider structural,
Introduction 5
institutional, and managerial categories along with meta-conditions such as multi-stakeholder

commitment, collaboration, alignment, and adaptation.
CHAPTER 8
Lee et al. use the decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory (DEMATEL) for construc-
tion projects, which are generally exposed to a wide range of risks the majority of which have
a direct impact on the organizations’ ability to accomplish project objectives. However, many
organizations overlook the importance of incorporating risk management into their projects.
The authors focus on the management of the interdependence of the factors influencing the
implementation of risk management in projects such as resistance to change, lack of mana-
gerial support and communication, low-risk attitude, lack of resources, lack of knowledge in
implementing risk management, and poor risk culture in organizations.
To achieve project success and improve project performance, it is critical to identify the
primary risk factors that must be carefully controlled to reduce the impact and alleviate
the causes. To identify the essential causes and consequences, DEMATEL is employed to
prioritize the elements and examine their interaction. The correlations between the causes
and effects of low-risk management adoption are shown to be significant. The findings also
revealed that resistance to change is the most important factor for a lack of risk management
adoption. Consequently, management should pay more attention to this issue to improve risk
management and project performance in construction projects.
CHAPTER 9
Iyyunni and Kumar explore the vicissitudes of the Indian context and contingent peculiarities
of risk behavior in Indian projects using four case experiments. The authors illustrate stake-
holder behavior at multiple levels – individual, interpersonal, team, organization, and societal
levels – and identify methods to alleviate these risks. The authors derive a model for being
“hopeful” that project managers have the appropriate risk attitude to initiate and stay in the
virtuous cycle of delivering project success.
CHAPTER 10
Gupta, Jain, and Gupta believe that the current volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous
(VUCA) scenario in the global economy presents challenges to complete projects at a faster
rate, on time or sooner, on budget or less, delivering value to the client. Addressing the VUCA
requires innovation, collaboration, and change in mindset and these approaches add more risks
to projects and project performance. A recent study by the PMI in 2018 indicated that 29%
of project failure happens because of the absence of risk identification and its management.
This study underlines the importance of effective risk management in improving project
performance.
This chapter presents a structured and predictive analytics approach of managing various
risk management aspects such as risk identification, evaluation, assessment, and mitigation.
The authors presented a few data-driven models for making quality decisions.
CHAPTER 11
Turner and Gilbert, with a concern that the failure rate of projects continues to be high, cite
a PMI study (2021), which identifies a gap between the demand for project management
skills and the availability of talent. Empowering a new generation of talent with the neces-
sary project management skills and knowledge is critical in addressing the talent gap (and
decreasing the rate of project failure). The authors describe a study undertaken to explore how
a capstone project impacted on the perceived employability of final-year project management
students. The survey measured collaboration, informed decision-making, commencement
readiness, lifelong learning, professional practice and standards, and integration of theory and
practice. There were seven key themes that emerged from the interviews: collaboration versus
task allocation, working together – the impact of familiarity, group conflict, skills gap iden-
tification, confidence, application of course knowledge and skills, and the role of the mentor.
This is enabled by the confidence and self-belief to apply the knowledge and skills learned at
the university.
CHAPTER 12
Anantatmula, in a research effort using a survey questionnaire and case studies, explored
relations among sets of three factors representing project performance, project success, and
project management maturity of an organization. The chapter starts with the premise that in
spite of great research efforts on projects by academic research, and professional associations,
studies show that the number of successful projects has not changed significantly. The purpose
of this chapter is to present relations among project success and project performance factors,
and organizational project management maturity. The research results suggest that commu-
nication and top management support are important for improving project performance and
project success. Further, the presence of project management maturity – consisting of portfolio
management and formalized project management processes – improves project success and
project performance.
CHAPTER 13
Chbaly and Brunet offer insight into managing performance in the face of complexity in pro-
jects via lean management. The “design performance gap” – a situation in which design fails to
meet user needs – has been widely discussed in recent years. The problem stems from the fact
that designers have insufficient information about user needs. To deal with this problem, many
researchers highlighted the importance of involving users during the early stages of the project
life cycle to identify and manage user requirements accurately, thereby generating value.
Introduction 7
This chapter describes the case study of a hospital megaproject that implemented
a participative and inclusive approach, namely lean-led design. The lean-led design approach
implemented by the clinical management of this hospital enables commitment as well as
communication between architects and users like doctors and patients. Further, unlike with
conventional practices, it begins with an in-depth questioning of current ways of doing things
before moving on to architectural concerns, placing the patients at the center of the reflection.
The aim is to create spatial configurations that facilitate the operations of healthcare services,
making them safer and more efficient. The results and discussion of this chapter have brought
forward important considerations regarding the role of early involvement of client stakehold-
ers by illustrating how a lean-led approach contributed to project definition. The objective
of this implementation was to ensure efficiency in the delivery of care services by aligning
user needs with design solutions during the early stages. The chapter offers insights into the
lean-led design approach for the project definition complexity of hospitals.
CHAPTER 14
Petit and Marnewick discuss a scaled agile framework wherein the influence of fixed capacity
and its contingent impact on budgeting is discussed against the backdrop of software develop-
ment for a financial institution. Scaling agilely within an organization has a direct influence
on the way scheduling is done; this in turn has a direct influence on the budgeting process and
the allocation of resources.
This chapter investigates the notion of fixed capacity and its influence on the budgeting
process. With fixed capacity, the aim is to visualize the workflow within a project and to
prioritize the work-in-progress (WIP) in accordance with the capacity of the team. In the
first phase, interviews were scheduled within a case that has adopted SAFe as a scaled agile
framework. Among the realized benefits were: being closer to the business needs, delivering
products in weeks rather than years, building more usable and simple software, and adopting
new technologies faster. Analysis of the study indicates that the introduction of fixed capacity
is not an easy process, but the benefits outweigh the difficulties. Fixed capacity introduces
beyond budgeting with a focus on a fixed-capacity budget. As with fixed capacity, the benefits
of beyond budgeting outweigh the agony associated with moving from a demand-based budget
to a fixed-capacity budget.
CHAPTER 15
Singh and Raisinghani provide a comprehensive qualitative discussion on the role of

cross-cultural integration as a next practice of project management. The chapter is at the
intersection of research and practice with its focus on global projects and teams representing
diverse cultures. It presents a structured, logical, and systematic organization of ideas on
various facets of national and organization culture in project management, and their impact on
project performance.
The main objective of this study is to identify how best practices and cultural variables
moderate or directly relate to the project outcomes. These cultural variables, such as level
of informality, perceived deadlines, perceived productivity, perceived work ethics, cultural
prejudice, language and accent barriers, and communication challenges, are iterated and aug-
mented throughout this research effort using a qualitative research method to propose a theory
that will help answer arguments related to the importance, relevance, and impact of culture on
project success. This study considers the impact of cultural integration with the project man-
agement knowledge areas, project phases and processes, project teams, resources, scope, cost,
time, quality assurance, conflicts, changes, and risk; all of them impact project performance.
CHAPTER 16
Jugdev, using the metaphor of a rearview mirror, likens the mirror to the lessons learned
processes in project management. PMBOK® seems to focus on data and information, which
is at the base of Rowley’s wisdom pyramid. PMBOK® also seems to ignore the relational
aspects among project personnel and instead focuses on the structural elements of creating the
knowledge edifice for the project.
While journal abstracts viewed learning as a higher-order dynamical and relational activity,
Jugdev notes the limitation of assessing only the abstracts instead of the full article, thereby
losing theoretical components as well as relationships to success, benefits realization, or trust.
The author concludes that the formal and informal learning processes (of sharing data, infor-
mation, and understanding via knowledge and wisdom) conducted beyond and during project
life cycles and within or beyond organizations by sharing knowledge and practices can only be
supported by a diligent approach.
CHAPTER 17
Shelley has an expansive way of describing how the lens of project management could pos-
itively impact every walk of life, no matter the scale. Project performance then becomes an
effective approach to enhancing competence and learning experiences. The consistent fluidity
of the world means all professionals benefit from understanding change and adaptable to
a change. Aspects that help achieve this are: understanding the role projects have in facilitating
a successful change, being familiar with project management approaches, and being a member
of project teams. More importantly, every professional benefits from the constant learning and
new knowledge stimulated through project experience to remain relevant. Project performance
is normally focused on delivery of scope with the desired quality and within the allocated time
and budget. While it is important to measure the tangible project outcomes, organizational per-
formance improves when projects are managed as strategic vehicles of capability development
and acknowledge the longer-term, intangible outcomes they generate.
This chapter proposes the optimal way to achieve sustained high performance – for individ-
uals, teams, and organizations – by extending our perception of projects to include the intangi-
bles they deliver. These include learning, relationships, trust, confidence, social connections,
critical thinking, and understanding of complexity. It is time for the project management
profession to acknowledge the value these projects bring to further team and organizational
performance and to plan them as strategic outcomes of every project.
Introduction 9
CHAPTER 18
Dixit and Agarwal suggest the need for understanding Industry 4.0 technologies and their
potential impact on project management. In considering their impact on agile project man-
agement, they are intertwining two of the unwieldy complex aspects of projects – technology
and human systems. Industry 4.0 includes the Internet of Things, big data, autonomous robots,
simulation, additive manufacturing, augmented reality, virtual reality, cloud computing, and
so on, and some of these have found their way into traditional, brick-and-mortar project-based
industry; that is, construction and infrastructure. For example, augmented/virtual reality is
crucial in creating the behavioral shifts in awareness and compliance with safety. The authors
indicate the impact to Project Management 4.0 as characterized by digitization, virtualization,
transnationalization, professionalization, and agile methodologies.
The micro- and meso-level impact on human resource management is discussed in rela-
tion to the individual’s Industry 4.0 specific technical competencies and further necessitates
participative leadership and fostering psychological safety and trust in teams in addition to
those stemming from agile project management practices. At the macro level, technology
poses existential challenges to the role and behavior of leaders and organizations in a highly
evolving technological landscape and concomitant emergent human behavior. Application
of these technologies is likely to overcome the challenges of trade-off issues associated with
cost, quality, schedule, and scope in the context of project management, thereby leading to
enhanced project performance.
CHAPTER 19
Agarwal and Devkar argue that although public–private partnership (PPPs) have been adopted
the world over for delivery of infrastructure projects, the failure of PPP projects in the recent
past has brought the life cycle of these projects under increasing scrutiny. Often, the founding
principles of PPP are considered to account for poor project performance. Contrary to this
argument, this chapter presents arguments that the deviation from the founding principles is
the real reason for the poor project performance. The arguments are based on analysis of the
data collected from multiple case studies of road sector PPPs in India. Further, the literature
review of this chapter presents best practice guidelines for PPP projects and connects these
guidelines with the guiding principles of PPP projects. The analysis compares and contrasts
the guiding principles and actual on-the-ground practice in the entire life cycle of PPP projects.
This effort led to elaboration on gaps between theory and practice and reasons behind these
gaps for improving the state of the art of PPP projects.
FINAL WORDS
Organizations with formal project management processes are likely to use project performance
planning tools and complete projects within cost and time. In other words, formal and proven
project management processes and practices are likely to improve project performance.
Further, the presence of portfolio management may likely promote formal project manage-
ment practices and policies. Collaborative work culture, knowledge sharing, and efficient
and transparent communication are important tenets of an effective team and, needless to say,
project teams play a crucial role in enhancing project performance.
Formal cost management practices, procurement processes, and protecting leakages via
contractual and claims enforcement enhance project performance and success. Investing in
individuals within project teams via training, mentoring, and coaching and organizing, and
aligning people to project success and organizational values, will support project performance
goals. Encouraging an attitude of excellence toward quality, risk, and HSE (health, safety,
and the environment), and respect for workmen/project personnel, goes a long way toward
building a “project culture” conducive to project performance.
2. Project performance measures and metrics
framework
Riaz Ahmed
1. INTRODUCTION
A project is considered as a temporary effort in organizations that is structured to perform a set

of activities for creating a unique result with a predetermined beginning and end defined by
time-boundedness and limited resources. According to PMI (2017), “a project is a temporary
endeavor undertaken to create a unique product or service”. Project performance denotes the
extent to which project outputs and outcomes satisfy budget goals, schedule goals, operational
and technical specifications, and, ultimately, the business needs of the client (Ali et al., 2018,
p. 457). The traditional approach associated with the performance of a project includes the
evaluation of scope, quality, and cost. Indeed, the process of measuring the action leads to
quantifying project performance, which is considered as efficiency and effectiveness of action
in the context of projects (Głodziński, 2019). To measure such actions, various metrics and
measures of performance are required in projects that are different from each other.
The performance measure is “a set of metrics that aids in assessing the efficiency and/
or efficacy of an action”, according to Neely et al. (1995). The performance measures allow
project managers and other project stakeholders to assess project performance at the phase
level, allowing proactive measures to be implemented based on current project reviews (Yun
et al., 2016). According to Kaplan (1990), “no measures, no improvement”. For such mani-
festation, any given performance target that project or process participants wish to establish
and track, one or more performance metrics can be identified. Identifying a vital variable that
measures, reflects, or significantly influences a specific performance objective is a guiding
principle in selecting a performance metric (O’Sullivan et al., 2004). More comparisons of
metric results based on various project characteristics can be possible, which can be extremely
valuable in evaluating and analyzing phase-level performance indicators (Yun et al., 2016).
Project performance is considered as a trade-off between several measurements and dimen-
sions specifically emphasizing what is done, such as scope and quality versus resources,
including the time and cost to complete the project activities (Kabirifar & Mojtahedi, 2019;
Zheng et al., 2019). The concept of project performance has been discussed in the literature
as the extent or degree to which a project fulfills its intended purpose (Szatmari et al., 2021).
Although project performance has been studied both academically and practically in the field
of research, the key question is to decide “what will be measured” and more importantly to
select a mechanism of performance indicators (Zheng et al., 2019). Indeed, the overall concep-
tualization of project performance includes schedule performance, quality performance, inno-
vation performance, and benefit performance (Chen & Lin, 2018). On the other hand, project
management practitioners emphasized that project performance is all about the success of
projects, which must be in line with the organizational long-term goals. In other words, project
management literature often defined project performance with the fundamental triple con-
11
straints of time, cost, and quality (Barbosa et al., 2021; Younus & Younis, 2021). Nonetheless,
different stakeholders have different stakes in the project, therefore various components and
dimensions are also used to measure the project performance success, such as client satisfac-
tion in addition to time, cost, and scope parameters (Zhu et al., 2021).
2. PROJECT PERFORMANCE METRICS, MEASURES, AND

DIMENSIONS
2.1 Metrics of Project Performance
A metric is a “method of calculating” a value (price, weight height, etc.), which is also
a numerical measure used to track and evaluate the progress of an activity. Indeed, metrics
are quantitative assessment measures that are routinely used to evaluate, compare, and track
the performance of projects or production. A project metric represents how much a system,
component, or process contains a specific attribute. Project metrics are essential indicators
that can be used to track the progress of a project. Also, metrics support the implementation
of corrective actions when the numbers do not match the expectations in projects. In addition
to tracking the progress of a project, an effective project manager must keep track of the
team’s progress and guide them toward the project’s objectives. In other words, a metric is
a measurement that is used to gauge the performance of a project. To put it another way, it is
a term that assesses how well something was done. For instance, project management metrics
are used as a tool to assess the project’s success (or performance). Indeed, project management
metrics enable project managers to analyze a project’s status, anticipate hazards, and assess the
team’s productivity and quality of work, allowing them to determine the success of a project.
In a project context, a performance metric can be in a tabular or figure format to provide an
easily interpreted sign of performance.
Rankin et al. (2008) defined cost, time, quality, safety, scope, innovation, and sustainability
as performance indicators that could be applied to projects, in addition to capacity-based
metrics, such as cost per unit and time per unit. Ling et al. (2009) identified essential project
management strategies for different project measures that were found to have a significant
impact on project performance, in terms of budget, schedule, quality, owner satisfaction,
profitability, and public satisfaction. Similarly, Swarup et al. (2011) identified performance
criteria influencing project goals in terms of schedule, cost, quality, and post-occupancy
evaluation. Such performance metrics can be used by the practitioners to assess the outcomes
of projects (Yun et al., 2016). Nevertheless, the improvement measures were developed using
activity-based costing theory and controllability engineering theory, as well as monitoring
metrics such as efficient project time, value-added, subcontracting percentage, number of
invoices per day, invoice amount, disposal costs, tender reply percentage, and the number of
changes in subcontract (Wegelius-Lehtonen, 2001).
2.2 Measures of Project Performance
A measure is a quantifiable indication of performance gathered when actions are being carried
out. In contrast, a metric is a measurement or calculation that is linked to performance. Metrics
are repeated measures that are used as benchmarks for comparing variation to a set of project
Project performance measures and metrics framework 13
goals that can be gathered by a variety of methods, such as tracking the number of days late
or the number of flaws discovered. A metric is also called an indicator, or a key performance
indicator (KPI) when it is utilized in a monitoring system to analyze a project through perfor-
mance information. In projects, performance information is a piece of additional information
needed to make sense of performance measures and indicators – such as the time of day, the
outside temperature, and the size of a crowd. A metric is anything that can be measured and
a criterion is a characteristic that is used to choose anything. Indeed, the criterion is a defined
value of a measure for which a decision must be made based on, whether the parameter is
above or below it. There are always several attributes that allow choosing anything that is
a measurement, but there is no other connection between the two terms. Nevertheless, there
are certain project success criteria used as measurable terms that describe what the project’s
ultimate result should be that is acceptable to the end user, customer, and stakeholders. In other
words, project success factors are actions or elements that must be present for the projects to
be completed successfully.
In the project management literature, one of the most common and frequently used meas-
ures of project performance is the “iron triangle”. The iron triangle refers to the cost, time, and
quality that is believed to be the unique information among customers and project stakeholders
(Maqsoom et al., 2020). These three elements of the “iron triangle” are considered part of the
project throughout the project life cycle, commencing with the planning and design stages
and concluding with the final closing stage (Kabirifar & Mojtahedi, 2019). Owing to this, it is
considered important to monitor the progress of the projects beyond time, cost, and other areas
according to their complications. Nonetheless, monitoring and control phases should not only
consider the time and cost issues but also the other issues and behaviors that can be identified
during the project execution phase in different knowledge areas such as project value, image,
and reputation (Kabirifar & Mojtahedi, 2019).
Several challenges are associated with the measures of the “iron triangle”. An increasing
challenge to the “iron triangle” is that most of the project performances are measured with
the performance criteria such as time, cost, and quality, which are identified and explained in
most of the research studies as the critical success factors of the project. On the other hand,
some research studies have explained other basic criteria to measure project performance, such
as interpersonal skills or relationships among the project team members. Nonetheless, efforts
have not been made to combine all such project performance measures into a comprehensive
framework that can be used to quantify the overall project performance success (Shdid et al.,
2019). To overcome this challenge, various measures and metrics used in the extant literature
to determine project performance during different phases of the projects are synthesized in
Figure 2.1.
2.3 Dimensions of Project Performance
In the project management context, various performance criteria and dimensions associated
with projects at strategic, tactical, or operational levels are increasingly being used to measure
performance that leads to project success. Such dimensions include: schedule performance,
quality performance, innovation performance, benefit performance, project scope, time, cost,
procurement management, associated risk, human resource, customer satisfaction, learning
and innovation, senior management support and skills, integration of resources, safety,
financial performance, stakeholder satisfaction, and effective communication (Szatmari et al.,
Figure 2.1 Synthesis of project performance measures and metrics used in the project
lifecycle
2021; Maqsoom et al., 2020). Such performance dimensions have been explained in different
contexts and ways. For instance, cost performance appraises whether a project is completed
within the budget, schedule performance determines whether the project is finished within
a given time frame; quality performance ensures that project deliverables meet the contractual
requirements; innovation performance refers to whether the project generates useful ideas and
new professional knowledge and techniques; and benefit performance measures the effective-
ness of project outcomes in terms of promoting the organization competitiveness (Chen & Lin,
2018).
Indeed, the importance of project performance is to keep project stakeholders informed
about the status of the project because the progress of projects is measured by the project man-
agers and the appropriate stakeholders. On the other hand, inadequate performance indicators
provide incomplete information for decision-making that results in reduced project outcomes
(Zheng et al., 2019). Moreover, project performance is also used for financial objectives and
goals achieved at the end of the projects. Such financial gains are reported by the project leader
who highlights the actual cost savings and revenue increased as a result of project outcome
(Dasí et al., 2021). As a result, performance criteria and indicators are the critical aspects of
project management, which highlight that measures of project performance need to be consid-
ered following the different phases of the project and significance of project types, in addition
to the development and evaluation of important performance indicators that enable description
of the characteristics affecting project outcome (Zheng et al., 2019).
According to Sekar et al. (2018), dimensions of project performance include cost, time,
quality, safety, and financial performance. However, the cost and financial performances
are not the same. Indeed, project performance is a multidimensional construct and the “iron
triangle” is most commonly used to measure project performance, which is made up of three
important dimensions: cost, time, and quality. As such, cost and time performance are typi-
Table 2.1 Literature review summary on dimensions of project performance
Dimensions/ Cost Schedule Quality Scope Process Stakeholder Time Financial Safety Future
authors performance performance performance performance influence performance performance performance potential
(Głodziński, x x
2019)
(Wang et al., x x
2021)
(Ahmed & x x x x x
Anantatmula,
2017)
(Assaad et al., x x
2020)
(Sekar et al., x x x x x
2018)
(Szatmari et al., x x
2021)
(Gupta et al., x x x
2019)
(Unterhitzenberger x x x x
& Bryde, 2018)
(Aldhaheri et al., x x x x x x
2018)
(Lee et al., 2020) x x x x x x
(Salvador et al., x
2021)
(Mahmoudi et x x x
al., 2021)
(Adamtey, 2019) x x x
(Mossalam, x x x x x x
2020)
cally quantified as a percentage divergence from the initial plan, whereas quality performance
is measured in terms of contractual agreements and technical standards compliance. Moreover,
cost performance is concerned with the completion of the project within the allocated budgeted
cost that includes both direct and indirect cost, whereas the financial performance of a project
is related to return on investment, return on equity, return on assets, earning profits, and the
overall contribution of the project in the organization’s financial success (Sekar et al., 2018).
Such dimensions give useful and important information about project performance, especially
in terms of task-related characteristics. Enumerating the customer’s requirement, or even
expanding it to include the satisfaction of the stakeholder, is an additional significant factor.
Such intangible criteria, which focus on perceptions and attitudes, are seen to be a useful addi-
tion to measuring project performance (Unterhitzenberger & Bryde, 2018). Therefore, various
dimensions of project performance used in the extant literature are summarized in Table 2.1.
3. ANALYZING THE CHALLENGES OF PROJECT

PERFORMANCE
Although some measures, metrics, and dimensions have been used to measure project perfor-
mance, there are yet several challenges associated with the performance of projects. Indeed,
every project is always different or unique, and project success is judged in terms of the
project’s completion, and project data can be used to examine and track project success or
performance to build a knowledge base and improve the project management success (Ahmed
& Anantatmula, 2017). On the other hand, project safety and quality can influence the perfor-
mance of projects during the design and planning stages, where project management tools and
procedures are used extensively (Sekar et al., 2018). Moreover, because of the evaluation bias,
a project is more likely to be accepted and sustained within an organization regardless of its
quality, increasing the likelihood that the organization will undertake low-quality initiatives
that will perform poorly on the external market (Szatmari et al., 2021). However, similari-
ties and variations in project monitoring and performance assessment methodologies under
various scenarios (e.g., process improvement, R&D, etc.) have received less attention (Gupta
et al., 2019).
There are several issues and challenges in measuring project performances in different
phases of the project. Sometimes the project during its development phase can lose the balance
and deviate from its established initial objectives, which means there is a need for a correction
plan. To avoid such corrections, there should be a mechanism to identify any deviation at the
earlier stage. To deal with such divergence situations, performance indicators are established
to discover and provide timely information to develop action plans and maintain the project
balance (Pereira & Lima, 2018). Additionally, another similar challenge is that despite the
efforts of project managers as well as employing different project management tools, most
projects are still unable to achieve their targeted performance because of the inability of the
organization to implement effective control mechanisms for the projects and manage the level
of complexity in projects (Maqsoom et al., 2020).
The most vital issues affecting the project performance success are poor project planning
and control, which further results in poor performance. The development of effective stand-
ards and planning at the beginning of the project are the main critical factors of project success
that should not be ignored. Likewise, the financial benefit is another concern in projects, which
plays a significant role during the project initiation phase and is common among all project
stakeholders. Project initiation without adequate design, estimation, and planning eventually
leads to project failure (Kabirifar & Mojtahedi, 2019). Furthermore, another important factor
that needs to be considered is flexibility in projects during the planning and implementation
phases, which cannot only be accomplished by flexible decisions but also involve making
adjustments in the entire planning system, departing from plans, changing them, or sidestep-
ping them altogether (Sohi et al., 2020).
Indeed, initial acceptance and moving forward with low-quality projects is a severe problem
for businesses, because product-related decision-making is prone to decision traps, which can
result in significant project failures (Szatmari et al., 2021). Given the global monetary worth
of project work, underperformance is a major economic concern, and management approaches
normally utilized in project management are required to increase the likelihood of project
performance success. One of the main challenges for the project manager is to finish the
project within the time frame determined by the project stakeholders. Indeed, project managers
have always had difficulty in reducing project duration while taking into account the factors
affecting the project’s implementation. Cost and time are considered important in project
completion, whereas the quality is usually ignored in certain cases, which impacts the overall
performance of the project (Mahmoudi & Feylizadeh, 2018). Furthermore, poor project
performance can be caused by a lack of planning by the project management team, a lack of
human resources, a lack of cost control, and scope modifications throughout the project (Sekar
et al., 2018).
Projects are implemented for the customers and customer satisfaction is one of the big
challenges faced in measuring the project performance. The term “customer satisfaction”
refers to how the customer sees the end product’s performance, which includes adherence to
a set of pre-defined goals; if expectations were lower than actual performance, customer satis-
faction would be achieved (Tam et al., 2020). Moreover, customer satisfaction is regarded as
a reliable measure of project performance, which is positively associated with organizational
success (Szatmari et al., 2021). Nevertheless, a project should meet the customer specification
of the finished product in terms of quality and quantity (Aldhaheri et al., 2018). Indeed, the
performance of a project cannot be fully appraised until it has been delivered and used by
the customer (Ahmed & Anantatmula, 2017). For instance, complex projects have a com-
plicated nature and project complexity may cause unintended consequences toward project
performance. The complexity of the project adversely affects the cost performance that can
negatively impact the project performance. Owing to difficult technical and organizational
project complexity, complexity has a detrimental impact on project performance. Therefore,
it is possible to improve project performance by using complexity and uncertainty reduc-
tion measures, in addition to developing a comprehensive project performance framework
(Safapour et al., 2018).
4. PROJECT PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK
Many organizations have struggled to deliver high-quality projects, products, and services on
time and at a low cost despite a lack of adequate performance measures and metrics, which
include tangibles, intangibles, financial, and nonfinancial factors (Gunasekaran et al., 2015).
In such situations, financial metrics have often been used as performance indicators. These
measures gave current information about the organization’s performance but did not provide
estimates for the future (Mishra et al., 2018). Although financial performance measurements
were useful in the early years, according to Kaplan and Norton (1992), now organizations must
consider them in projects to stay competitive. However, a few studies have proposed using a
“balanced scorecard” to establish strategy alignment by balancing financial and nonfinancial
measures (Kaplan & Norton, 1992). On the other hand, some researchers have proposed
various frameworks to manage performance from the beginning to the end of the 1980s and
early 1990s, including the performance measurement matrix (Keegan et al., 1989), perfor-
mance pyramid (Lynch & Cross, 1991), results-determinants framework (Fitzgerald et al.,
1991), balanced scorecard (Kaplan & Norton, 1992), Cambridge Performance Measurement
Process (Neely et al., 1995), and performance prism (Neely et al., 2002). However, these
performance frameworks are not adequate to comprehensively measure the performance of
projects.
According to Neely (1994), “a performance measurement system can be characterized as

a set of metrics used to quantify both the efficiency and effectiveness of actions”. Performance
measures are required in projects, due to which many research efforts have proceeded over the
last many years to create acceptable measures for evaluating project performance. The major-
ity of performance measures are used to analyze project performance outcomes at the project
level; many performance studies have chosen KPIs from among frequently accepted perfor-
mance measures (Yun et al., 2016). Following KPIs, Shohet (2006) defined phase-specific
performance measures during the operations and maintenance activities, which are divided
into four categories: (1) asset development metrics such as built area, asset occupancy, and
asset age; (2) organization and management metrics such as the number of employees per
built area, scope of facility management outsourcing, management span of control, and main-
tenance organizational structure; (3) performance management metrics such as a building
performance indicator used to assess the overall state of building portfolio aligned with the
performance of its systems and components; and (4) maintenance efficiency metrics such
as annual maintenance expenditure, a maintenance efficiency indicator used to examine the
investment associated with the performance of facilities.
Performance frameworks of projects are still being developed to support better assessment
procedures. Continuing efforts to compile a comprehensive compendium of performance
models, such as the International Council for Building (CIB) Performance, are included
in building and facility performance frameworks (O’Sullivan et al., 2004). The practice of
quantifying the efficiency and effectiveness of action through different frameworks is known
as performance measurement (Neely et al., 1995). All of the frameworks used in projects
have performance objectives/criteria linked to efficiency; however, they generally lack quan-
tifiable indicators related to priority and performance levels that can be used to specify and
track project performance. Moreover, work on creating performance metrics that are meant
to explicitly describe the performance objectives for “a project using quantitative criteria in
a dynamic, organized style is also required in this area (O’Sullivan et al., 2004). Therefore,
a comprehensive project performance framework emphasizing the level of performance as
well as the level of performance priority in different types of projects is developed for adoption
across the project life cycle in various environments and cultures to further improve project
performance success (see Figure 2.2).
5. CONCLUSIONS
A project is always unique and measuring the performance of each project is critical for project
stakeholders. So, to monitor project performance, various measures and metrics have been
discussed in the literature but still there is limited research on developing a comprehensive
framework of project performance that can be adopted across the industries. Therefore, this
chapter proposes a comprehensive framework encompassing different measures and metrics
based on the extant literature that can help organizations to monitor and enhance the perfor-
mance of different types of projects in various cultures and environments.
The proposed framework places significant emphasis on project objectives, project value,
project complexity, customer satisfaction, and stakeholders’ satisfaction, in addition to achiev-
ing cost, time, scope, and quality parameters while ensuring project performance success.
Furthermore, the project performance dimensions, measures, and metrics highlighted in this
Figure 2.2 Project performance framework
chapter enable the project managers and team members to remain focused on accomplishing
strategic, tactical, or operational objectives and goals while measuring the project perfor-
mance success more effectively and efficiently across the projects. Finally, the developed
project performance framework can be adopted, tested, and used pragmatically across various
cultures, industries, and sectors to enhance the likelihood of project management and project
performance success.
REFERENCES
Adamtey, S. A. (2019). A Case Study Performance Analysis of Design-Build and Integrated Project
Delivery Methods. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 17(1), 68–84.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15578771.2019.1696903
Ahamd, U., Ibrahim, Y. B., & Bakar, A. B. A. (2018). Malaysian Public-Private Partnership Projects:
Project Success Definition. International Journal of Engineering Technology, 7(3.30), 33–37.
Ahmed, R., & Anantatmula, V. S. (2017). Empirical Study of Project Managers Leadership Competence
and Project Performance. Engineering Management Journal, 29(3), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10429247.2017.1343005
Aldhaheri, M., Bakchan, A., & Sandhu, M. A. (2018). A Structural Equation Model for Enhancing
Effectiveness of Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) Major Projects. Engineering,
Construction and Architectural Management, 25(9), 1226–1252. https://doi.org/10.1108/ecam
-07–2017–0130
Ali, I., Musawir, A. U., & Ali, M. (2018). Impact of Knowledge Sharing and Absorptive Capacity on
Project Performance: The Moderating Role of Social Processes. Journal of Knowledge Management,
22(2), 453–477. https://doi.org/10.1108/jkm-10–2016–0449
Assaad, R., El-Adaway, I. H., & Abotaleb, I. S. (2020). Predicting Project Performance in the
Construction Industry. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(5), 04020030.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)co.1943–7862.0001797
Barbosa, A. P. F. P. L., Salerno, M. S., de Souza Nascimento, P. T., Albala, A., Maranzato, F. P., &
Tamoschus, D. (2021). Configurations of Project Management Practices to Enhance the Performance
of Open Innovation R&D Projects. International Journal of Project Management, 39(2), 128–138.
Chen, H. L., & Lin, Y. L. (2018). Goal Orientations, Leader-Leader Exchange, Trust, and the Outcomes
of Project Performance. International Journal of Project Management, 36(5), 716–729.
Dasí, À., Pedersen, T., Barakat, L. L., & Alves, T. R. (2021). Teams and Project Performance: An
Ability, Motivation, and Opportunity Approach. Project Management Journal, 52(1), 75–89.
Fitzgerald, L., Johnson, R., Brignall, S., Silvestro, R., & Voss, C. (1991). Performance Measurement in
Service Business, CIMA, London.
Głodziński, E. (2019). Performance Measurement of Complex Project: Framework and Means Supporting
Management of Project-Based Organizations. International Journal of Information Systems and
Project Management, 7(2), 21–34.
Gunasekaran, A., Irani, Z., Choy, K. L., Filippi, L., & Papadopoulos, T. (2015). Performance Measures
and Metrics in Outsourcing Decisions: A Review for Research and Applications. International
Journal of Production Economics, 161, 153–166.
Gunduz, M., & Yahya, A. M. A. (2018). Analysis of Project Success Factors in Construction Industry.
Technological Economic Development of Economy, 24(1), 67–80.
Gupta, S. K., Gunasekaran, A., Antony, J., Gupta, S., Bag, S., & Roubaud, D. (2019). Systematic
Literature Review of Project Failures: Current Trends and Scope for Future Research. Computers &
Industrial Engineering, 127, 274–285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2018.12.002
Jitpaiboon, T., Smith, S. M., & Gu, Q. (2019). Critical Success Factors Affecting Project Performance:
An Analysis of Tools, Practices, and Managerial Support. Project Management Journal, 50(3),
271–287.
Kabirifar, K., & Mojtahedi, M. (2019). The Impact of Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC)
Phases on Project Performance: A Case of Large-Scale Residential Construction Project. Buildings,
9(1), 15.
Kaplan, R. S. (1990). Measures for Manufacturing Excellence, Harvard Business School Press, Boston,
MA.
Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard-Measures that Drive Performance.
Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71–79.
Keegan, D. P., Eiler, R. G., & Jones, C. R. (1989). Are Your Performance Measures Obsolete? Strategic
Finance, 70(12), 45–60.
Kim, S.-Y., & Nguyen, V. T. (2018). A Structural Model for the Impact of Supply Chain Relationship
Traits on Project Performance in Construction. Production Planning Control, 29(2), 170–183.
Larsen, J. K., Lindhard, S. M., Brunoe, T. D., & Jensen, K. N. (2018). The Relation between
Pre-Planning, Commissioning and Enhanced Project Performance. Construction Economics and
Building, 18(2), 1–14.
Lee, J., Chou, I., & Chen, C. (2020). The Effect of Process Tailoring on Software Project Performance:
The Role of Team Absorptive Capacity and Its Knowledge‐Based Enablers. Information Systems
Journal, 31(1), 120–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12303
Ling, F. Y. Y., Low, S. P., Wang, S. Q., & Lim, H. H. (2009). Key Project Management Practices
Affecting Singaporean Firms’ Project Performance in China. International Journal of Project
Management, 27(1), 59–71.
Lynch, R. L., & Cross, K. F. (1991). Measure Up, Blackwell, Cambridge, MA.
Mahmoudi, A., & Feylizadeh, M. R. (2018). A Grey Mathematical Model for Crashing of Projects by
Considering Time, Cost, Quality, Risk and Law of Diminishing Returns. Grey Systems: Theory and
Application, 8(3), 272–294. https://doi.org/10.1108/gs-12–2017–0042
Mahmoudi, A., Javed, S. A., & Deng, X. (2021). Earned Duration Management under Uncertainty. Soft
Computing, 25(14), 8921–8940. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500–021–05782–6
Maqsoom, A., Hamad, M., Ashraf, H., Thaheem, M. J., & Umer, M. (2020). Managerial Control
Mechanisms and Their Influence on Project Performance: An Investigation of the Moderating Role
of Complexity Risk. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 27(9), 2451–2475.
Mishra, D., Gunasekaran, A., Papadopoulos, T., & Dubey, R. (2018). Supply Chain Performance
Measures and Metrics: A Bibliometric Study. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 25(3),
932–967.
Mossalam, A. (2020). Developing a Multi-Criteria Index for Government Projects Performance. HBRC
Journal, 16(1), 299–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/16874048.2020.1819743
Neely, A. D. (1994). Performance Measurement System Design – Third Phase. Performance Measurement
System Design Workbook, April.
Neely, A., Adams, C., & Kennerley, M. (2002). The Performance Prism: The Scorecard for Measuring
and Managing Business Success, Prentice, London.
Neely, A., Gregory, M., & Platts, K. (1995). Performance Measurement System Design: A Literature
Review and Research Agenda. International Journal of Operations and Production Management,
15(4), 80–116.
O’Sullivan, D. T. J., Keane, M. M., Kelliher, D., & Hitchcock, R. J. (2004). Improving Building
Operation by Tracking Performance Metrics throughout the Building Lifecycle (BLC). Energy and
Buildings, 36(11), 1075–1090.
Pereira, M. S., & Lima, R. M. (2018). Definition of a Project Performance Indicators Model:
Contribution of Collaborative Engineering Practices on Project Management. Management and
Industrial Engineering, 289–296.
PMI. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) (6th ed.), Project
Management Institute (PMI), Newtown Square, PA.
Pollack, J., Helm, J., & Adler, D. (2018). What Is the Iron Triangle, and How Has It Changed?
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(2), 527–547.
Rankin, J., Fayek, A. R., Meade, G., Haas, C., & Manseau, A. (2008). Initial Metrics and Pilot Program
Results for Measuring the Performance of the Canadian Construction Industry. Canadian Journal of
Civil Engineering, 35(9), 894–907.
Sabahi, S., & Parast, M. M. (2020). The Impact of Entrepreneurship Orientation on Project Performance:
A Machine Learning Approach. International Journal of Production Economics, 226, 107621.
Safapour, E., Kermanshachi, S., Habibi, M., & Shane, J. (2018, April). Resource-Based Exploratory
Analysis of Project Complexity Impact on Phase-Based Cost Performance Behavior. Proceedings of
Construction Research Congress (2–4).
Salvador, F., Alba, C., Madiedo, J. P., Tenhiälä, A., & Bendoly, E. (2021). Project Managers’ Breadth of
Experience, Project Complexity, and Project Performance. Journal of Operations Management, 67(6),
729–754. https://doi.org/10.1002/joom.1140
Sekar, G., Viswanathan, K., & Sambasivan, M. (2018). Effects of Project-Related and
Organizational-Related Factors on Five Dimensions of Project Performance: A Study across the
Construction Sectors in Malaysia. Engineering Management Journal, 30(4), 247–261. https://doi.org/
10.1080/10429247.2018.1485000
Shdid, C., Andary, E., Chowdhury, A., & Ahmad, I. (2019). Project Performance Rating Model for
Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant Public Projects. Journal of Management in Engineering,
35(2), 1–20.
Shohet, I. M. (2006). Key Performance Indicators for Strategic Healthcare Facilities Maintenance.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(4), 345–352.
Sohi, A. J., Bosch-Rekveldt, M., & Hertogh, M. J. (2020). Does Flexibility in Project Management in
Early Project Phases Contribute Positively to End-Project Performance? International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, 13(4), 1753–8378.
Swarup, L., Korkmaz, S., & Riley, D. (2011). Project Delivery Metrics for Sustainable, High-Performance
Buildings. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 137(12), 1043–1051.
Szatmari, B., Deichmann, D., van den Ende, J., & King, B. G. (2021). Great Successes and Great
Failures: The Impact of Project Leader Status on Project Performance and Performance Extremeness.
Journal of Management Studies, 58(5), 1267–1293. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12638
Tam, C., Moura, E., Oliveira, T., & Varajão, J. (2020). The Factors Influencing the Success of On-Going
Agile Software Development Projects. International Journal of Project Management, 38(3), 165–176.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.02.001
Tripathi, K., & Jha, K. (2018). An Empirical Study on Performance Measurement Factors for
Construction Organizations. Journal of Civil Engineering, 22(4), 1052–1066.
Unterhitzenberger, C., & Bryde, D. J. (2018). Organizational Justice, Project Performance, and the
Mediating Effects of Key Success Factors. Project Management Journal, 50(1), 57–70. https://doi
.org/10.1177/8756972818808984
Wang, D., Wang, X., Wang, L., Liu, H. J., & Jia, X. (2021). A Performance Measurement
System for Public–Private Partnerships: Integrating Stakeholder Influence and Process Trans-Period
Effect. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, https://doi.org/10.1108/
IJPPM-08–2020–0408.
Wegelius-Lehtonen, T. (2001). Performance Measurement in Construction Logistics. International
Journal of Production Economics, 69, 107–116.
Younus, A. M., & Younis, H. (2021). Conceptual Framework of Agile Project Management, Affecting
Project Performance, Key: Requirements and Challenges. International Journal of Innovative
Research in Engineering Management, 8(4), 10–14.
Yun, S., Choi, J., de Oliveira, D. P., & Mulva, S. P. (2016). Development of Performance Metrics for
Phase-Based Capital Project Benchmarking. International Journal of Project Management, 34(3),
389–402.
Yun, S., O’Brien, W. J., & Mulva, S. P. (2012). A Quantitative Approach for Measuring Managerial
Interfaces in the Development of a Capital Project. Proceedings of Construction Research Congress.
ASCE, 1410–1419.
Zheng, L., Baron, C., Esteban, P., Xue, R., Zhang, Q., & Yang, S. (2019). Using Leading Indicators to
Improve Project Performance Measurement. Journal of Systems Science Systems Engineering, 28(5),
529–554.
Zhu, F., Wang, X., Wang, L., & Yu, M. (2021). Project Manager’s Emotional Intelligence and Project
Performance: The Mediating Role of Project Commitment. International Journal of Project
Management, 39(7), 788–798.
3. An alternative to traditional project
management: using lean OKRs as a model for
value creation for software product companies
Bart den Haak
INTRODUCTION
Project management is, in essence, a way to mitigate risk. It is the temporary endeavor we
undertake to create a unique product, service, or result (PMI n.d.). For centuries in human
history, this model has been used to achieve significant results, building roads, bridges, and
houses, and producing goods like steel, cars, boats, and planes. It has served humanity greatly,
and without projects and their management, we wouldn’t have built the world we live in today.
Even today we cannot construct or engineer the things we love and need without project man-
agement. However, the world is changing rapidly.
When we look at contemporary companies today, most don’t produce physical goods
anymore. “Software is eating the world”, as Marc Andreessen wrote (Andreessen 2011). The
modern world has experienced a digital transformation and, with it, the way that companies
operate, advance, and mitigate risk is also changing. Many of the brick-and-mortar bank
branches have been replaced by digital platforms and mobile apps. Factory floors have seen
a massive change in manufacturing as robotic machinery driven by software has become com-
monplace. Most modern cars have a million lines of code written into them to autonomously
drive on the highway. Airplanes can land automatically with the use of the software. Surgeons
can perform surgery from a distance of hundreds of kilometers. Helpdesk support employees
are increasingly replaced by advanced artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots. Most of the house-
hold appliances produced today contain software that can hook an oven or dishwasher up to
Wi-Fi to receive commands from afar. And this is only the beginning.
Despite the advancements, many software projects fail because of applying old project
management techniques in a highly uncertain context like knowledge work (Hastie 2015).
The traditional iron triangle of project management focuses on time, budget, and full scope.
It is ignoring two critical factors: value and quality (and opportunity, if we consider agile).
Yet hundreds of companies today still use traditional project management to deliver software.
I argue that this is the reason why projects in software fail, because project management
focuses on output, is solution based, and is resistant to uncertainty. This is an issue because
often digital undertakings operate within what is unpredictable, volatile, and outside the
parameters of what can be controlled.
In my practice, I have worked with hundreds of companies, some with up to 35 teams.
Based on my field research and observations, software development requires a different
approach to project management. In this chapter, I will discuss the fallacy of traditional
project management when applied to software companies, the difference between outcomes
and output, how outcomes and products work hand in hand, distilling a value creation model
23
(VCM) from a company’s vision, using the framework of lean objectives and key results
(OKRs) as a foundation for software product companies to experiment, innovate, and learn
using measurable outcomes. This latter component forms the alternate approach that software
product companies can use as a road map to achieving their desired outcomes, and how they
can deliver significant business value predictably while mitigating risk in highly uncertain
environments. All of this without project management.
PROJECTS ARE TAYLORISM
When you have an environment where most variables can be controlled, modern project
management frameworks like PMBOK and PRINCE2 work really well (ignoring the fact that
most projects are not using these frameworks, but just ad hoc or use custom frameworks).
The market share of PMBOX is 27% and PRINCE2 is as low as 11% (PWC 2007). When we
apply these frameworks to software development, the result is that most of these projects fail
(Bagsall 2019). It is simply ineffective to apply a manufacturing process to software projects
by breaking down the development of products and features into specialized repetitive tasks,
which is also known as Taylorism. More importantly, it is ineffective to put highly educated
software engineers into a production line setup and ask them to deliver their work within scope,
time, and budget. As I will discuss in the next section, it is a model based on false beliefs.
That is also why agile project management techniques emerged in the 1980s but did not get
any traction at that time. They only gained attention after the Agile Software Development
Manifesto was written in 2001. Agile is a set of values and guiding principles, but not a frame-
work or method. There are very popular agile work management frameworks such as Scrum
and Kanban but only a couple of real agile software development frameworks such as Extreme
Programming (XP) or EVO. Many people believe that “doing Scrum” equals to “being agile”.
As a result, you see a lot of success theater in companies that claim to be agile by merely
implementing a work management system such as Scrum.
None of the aforementioned agile frameworks are agile project frameworks. Dynamic
Systems Development Method (DSDM) (Messenger 2014) is an agile method that focuses on
the full project life cycle, which is one of the frameworks that has died in popularity. Today we
see the rise of agile scaling frameworks such as LeSS, SAFe, DAD, Nexus, and more (Uludağ
et al. 2021). These frameworks receive a lot of criticism from a variety of agile gurus in the
field, who claim these aren’t real agile frameworks but just project management frameworks
in disguise, inheriting all the problems described above. They try to help companies overcome
the number one problem we face in this industry: uncertainty. However, this is impossible in
software development. Therefore, many of these “large-scale agile frameworks” are drowning
in governance to “control” risk. Let’s look at why project management is a big problem in
software development.
THE FALSE BELIEFS OF TRADITIONAL PROJECT

MANAGEMENT
To define “false beliefs”, I refer to Project Myopia: “The belief that the project model is the
only way of managing business change and development. Not seeing digital development
An alternative to traditional project management 25
as a continuing commitment to growing the business, but instead believing it will end and
working towards that end” (Kelly 2020). Managers believe projects will help them answer the
question “When will it be done?” Financial professionals like working with projects because it
simplifies budgeting and forecasting. Project management is output based. However, what we
have learned from decades of working with modern software companies is that their work is
fundamentally ambiguous, unpredictable, and sometimes even chaotic. Projects often run past
their due date, which makes stakeholders unhappy and creates a risk of running over budget.
A project that was planned carefully months in advance can still result in disaster.
The project model works great when building an airplane or a bridge, but with software
development, on the other hand, it’s different. I offer three important reasons why the project
model isn’t a perfect fit for software development.
First of all, software development is never “done”. Once it serves users, it has produced
value for them; for example, automation of repetitive tasks, producing search results, serving
customized content, faster time to market, increasing customer base, improved customer
satisfaction, and improved revenue. If a software system is up and running (also referred to as
“in production”), a team of engineers needs to maintain it, otherwise it will degrade. They will
also add new features to provide even more value to the users of that system. Software is only
“done” when the company is out of business (Blockbuster, AltaVista, MySpace, Netscape).
Secondly, software development is knowledge work. To use a hypothetical scenario,
a company is two days into their project. Even at this early stage, knowledge is increasing and
new insights about customer behavior are being generated. This can result in a small pivot of
the initial plan. Two weeks later and priorities are already completely different. It is not as if
planning skills are lacking; it’s simply that there is second-order ignorance of the problem in
question that needs to be solved. In essence, we don’t know what we don’t know. Ask any
software developer to name a large project and the total time it required their team to complete
it. Then ask how long it will take them if they have to do it today. Likely the answer will be that
the time they would need would be half the project size to one-tenth of the original project size.
When we look at software projects, many managers believe that the speed of developing
features is the constraint that needs to be managed. I argue that that’s not the point, and
instead it is the speed of knowledge that is the constraint. If we apply Eli Goldratt’s theory of
constraints (Goldratt 1984) to this problem, it becomes clear that one doesn’t need to manage
projects; one needs to manage knowledge. Knowledge is the constraint of any IT endeavor and
as a manager you want to find ways to elevate it. Knowledge will result in decisions that then
are codified into source code and shipped to customers to solve their problems.
Thirdly, the most important point is that developing software is not about results (the
output). We don’t develop software for the sake of developing software features. However,
most IT projects are only about “producing” outputs, as if working in a manufacturing plant.
Half of the features (Bosch 2019, i) will not be used by customers and, even worse, most
software systems will never be used at all. I’ve personally written software systems because
people believed they were required, but in the end they never saw the light of day. And that
is why software is never about the output, or the number of features one produces. Instead, it
is about the outcomes. What do people do with it? The following questions could be posed to
help gain a better understanding: Did the software actually save people time when booking
an appointment with your system? Did it make their lives easier? Is the software being sold?
These three questions outline why projects and their management are ineffective when
developing software. So if projects are incompatible with software systems, then what is
a suitable alternative that has the capacity to also measure performance? The first important
distinction that needs to be made to resolve this issue is to discuss the difference between
outcomes and output.
OUTCOMES OVER OUTPUT
One of the problems with projects is that they decouple delivery from value. There is a ten-
dency to fall back on what is known and predictable. For projects, that is to measure their
outputs. The more output a team delivers within scope and budget with the given resources,
the greater the perceived success of a software project to its company. An output is an amount
of something produced by a person, team, machine, factory, country, and so on; for example,
the number of product features delivered or the launch of an e-mail campaign.
In his landmark book Outcomes over Output, author Joshua Seiden made it clear that the
software industry shouldn’t focus on outputs, but rather on outcomes. He defines an outcome
as “a change in human behavior that drives business results” (Seiden 2019). This definition
can be applied to both internal and external stakeholders. For example, “Improved usability
of complicated features” is an output, which may result in an outcome such as “Fewer people
calling tech support”. In the end, the outcome could contribute to a reduction in costs (which
we can also call the impact). Notice that I use the words “may” and “could” explicitly when
describing the relationships between output, outcome, and impact because we are hypothesiz-
ing about the cause-and-effect relationship here. Maybe an improvement in usability won’t
lead to a decrease in people calling the tech support desk, but it could have another effect
elsewhere.
PRODUCTS AND OUTCOMES
When products can be specified in the smallest details, project management indeed might be
a good choice. Cause and effect are clear. When you build a house, you first need to build the
foundation, then the walls, then the roof. It’s a highly predictable project, with clear milestones
and deliverables. We can measure the progress and performance of building a house by simply
counting how many milestones have been achieved before a given date. With digital products,
it’s a different story.
In digital environments, when the goal is to, say, improve the retention rate of a mobile app,
the solution to the problem is unknown. Learning and acquiring the knowledge to understand
the unique context, domain, and complex environment are required before developing prod-
ucts or features that could affect the retention rate of said mobile app to a noticeable degree.
This is because of a complex adaptive system (CAS) whereby there is a presumption about the
solution to a problem that is not necessarily based on facts but rather other external factors.
In my experience, I have worked with a number of companies that have been struggling
with disastrous projects in IT that were heavily biased. All of the eggs are put in one basket,
so to speak, of a temporary project put in motion with the good intention of propelling a busi-
ness forward. I have come to view projects as being high-risk even when output seems to be
improving. Alas, output, and not outcomes.
The speed of learning within a unique context determines the speed of delivery. It also
happens to be the leading constraint of every product development endeavor undertaken.
Learning is what prepares individuals for what to do and what not to do in the future. The
conventional wisdom that the majority of large software companies has been practicing,
reinforced by the use of project management methods, is to view complex, niche-knowledge
work as if it is predictable. Unfortunately, optionality is thus inhibited and learning delayed to
a point where there is the least time to respond and highest expenditure (Smart 2020).
When operating under a project focused on output, products are rarely finished. They
usually reach an endpoint when the company goes bankrupt or the product is no longer used.
When developing products, the use of measurable outcomes describes the result of actions
taken and behaviors. In product development, how customers use, speak about, or act with
a product can be described by observing their behavior. What will people do with the product,
what they say about it, and what problem it solves for them is the key paradigm shift for many
modern product companies. What job needs to be done (Christensen et al. 2016) and how can
the company solve that problem in the most effective way? This is lean thinking.
For example, let’s presume a hypothetical situation where I find myself bored in the eve-
nings and weekends. I want access to entertainment, in this case to a large volume of television
series and movies. Netflix has solved that problem for me and has continually improved its
content and services. They have even recently added games to the platform. The outcome
for Netflix might be the number of engaged users who will watch four hours of content each
week. If the company wants to make more money, it should increase the number of users on
its platform, but therefore needs to provide appealing content. There is no project in the world
that could generate this exact outcome, yet a VCM very much can.
Often, our work is described in terms of detailed plans rather than outcomes; however, no
matter how detailed a product development plan is, it can fail because of all the uncertainty and
risk involved. Outcomes are inherently unpredictable, which is the biggest reason we cannot
plan a project for them as influencing outcomes depends on human behavior, knowledge, and
actions. These factors fall outside the parameters of project management. They are, however,
components of a VCM.
When working with software, we are building products. Product management is a different
discipline than project management. A product is never finished. It doesn’t have a finite con-
struct of fixed outputs and fixed time frames. So what can be used to measure and monitor its
progress? How can leaders manage a company and its teams in such a way that they achieve
(significant) results that matter to the company’s vision and strategy? The answer to this
question is to look at the business outcomes of a company, starting at the highest level and
long-term outcome, all the way down to product and operational teams.
FROM COMPANY VISION TO A VALUE-DRIVEN PORTFOLIO
The alternative to projects is to align activities to measurable outcomes, starting from the
company’s executive vision all the way through to concrete actions for product or engineering
teams. Distilling a company’s vision into actions isn’t something novel. If the vision was to go
to the moon and back, that vision would be broken down into the rockets, moon landers, and
engines that would be required. Each of these would be isolated until the manufacturing of the
specific nuts and bolts that would go into the engines would be considered and developed. We
landed on the moon in 1969 as a result of this way of thinking.
There are several strategy deployment frameworks that operate in a similar fashion. Hoshin
Kanri (Marksberry 2011), Salesforces’ V2MOM framework (Benioff 2020), OSGM (Pepper
2007), and OKRs (den Haak 2021) are some popular examples. It is important to mention
that none of these frameworks are project management models. There are a variety of articles
(Cunha and Ribeiro 2022; Chen et al. 2022; Ferreira et al. 2017) that do indeed recommend
using OKRs for performance management as well as running projects and I strongly dis-
courage this. In my practice, although there are no firm and fast rules for how to use OKRs,
they haven’t been an effective tool for individual performance management and project
management.
OKRs represent a goal-setting framework for teams and companies to define measurable
goals and track their outcomes. In my work, I have developed an approach to OKRs that
streamlines it and makes it a suitable candidate that can be used to execute an ambitious
company vision without the need for project management. Lean OKRs are the evolved version
of the OKR strategy execution tool that incorporates lean thinking into the mix. Lean thinking
is lean because “it provides a way to do more and more with less and less – less human effort,
less equipment, less time, and less space – while coming closer and closer to providing cus-
tomer with exactly what they want” (Womack and Jones 2003, 15). As opposed to agile dis-
cussed above, where teams emphasize small batch sizes to deliver quickly, lean teams increase
speed by managing flow (usually by limiting work-in-process). Lean meets the needed value
requirements of customers with fewer resources and less waste. It’s a philosophy based on
continuous experimentation to achieve optimal value with optimal efficiency. This, in combi-
nation with OKRs, it becomes a powerful tool to execute an ambitious company vision without
the need for project management.
When a company starts working with lean OKRs, the first important step is to distill the
company’s vision into a single objective with a set of corresponding key results that are essen-
tially measurable outcomes. Leaders in collaboration with their teams design an objective
that will deliver on that single, overarching objective. This team-level objective will have its
own set of key results, defined by the team. When working with lean OKRs, there is a strong
emphasis on collaboration between leaders and teams to formulate their OKRs that will affect
the company’s vision OKR in their own way. In my experience, this practice requires a shift
in behavior from all levels within a company, one where trust, autonomy, experimentation,
learning, and accountability are fostered and, over time, the norm.
Software product companies are often already aligned to embrace uncertainty and the risky
nature of product development. This is in large contrast to project management where the
emphasis lies on completing the project within a specific time frame and budget, according
to outlined specifications and a set schedule. In product development, proposed solutions and
the customer’s responses are unknowns. With a project management model, managing and
mitigating risk is often reactionary. The solution I propose is threefold:
(1) Embrace uncertainty in an environment that favors learning

(2) Unlearn traditional company structures and management practices
(3) Distill the vision into a “value creation model” (using the lean OKRs framework as
inspiration).
First, acknowledging unknowns can be a scary thought for most people, and is exacerbated
when there are unknown unknowns, referred to earlier as second-order ignorance. It is this
blind spot that is the biggest problem in software product development. How can unknown
unknowns be discovered in order to mitigate risk? Agile methods are a great way to mitigate
risk in a highly uncertain environment. Much has been written (Vieira et al. 2020) about this
topic but it is outside the scope of this book. If you would like to read more about this subject,
then I highly recommend Doing Agile Right (Rigby et al. 2020).
Secondly, unlearning traditional company structures is no small feat. Software companies
that are structured by function (marketing, sales, engineering, quality assurance, user experi-
ence, research) or by a typical matrix (where teams report to multiple leaders, for example)
should question if the current structure is the right model to deliver upon their corporate goals.
Traditionally, departments or functions (marketing goals, sales goals, etc.) have set their own
goal(s) in isolation from other departments, thus creating a silo effect. Modern product com-
panies have generally organized themselves based on value creation or value streams and set
goals accordingly (Skelton et al. 2019). For example, they might group people into product
lines rather than having generic engineering or IT departments taking orders from random
stakeholders. A bank might have teams working together on consumer mortgages, payments
products, or customer loan products. Leaders can set team-based objectives that follow the
company’s hierarchy. Calling traditional company structures into question will not only
highlight inefficiencies or ineffectiveness but also allow management to allocate capacity to
product outcomes, rather than allocating teams to projects and output.
Thirdly, executive teams need to distill the company’s long-term vision into ideally one, but
perhaps two or three, high-level company goals (see Figure 3.1), informed by the company’s
corporate strategy, with a life span of about one to three years into the future. Less is more
here. In my experience, it’s hard for leaders to create this level of focus because everything
seems high priority. However, the stronger the strategy, the easier it is to define one or two
really important goals that will propel the company forward; for example, “Customers choose
us over competitor X” or “Grow five-day active customers exponentially”. Notice that these
are strategic goals. I’ve excluded the basic overhead goals, the keep-the-lights-on activities,
since they should be planned by teams themselves. Executive teams own the vision and a port-
folio of company-level goals.
Once the company-level goals are defined, a portfolio of “bets” per company goal can be
created. The term “bet” is similar to the concept of a casino, where you will have losses and
wins. Similar to the stock market where portfolios are diversified to reduce risk, the company
goals need to be distilled into multiple bets to diversify. These bets are created by a special
team called the “bet team” (Highsmith et al. 2019). This team consists of senior managers
from multiple disciplines (for example, vice president of sales, vice president of products, vice
president of engineering, vice president of support). Their responsibility is to define a small
portfolio of bets in the form of outcome-based goals that will have a high probability of
making an impact on the company goals (see Figure 3.3). The life span of these outcome-based
bets is less than 12 months.
All bets are then distilled into a portfolio of initiatives by an “initiative team” (Highsmith
et al. 2019). These initiatives have a life span of three to four months, which makes them long
term enough to achieve something significant with one or multiple teams, but small enough
to not take on too much risk. Each initiative is assigned to one or multiple cross-functional
product teams. The idea is that these product teams will (in)validate these hypotheses as soon
as possible with a series of small experiments.
To illustrate, the vision, company goals, bets, and initiatives form a model-like structure
(see Figure 3.1), which I refer to as the VCM. Each node in the model illustrates a hypothesis,
which needs to be proven by completing their underlying sub-nodes. Ideally, for each element
in this model, the use of the lean OKR approach can help significantly to define radical focus
on one or two company objectives. However, it has to be kept in mind that all models are only
approximations, this one included. It is a simplified version of reality because cause and effect
are now linearly defined, whereas in reality they are often interconnected and even circular.
What I have come to learn through working with many software product companies is that
while they have used this as their starting point, over time they have adjusted the model to suit
their unique needs and requirements.
Figure 3.1 Vision is distilled into goals, bets, and initiatives in a value creation model
(VCM)
Let’s zoom in on company goals, bets, and initiatives a bit closer, in order to understand how
they can be managed and measured and achieve significant results.
Company-Level Goal(s) (One to Three Years)
Modern software product companies work differently because they are often already in tune
to the fact that there is no perfect knowledge regarding their customers, external environment,
geopolitical landscape, and possible disasters. If managers try to incorporate all these factors
into their decision-making and define projects, this will be a slow, complicated, and cumber-
some process. Instead, the leaders of modern product companies embrace uncertainty and
distill their corporate vision into goals that are expressed in terms of desired outcomes.
These goals do not describe solutions, but rather describe customer outcomes that will
enable the company to achieve its vision. For example, “Boost the customer lifetime value
(CLTV) of large and SME customers” or “Customers promote Acme Model X to their
friends”. These goals, informed by the corporate business strategy, are stable for one to three
years into the future. Each of these company-level goals has a description, potential challenges
and opportunities, constraints, and clear measures of success, ideally focused on customer
outcomes, rather than the traditional return on investment (ROI) metrics. Many companies
have adopted lean OKRs to describe these outcome-based goals, which I will explore in the
next section of this chapter.
Bets (< 12 Months)
As discussed earlier, when generating an impact on these outcome-based goals (objectives),

modern companies develop a portfolio of bets. Each bet is a hypothesis that will have an effect
on the company goal. To establish a mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive (MECE) bet,
they can be illustrated visually as aligning under each goal in the VCM. Visually representing
the value creation of outcomes, with possible bets, acts as a communication tool to the rest of
the company, which increases business value creation understanding throughout the company.
With an overview of bets, leaders can now invest in these bets, decide to replace them, or
extend investment in them.
Instead of having managers for every function or department in a company, defining a goal
team per company goal in the VCM who would be responsible for creating bets is a viable
alternative (see Figure 3.2). These teams are chartered with engineering, operations, and
product (optionally with sales and marketing) senior members. This is not intended to be
a full-time role for any of the members.
Initiatives (Three to Four Months)
To prove that a bet works, there needs to be a portfolio of initiatives. The portfolio is created
by the bet team. Each initiative consists of a series of smaller hypotheses that have a clear
measure of success. Initiatives are not the same as projects. Initiatives have a running backlog
of hypotheses that are continuously reprioritized. Completion is defined as achieving the
desired outcomes, rather than by completing all the activities in the plan. Initiatives are often
quarterly and you can only have one of them running per quarter, per product line to remain
focused.
A bet team is responsible for creating new initiatives in collaboration with product teams
(see Figure 3.3). When a company is small, the bet layer of the VCM is removed and initiative
teams are connected straight to company objectives, making the goal team responsible for the
creation of initiative portfolios.
Figure 3.2 Goal team and their portfolio responsibilities
Portfolio Funnel
The nodes inside the VCM are consistent over time. They probably won’t change much from
week to week. However, that doesn’t mean everything is set in stone for eternity. If companies
want to stay relevant, innovate, and respond to changing market conditions, they need to be
flexible. Therefore, the nodes in the VCM will be evaluated on a regular basis. In the next
section, we will explore the lightweight governance model of lean OKRs to adjust and achieve
the outcomes we envision.
To evolve the VCM, one can add new nodes to it. New company goals are removed and
added by the executive team; new bets by the bet team, and new initiatives by the initiative
team. Every team will have a backlog of candidate ideas, which make up a portfolio funnel. In
Figure 3.3, you will see a backlog from a bet team. If the bet team wants to modify the VCM,
they need to align that with the executive team. They then review it and finally add or replace
an existing bet. Bets can then be allocated with new capacity and/or budget. This process is
similar to initiatives.
Figure 3.3 Bet portfolio backlog as an idea bank to add to a slot in the VCM
LEAN OKRS
One of the most popular tools for digital companies is the use of OKRs. As described earlier,
every node in the VCM (Figure 3.1) should be described in terms of outcomes. A VCM lends
itself very well to OKRs because objectives are inherently ambitious goals and key results are
inherently measurable outcomes.
OKRs have been around for about 20 years. An objective is a memorable, short, quali-
tative, and aspirational description of what you want to achieve. It should not describe the
business-as-usual activities that are required to keep the business afloat. In fact, a well-written
objective should be based on the company’s vision for the future, thus is ambitious and chal-
lenging. Key results are the measurable outcomes that indicate whether an objective has been
achieved. Rather than describing what needs to be done, they describe the indicators of success
in a way that is quantitative.
Lean OKRs are a response to an unfortunate global trend to create an excess inventory of
OKRs throughout a company whereby numerous goals are rewritten as objectives and the
inspirational nature of OKRs is watered down. Lean OKRs are about setting fewer but more
meaningful goals. It is based on a single OKR at the company level based on the company’s
vision and strategy, and where the other levels within a company work in an aligned fashion
with their own OKRs to generate an impact on the company’s objective. This focus means
making tough choices but brings the transformative potential of OKRs to full fruition by
boosting transparency, experimentation, and alignment in a company.
Setting lean OKRs should be a collaborative process between teams and their leaders. They
require leaders to describe desired outcomes and then pass the complex problems that arise
to be solved by equipped and engaged teams. Leaders should provide challenges for teams to
solve, rather than dictate which solutions to implement or what features to build. OKRs can
only be effective if leadership is dedicated to empowering their skilled and knowledgeable

employees. OKRs drive change in human behavior. That behavior change could perhaps
be reflected in customers but also stakeholders, suppliers, board members, managers, and
employees. In his book Outcomes over Output, Seiden (2019) defined an outcome as a change
in human behavior that drives business results; for example, customers that promote your
product to others because you have automated their boring manual tasks. Another example
would be higher product quality because software engineers started to use automated tests
to prevent product defects. To see this change in human behavior, observing and measuring
current habits and behavior is necessary. When working toward an objective, teams will find
that they have to run small, targeted experiments to change employee or customer behavior.
For those teams, it is of the utmost importance that there is an environment of experimentation,
learning, and autonomy.
In my extensive experience as a corporate consultant, I have found that integrating OKRs
with effective leadership strategies based on Lean principles is the most powerful approach
for achieving goals. Lean OKRs are designed as a comprehensive method that is spear-pointed
toward company-wide alignment on a single, overarching objective that is easy to understand
and aspirational in nature, often referred to as a stretch goal or moonshot. The following is
an example of an OKR template and also an example of a well-formulated objective with
corresponding key results.
OKRs are written in a simple format:
Objective: [What you want to achieve]

KRs:
• Key result 1
• Key result 2
An example of a good OKR:

Objective: Customers choose us over [competitor]
KRs:
• Increase the percentage of customers that prefer our product to the competitor’s in
a blind test from 30 to 75 percent.
• Increase the average order rating from 3.1 to 5.0.
The three key ingredients of lean OKRs are a single, ambitious objective, key results, and
the OKR cycle. This last one isn’t as obvious, but without it OKRs are a worthless tool, as
systematically checking in on the OKRs set is a practice that creates the behavioral habit,
accountability, and responsibility required to see continuous change and improvement over
time. The lean OKR cycle, when applied to a VCM, can ensure that the goals, bets, and initi-
atives that have been set are not cast aside and abandoned, but rather are revisited quarterly,
monthly, and weekly.
LEAN OKR CYCLE: A LIGHTWEIGHT GOVERNANCE MODEL
Implementing a lightweight governance model to periodically review outcomes is vital. In

the lean OKR model, we call this the OKR cycle. To reduce risk, it helps to receive fast feed-
back, so leaders are able to evaluate and correct the course before it is too late. To apply the
lean OKR cycle to VCM, every node in the VCM has different review cycles, but in general
company goals are reviewed quarterly, bets monthly, and initiatives weekly. Check-ins,
therefore, must be regular and predictable so that goals will not be set and forgotten, but rather
reviewed and adjusted on a recurring basis.
The OKR cycle (Figure 3.4) is the system for achieving your OKRs, and while there are
variants available, in its basic form it looks like Deming’s circle: the Plan–Do–Check–Adjust
(PDCA) cycle (Tague 2005). The notable variations range from as few as three steps to as many
as eight. The PDCA cycle, however, is a form of scientific problem-solving and an important
tool in lean that is often used to implement change or improvement initiatives. It is also the
version of the cycle I’ve found the most useful for companies to start out with. The OKR
cycle is the starting point for many companies but it is important to note that a company can
absolutely adjust the cycle to suit its needs and culture; for example, by combining the setting
and alignment phases, extending or truncating the monthly cycles, or adding a pre-aligning or
planning step before the goal-setting workshop.
Figure 3.4 The lean OKR cycle that can also be applied to the VCM
The cycle has five phases that repeat every 90 days for quarterly goals:
(1) Setting phase: where you develop new OKRs (in a VCM, these would be goals with
corresponding bets and initiatives) during a goal-setting workshop
(2) Alignment phase: during the alignment workshops, goals are aligned with other teams,
managers, and leadership
(3) Kick-off phase: announcing and making goals, bets, and initiatives transparent to the rest
of the company
(4) Execution phase: performing weekly check-ins, tracking status, and making commit-
ments. It is in this phase that leaders and teams continuously discover, learn, and exper-
iment with what actions to take that affect behavior and generate the desired outcomes
(5) Review phase: reflecting on the goals and the process as a whole to define actions for
improvement
The rhythm for other nodes in the model (company goals and bets) can be reviewed monthly,
quarterly, trimester, or semesterly. Which rhythm is best depends on the size of the company,
the company culture, and the business domain. For initiatives, the advice is to start with 90
days and adjust if necessary.
VCM AMBASSADOR TEAM
When working with the VCM, teams are cross-disciplinary and grouped from different depart-
ments or functions to work together in creating desired outcomes for a specific initiative.
Implementing an additional team, the VCM ambassador team, which would replace the
Project or Portfolio Management Office (PMO), is a new concept that I propose for this model
as it could significantly assist with the change management demands placed on employees
with this undertaking. The team is usually small and consists of coaches, business analysts,
and facilitators. They are key to the success of digital transformations and especially the trans-
formation of this new and modern approach of working as a software product company. They
oversee the transformation, creation, and adjustment of the VCM and support the company
by offering to coach and mentor on demand. They are consultative and facilitative. This team
focuses on the delivery of value within the company. They can help with investment allocation
on bets and initiatives, as well as the implementation of the cycle.
CONCLUSION
In this chapter, I have proposed a VCM that uses the lean OKR cycle as a viable alternative
to traditional project management. This unique combination caters specifically to the natural
strengths of a software product company of being already aligned to the unpredictability of
outcomes, an environment that embraces experimentation and learning, and the flexibility to
pivot based on customer and employee behavior feedback. The temporary nature of project
management is instead replaced with the longevity of continuously evolving products with
cross-disciplinary product teams. The introduction of goals, bets, and initiatives sets a software
company up to be able to work toward a clearly defined goal that is in line with the company
vision and being open to the results of outcomes rather than being bound by the rigidity of the
project management model that favors output delivered on time and on budget.
The future of software product companies will surely evolve faster than the speed of light in
the coming years. Those companies require a model that allows them to build on their knowl-
edge, testing hypotheses and rolling out features that deliver value to their customers, likely
anticipating customer wants and needs. In this version of the future, project management is
better suited to other facets of life such as city infrastructure or manufacturing. Using the lean
OKR framework to support the VCM means that efficiency and providing consistent value for
customers goes hand in hand for the long haul.
REFERENCES
Andreessen, Marc. 2011. Why Software Is Eating the World. https://a16z.com/2011/08/20/why-software
-is-eating-the-world. Accessed April 30, 2022.
Basgall, Joel. 2019. Doomed from the Start. Geneca. January 25, 2017. https://www.geneca.com/
download-the-doomed-report. Accessed April 30, 2022.
Benioff, Marc. 2020. Create Strategic Company Alignment with a V2MOM. Salesforce.com. https://
www.salesforce.com/blog/how-to-create-alignment-within-your-company. Accessed April 30, 2022.
Bosch, Jan. 2019. Using Data to Build Better Products: A Hands-On Guide to Working with Data in
R&D – The Basics. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
Chen, Deyu, Chen, Jiaying and Ning, Minjuan, 2022, April. Research on Enterprise Performance
Management from the Perspective of OKR. In 2022 International Conference on County Economic
Development, Rural Revitalization and Social Sciences (ICCRS 2022) (pp. 91–95). Atlantis Press.
Christensen, C.M., Hall, T., Dillon, K., and Dunca, D.S. 2016. Know Your Customers’ “Jobs to Be
Done.” Harvard Business Review Press.
Cunha, Pedro and Pedro, Ribeiro. 2022. Definition of a Technique for Characterizing the Expected
Benefits of a Project. Procedia Computer Science, 196 (2022), 1007–1012.
Den Haak, Bart. 2021. Moving the Needle with Lean OKRs. Business Expert Press.
Ferreira, Luis Gustavo Araujo, Viegas, Priscila Bibiana, and Trento, Dagoberto, 2017, September. An
Agile Approach Applied in Enterprise Project Management Office. In Brazilian Workshop on Agile
Methods (pp. 95–102). Springer.
Goldratt, Eliyahu M. 1984. The Goal: A Process of Ongoing. North River Press, 3rd edition (June 1,
2012).
Hastie, Shane. 2015. Standish Group 2015 Chaos Report – Q&A with Jennifer Lynch. InfoQ. October 4,
2015. https://www.infoq.com/articles/standish-chaos-2015. Accessed April 30, 2022.
Highsmith, Jim, Luu, Linda, and Robinson, David. 2019. EDGE: Value-Driven Digital Transformation.
Addison-Wesley Professional, 1st edition (September 26, 2019).
Kelly, Allan. 2020. Project Myopia. LeanPub.
Marksberry, Phillip W. 2011. The Theory behind Hoshin: A Quantitative Investigation of Toyota’s
Strategic Planning Process. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 5(3),
347–370.
Messenger, Steve. 2014. Agile Business. https://www.agilebusiness.org/page/TheDSDMAgileProjec
tFramework. Accessed April 30, 2022.
Pepper, John. 2007. What Really Matters: Service, Leadership, People and Values. Yale University
Press.
PWC. 2007. Insights and Trends: Current Programme and Project Management Practices.
PricewaterhouseCoopers. https://www.pwc.com/cl/es/publicaciones/assets/insighttrends.pdf.
Accessed April 30, 2022.
Rigby, Darrell, Elk, Sarah, and Berez, Steven H. 2020. Doing Agile Right. Harvard Business Review
Press.
Seiden, Joshua. 2019. Outcomes over Output: Why Customer Behavior Is the Key Metric for Business
Success. Independently published.
Skelton, Matthew, Pais, Manuel, and Malan, Ruth. 2019. Team Topologies: Organizing Business and
Technology Teams for Fast Flow. IT Revolution Press.
Smart, Johnathan. 2020. Sooner Safer Happier: Antipatterns and Patterns for Business Agility. IT
Revolution Press.
Tague, Natasha R. 2005. Plan–Do–Study–Act Cycle. The Quality Toolbox. ASQ Quality Press, 2nd
edition.
Uludağ, Ömer, Putta, Abheeshta, Paasivaara, Maria, and Matthes, Florian. 2021. Evolution of the Agile
Scaling Frameworks. In: Gregory, P., Lassenius, C., Wang, X., and Kruchten, P. (eds) Agile Processes
in Software Engineering and Extreme Programming. XP 2021. Lecture Notes in Business Information
Processing, vol. 419. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978–3-030–78098–2_8
Vieira, Marcel, Hauck, Jean Carlo Rossa, and Matalonga, Santiago. 2020. How Explicit Risk
Management Is Being Integrated into Agile Methods: Results from a Systematic Literature Mapping.
19th Brazilian Symposium on Software Quality.
“What Is Project Management?” PMI. n.d. https://www.pmi.org/about/learn-about-pmi/what-is-project
-management. Accessed April 30, 2022.
Womack, James P. and Jones, Daniel T. 2003. Lean Thinking: Banish Waste and Create Wealth in Your
Corporation. Simon and Schuster.
4. Modeling relationships of projects and
operations: toward a dynamic framework of
performance
Pierre A. Daniel
1. FROM PROJECT OUTPUTS TO OPERATIONAL OUTCOMES
The projectification of society (Jensen et al., 2016; Lundin et al., 2015; Schoper et al.,
2018) or of organizations (Midler, 2019)—that is, the diffusion of projects as a form of
organizing—requires the project management domain to adopt new theoretical and practical
scopes. Projectification amplifies the negative impacts of projects that fail because of their
lack of alignment with strategic objectives (Apm, 2015; KPMG, 2010; Project Management
Institute, 2014; The Standish Group International, 2015). Debates surrounding sustainable
development topics also challenge the fundamental practices and theoretical foundations of
project management (Huemann and Silvius, 2017; Keeys and Huemann, 2017; Kivilä et al.,
2017; Moehler et al., 2018; Sabini et al., 2019). In particular, reconsiderations of the scope of
project management suggest the need to extend the time horizon beyond traditional activities
associated with the development phase that lead to outputs (buildings, engineering structures,
information systems) and into operational phases, which produce value and contribute to the
achievement of outcomes and benefits. Similar theoretical shifts appear in the field of meg-
aprojects (Alderman et al., 2014).
The debates about project performance, or its lack, as well as effective measurements
(Prakash Prabhakar, 2008; Yu et al., 2005), tend to revolve around two complementary but
contradictory perspectives: one centered on the ability to deliver outputs while respecting
a triple constraint (cost, time, and quality) and another that prioritizes the benefits to which
outputs contribute (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Ika, 2009; Serra and Kunc, 2015; Serrador and
Turner, 2015). Classic performance models include project outputs and cost, time, and quality
criteria, but they neglect more subjective criteria such as long-term goals or societal impacts
(Haass and Guzman, 2020; Ika et al., 2012; Ngacho and Das, 2014). Performance models
based in the project benefits stream of research generally link outputs, outcomes, benefits,
and visions (Breese, 2012), but the underlying theory ignores the mechanisms by which these
relationships operate. Nor are the dynamics that govern interactions across key notions of
performance and the transformation of outputs into outcomes well understood (Zwikael and
Smyrk, 2012).
We leverage the theory of complex systems to propose a theoretical model of the oper-
ational dynamics between outputs and outcomes. Concepts of complexity and uncertainty
are central to this aspect of systems theory, as applied to projects (Daniel and Daniel, 2018;
Geraldi et al., 2011; Padalkar and Gopinath, 2016; Williams, 1999), so we use them to lay
the foundations for a systemic project theory that can clarify central concepts for managers.
We define operational development as the dynamics of projects interacting with operations to
39
develop new operational value chains. We illustrate this approach using the case of a Covid-19
vaccination campaign implemented in December 2020 in France. This case represents the
types of complex programs to which our framework aims to make theoretical and practical
contributions: (1) it is a megaproject, with impacts on millions of people and costs in excess
of 1 billion euros and (2) it entails new functional operations and new strategic outcomes.
According to benefits management frameworks, piloting a project using operational outcomes
is effective only if the outcomes and benefits are not distant from the project (Williams et al.,
2020), as is the case for the vaccination program, which aims for operational and strategic
objectives that can be measured at very short deadlines.
2. A MULTI-LEVEL FRAMEWORK OF PROJECT

PERFORMANCE BASED ON PROJECTS, OPERATIONS,
AND OUTCOMES
2.1 Project Outcomes Are Results of Value Chain Operations
The field of operational strategy establishes a direct relationship between an organization’s

projects and the strategic objectives that it seeks for its future. Projects can be described
as strategic initiatives, aligned with short- and medium-term goals according to a balanced
scorecard (Kaplan and Norton, 2008). For the strategic management of organizations, projects
and their strategic objectives must be set in advance, in the preliminary phases, to ensure the
organization can achieve them (Shenhar et al., 2001a). Techniques for analyzing the financial
profitability of projects, such as the net present value, reflect the status of strategic objectives
as benefits drawn from an operational phase of the project (return on investment [ROI] phase),
which occurs after a development phase (investment phase). Some studies recommend that
project performance management should be based as much on financial ROI (operational
exploitation phase) as on the costs of the investment (development phase) (Gardiner and
Stewart, 2000). Logical framework analysis techniques go even further in assigning impor-
tance to operational and strategic phases, resulting from project execution. They describe
projects or programs as multiple operational systems, each with measurable objectives,
such that they are organized according to a hierarchy of objectives, which make it possible
to determine the intended success of the project product in its operational phase (Baccarini,
1999). Array projects reinforce the idea that large projects (or programs) should be described
as “super systems” because they are agglomerations (Shenhar et al., 2001b). Notable examples
(e.g., New York City Transit Authority, English Channel Tunnel, the U.S. Strategic Defense
Initiative “Star Wars”) actually are organizations that comprise different operational functions,
represented as systems. Megaproject research thus delves into array projects and proposes that
at high levels of complexity, megaprojects combine dispersed arrays of systems, each with
a specific goal but also all sharing a common goal (Davies and Mackenzie, 2014).
Figure 4.1 shows that the benefits of the French vaccination campaign are driven by
operational systems that are part of the operation phase of the project, a routine phase, which
aims to be repeated for at least eight months according to the announcements of government
authorities. The vaccination campaign was introduced by the president of the French Republic,
who announced a goal of vaccinating all adults who wish to be vaccinated before the end of
summer 2021. Each operational system has a specific function (produce, deliver, store, reg-
Modeling relationships of projects and operations 41
ister, vaccinate), related to its target outcome (number of vaccine doses produced, delivered,
stored, and injected). Together the operational systems constitute an operational value chain,
in which each operation has its own objective (project outcomes), but they all aim at the
common objective established by governmental authorities (project benefit).
Figure 4.1 Project benefit and outcomes as value chain of operations
Proposition 1. The outcomes of a project or program, which constitute its operational benefits,
can be represented as a value chain of operations, each with a specific function. The value
chain highlights new functional systems or those whose functional performance is improved
through the implementation of the project or program.
2.2 Operations as Sociotechnical Systems
Ackoff (1971) describes the characteristics of organizations as systems, so an organization is

a “purposeful system” that contains at least two “purposeful” elements with a common goal.
Each system has a function that causes it to produce an “outcome,” as well as inputs, or the
resources it uses to produce the output. Similarly, Emery and Trist (1960) represent opera-
tional activities as sociotechnical systems, with functions and objectives, whose functioning
can be measured and controlled. Operational management theories with a sociotechnical
approach feature the widely used input–process–output (IPO) model, which provides a basis
for operational descriptions of different transformation functions in organizations (Chase et al.,
2006; Slack et al., 2013). These transformation processes occur in all organizations (private,
public, nongovernmental) and in fields as varied as manufacturing, transportation, retailing,
warehousing, healthcare, and telecommunications. To function, they use resources (machines,
documents, human resources, facilities), which make it possible to convert inputs into desired
outputs. These inputs can be raw materials, individuals (customers, patients, consumers), or
finished products from another system.
Figure 4.2 outlines one operation of the value chain, presented previously as sociotechnical
systems. The resources identified are necessary for the functional transformation of each
system. Not all resources are described; this representation is limited to those that did not exist
at the start of the project and that thus must be developed and delivered. Each operational
system’s mission is to achieve a target level of operational performance, as the outcome of the
system. This outcome is defined and then assessed regularly during the management cycle,
on the basis of the outputs produced by each operation and their performance measurement,
using key performance indicators (KPIs). System resources are often described with specifica-
tions that indicate operational quality and functionality levels of the resources that ensure the
intended outcome is achievable.
Figure 4.2 A sociotechnical systems approach of the operational value chain
Proposition 2. The value chain, made up of operations, is a chain of sociotechnical systems,

each with its own operational function, contribution to the strategic performance of the
project, outcomes, and new resources necessary for efficient operations. The performance of
sociotechnical systems is described and steered by key performance indicators that measure
the targeted outcomes and by specifications that clarify the necessary qualities of the new
resources required to achieve the outcomes.
2.3 Operational Resources Required for Operations Are Delivered by Projects
Classical operational management theories highlight the fundamental role of project man-
agement as an organizational and methodological means to produce new operations that an
organization wishes to create, adapt, or improve (Chase et al., 2006). The logical relationship
between “temporary” projects and “routine” operations is evident in new product devel-
opment literature, which explains that experiments are necessary to design new operations
and implement them (Thomke, 2001; Thomke and Reinertsen, 1998). In discussing adapt-
ability, Thomke (2001) goes even further, highlighting the importance of modularizing new
product development to clarify the interdependencies among different product functions.

This approach favors a modular architecture for developing complex products, and it entails
dividing the product development into a program of experimental subprojects. Some modules
are known in advance; others are more innovative and give rise to various adaptations during
the development phases. Theories of uncertainty management in projects (management of
unknown unknowns) also suggest modularizing complex projects into subprojects, to make it
possible to define levels of uncertainty specific to each subproject and therefore management
methods adapted to each one (Lenfle, 2011; Lenfle and Loch, 2010). Modular approaches
have long been practiced for project management, as promoted by work breakdown structures,
product breakdown structures, or even logical framework analysis, in which the architecture
of projects reflects a hierarchy of operational objectives. However, the new challenges of
modular approaches, especially for complex projects and megaprojects, reflect the need
to adapt managerial practices to each project. The many changes that emerge during the
development phase of projects demand the most dynamic and scalable management methods
possible, within a strategic program of projects (Davies and Mackenzie, 2014). The challenge
is to enable the strategic architecture to facilitate coordination among various interests and
priorities of stakeholders, across interrelated projects (Maylor et al., 2006; Pellegrinelli, 2011).
Figure 4.3 highlights both the systemic relationship between projects in the development
phase and operations in the operational phase and the systemic relationship between oper-
ational value chain and project benefits and outcomes. The resources in each operational
system do not exist in reality as long as the project remains in its early phases. They typically
constitute what project management theory would call project outputs (or deliverables). That
is, the resources of each operational system correspond with the outputs that the projects must
deliver. The model deepens the IPO approach by presenting a systemic, functional relation-
ship that managers and decision makers can describe in operational terms. It also enables the
visualization of a project management perspective (PMI, 2013), which consists of delivering
project outputs, and a benefits management perspective (Chih and Zwikael, 2015), according
to which the project contributes to achieving future operational objectives (outcomes and
benefits).
Proposition 3. Systemic resources needed for the proper functioning of operational systems
result from project development activities. The architecture of the portfolio of projects thus
derives from operations in which different strategic and operational issues and interests are
represented within functional systems.
Figure 4.3 New operational resources result from development projects
3. A MODEL OF EMERGENT PERFORMANCE BASED ON

PROJECTS AND OPERATIONS INTERACTIONS
3.1 Innovation in Projects Creates Instability in Operations
Project management literature acknowledges the dynamics at play during the development
phase of projects; projects are contingent and subject to varying levels of uncertainty and com-
plexity (Loch et al., 2006; Sauser et al., 2009; Shenhar and Dvir, 1996). Different management
dynamics emerge, according to the levels of uncertainty and complexity (Lenfle and Loch,
2010; Pich et al., 2002; Sommer and Loch, 2004). At one extreme, project dynamics can be
stable, predictable, and controllable because they are well known; at the other, they are unpre-
dictable, subject to many changes, back-and-forth decision-making, and modified outputs and
outcomes. Studies of the management of uncertainty highlight two main modes: management
of routine or management of innovation. The first version, involving routine planning and
control, implies a stable, predictable project phase and an operational process under control.
The second, involving uncertainty management, instead requires innovation management
mechanisms (Thomke, 2003, 1998). Such classifications of the degrees of uncertainty are well
established (Pich et al., 2002), though descriptions of innovation dynamics within systems are
insufficient and require better theoretical grounding (Sommer et al., 2009).
The operational systems that are the raison d’être of a project are based on resources. The
resources are the subject of project development cycles, as well as the outputs of a develop-
ment phase of the project. Each resource gives rise to a project, the dynamics of which are
subject to varying degrees of uncertainty too (Lenfle and Loch, 2010; Loch et al., 2008). In
projects that suffer unforeseeable uncertainty, the resources have an emerging nature and are
not predictable. Their results may impose a real impact on the construction of the operational
system to which they contribute. Thus, the development dynamic of system resources can
considerably affect the operational start-up dynamic of the target system.
Figure 4.4 highlights the cause-and-effect relationship that may exist between a devel-
opment phase project and one or more systems in the operational phase. In our illustrative
example, the project to develop a new Covid-19 vaccine is subject to extreme uncertainty and
innovation efforts. Several hundred vaccine candidates are in development. When the first
vaccine (by Pfizer) proved its effectiveness, the detailed specifications associated with this
messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) technology vaccine created even more uncertainty in
two operational systems as they were being designed: the storage system for future vaccine
doses and the vaccination system for the French population. In both systems, several resources
are constrained by new specifications that place decision makers in charge of the design and
implementation of the new operations in a state of extreme instability, which takes the form of
functional uncertainty in the system design.
Figure 4.4 Project execution dynamic and the impacts on operational design instability
Proposition 4. Development phase projects can be subject to a high level of uncertainty that
may cause modifications to the specifications of the operational resources. In such circum-
stances, the resources might create uncertainty in the design process of operational systems,
modifying previously identified specifications and creating functional and operational insta-
bility within the systems.
3.2 Instability in Operations Design Creates Uncertainty in Projects
Recent research on megaprojects emphasizes the importance of integration management to

stabilize the different components that constitute resources within functioning systems (Davies
and Mackenzie, 2014). Thus, the proper functioning of sociotechnical systems, including
effective integration of the various resources, remains a key consideration for ensuring the
operational performance pursued with megaprojects. The question of how to control unstable
operational systems represents an important axis for operational management, concerned with
operational systems that create innovation and instability (Ackoff, 1979). Decision theories
therefore highlight different levels of stability within operational systems, depending on their
nature (Littauer, 1965; Littauer and Ehrenfeld, 1964; Rubinstein, 1975). In stable and con-
trolled operational systems, the resources and their specifications are known. Decision makers,
on the basis of experience data, can test the capacity of resources to produce the targeted out-
comes. In unstable operational systems, resources necessary for the production of the targeted
outcomes are not clearly known, their specifications must be established, and they may need
to be modified. New product development literature indicates that product specifications are
unstable. Less than 5% of development projects achieve fully detailed specifications before
product design begins (Thomke and Reinertsen, 1998). Therefore, product development prac-
tices go through several stages (planning, concept development, system-level design, detail
design, testing and refinement, production ramp-up), all of which aim for stabilization of
operational systems (Chase et al., 2006). The design process is described as a “design funnel,”
which attempts to reduce possibilities by going from uncertainties to certainty (Slack et al.,
2013, p. 112).
Figure 4.5 depicts the possible uncertainties, as a source of unstable dynamics in the
developing system. The uncertainties arising from the instability of an operating system in
turn can create uncertainties within the development phase, by changing the resources and
specifications within them. For example, France’s president proclaimed that the “Vaccinate”
operational system was too slow, just two weeks after the start of the vaccination campaign. As
a result, the Ministry of Health began modifying the specifications of the “vaccination plan”
resource by integrating “health workers” into the priority population. This modification will
have impacts on at least two other resources: the “vaccination facilities” that require vaccina-
tion centers in various regions of France for emergencies and the “registration system” that
demands a national, online, accessible system that remains functional in an emergency. These
design changes, beyond even the modification of resource specifications, increase uncertainty
within the projects. They also put government agencies and public sector actors into very
innovative project conditions.
Proposition 5. The design dynamics of operational systems are subject to an uncertainty man-
agement process, which can lead to modifications of the uncertainty conditions of projects.
In such circumstances, descriptions of operational resources and their specifications can
Figure 4.5 Instability in operations design and impacts on the project level of
uncertainty
provoke innovation during ongoing projects, which modifies uncertainty levels and manage-
ment practices.
3.3 Systemic Interactions of Projects and Operations Create Dynamics of

Coevolution and Emergence
Interactions between projects and operations are common to innovation management. The
stage gate approach explains that interactions of product/business case definitions and project
implementations are frequent in the front-end phase (Cooper, 2008). The development of
new products also requires managerial flexibility (Thomke and Reinertsen, 1998), to deal
with the many changes that take place during new product development processes. Flexibility
implies a decision-making capacity to modify the product according to evolutions within
projects, because the specifications change with the development of the project. Studies of
array systems (Shenhar et al., 2001b) and the management of system integration in complex
megaprojects (Davies and Mackenzie, 2014) also acknowledge that the interactions among
systems (projects) and systems of systems (operational platforms) require decision-making
both back and forth, as well as a capacity to adapt across levels of governance (program level)
and execution (project level). Furthermore, research in the field of strategy confirms that the
development management cycle of new strategic processes entails emerging processes. For
example, the strategic management cycle of operations is part of the interaction between
decision makers who define strategic objectives and operational managers who develop new
operational systems (Kaplan and Norton, 2008). Operations strategy theories further suggest
that mechanisms of emergence should be observed, measured, and managed. Thus, both the
theoretical and professional literature appears to concur that interactions exist, function as
sources of uncertainty, and require managerial practices based on flexibility and adaptability.
However, few studies perform analysis or modeling of emerging organizational dynamics,
which are a source of change for managers and evolution in systems (Daniel and Daniel,
2018). The operational dynamics across projects and operations in development demand more
in-depth theoretical and practical investigations. For our illustrative case, we consider two sys-
temic dynamics that intertwine and contribute to the establishment of an operational system,
the project dynamic that contributes to the production of resources, which are conditions for
future business, and the operational dynamic that contributes to the discovery of the conditions
required to achieve the outcomes and benefits.
Figure 4.6 shows that uncertainty about the Covid-19 vaccine development project initially
was resolved with the success of the Pfizer vaccine, followed by announcements of the delay
of the Sanofi vaccine. It caused instability in the “produce” and “deliver” systems, because the
contracts no longer allowed for the production and delivery of the required doses. In response,
the French government entered into discussions with Sanofi to switch some of its factories to
RNA vaccine production processes. These new specifications increase the level of innovation
within the development subsystems of production plants and their capabilities. For Sanofi,
contributing to RNA vaccine production is not a routine project.
Figure 4.6 Design dynamics and the impacts on project execution innovation
Proposition 6. An emergence dynamic between operations and projects feeds on instability

(in operations) and innovation (in projects). It is based on systemic feedforward and feedback
mechanisms; over the course of the project, it causes changes in the areas of uncertainty
within subprojects and operational systems. This dynamic clarifies how operational perfor-
mance within operations evolves under the effect of the decisions and actions implemented.
4. GOVERNING PROJECTS AS OPERATIONS UNDER

DEVELOPMENT
4.1 Revisiting Agency Theory and Project Governance
The lack of focus on operational systems (i.e., their innovation, instability, and uncertainty)
in prior analyses of projects and programs might be explained partly by agency relationships,
in which responsibilities for outputs (project manager) and for outcomes (project funder) are
separated (Eisenhardt, 1989; Turner and Müller, 2003). Descriptions of the output to be deliv-
ered tend to provide the basis for the specification, which constitutes the central element of
a contract between the project developer and the project client. Such a contractual relationship
makes it complicated, if not impossible, to adapt the specifications that describe the outputs
to be delivered.
An agency contractual relationship seemingly has forced project management to focus on
the management of contractual commitments rather than seeking to contribute to new opera-
tional performance. The principles of organizational agility and management of agile projects,
though they cannot address all the questions we raise, show that the agency relationship should
be reconsidered, especially with regard to risk management and uncertainties in commercial
contracts.
Our representation of projects assumes that project managers and project clients acquire
techniques that allow them to communicate their priorities. The principal–agent relationship
instead anticipates a division of responsibilities, between the development and operational
phases of the project. It can support legitimate governance, provided that all actors understand
the effects of one phase of the project on other phases. According to our theorizing, a complete
separation of responsibilities, priorities, and analyses is questionable, because for some pro-
jects, the interactions between phases of the project are unstable and evoke new uncertainties
and changes. Thus, in projects subject to instability, the principal and agent must share man-
agement techniques and models to facilitate communication and managerial decisions.
4.2 Revisiting Performance Models and Frameworks
Operational management has given rise to a science of stable operational activities, which
must be controlled and optimized (Littauer and Ehrenfeld, 1964; Shewhart, 1931; Weaver,
1948). Yet it requires a better view of unstable, innovative activities as they are developing
(Ackoff, 1979). The systemic approach that we propose highlights that complex dynamics
constantly operate among systems of the development phase and systems of the operating
phase of the project, thereby generating emerging performance. Certain principles of historical
project management are sometimes called into question; descriptions of the final outputs of the
project are not stable or definitive, especially if the operational system to which it contributes
is not known or experienced. We thus raise three questions about risk and uncertainty manage-
ment practices and their statistical and operational bases.
First, the operational systems targeted need to be described more clearly, particularly in
terms of operational value chain, outcomes, and benefits, to be effectively evaluated, debated,
negotiated, and studied. Traditional project analysis practices do not establish a connection
between project outputs and their contributions to future operational systems. Second, anal-
yses of risks and uncertainties, which partially determine the success or failure of a project,
cannot mix the uncertainties of the development phase with those of the operational phase,
so they always leave some performance hidden. Third, governance organizational practices
tend to split the development of outputs (governed by the project management team) from
the achievement of outcomes (debated by strategic committees). This principle of agency and
organization offers coherence but also amplifies the gap between populations that do not use
common decision models to choose or act on the projects and operations that result from them.
4.3 Revisiting the Scope of Project Performance
Models for evaluating performance and analyzing risks and uncertainties in projects mainly
focus on the scheduling phase (Hazır and Ulusoy, 2020). The systems approach that we propose
offers a theoretical framework that would allow us to define a new model for analyzing project
uncertainty and complexity, based on a broad representation of project performance. One of
the most engaging aspects pertains to the theory of projects, in that our proposed model seeks
to broaden the definition of a project, especially its meaning for operations management,
which tends to limit the notion of a project to the development phase.
The systemic approach we propose also derives from both the theory of sociotechnical
systems, with its rich history in operational management, and the theory of complex adaptive
systems, which has a growing influence in organizational science. The challenge is to under-
stand the dynamics of change, emergence, and adaptation that result from feedback mech-
anisms in complex organizations. The theoretical and methodological apparatus we present
could allow both practitioners and project management theorists to build operational project
models and analyses, including longitudinal assessments of project and operational systems
(development systems). Such a theoretical and practical apparatus has not been available or
applied previously to understand projects and programs as they are now widely accepted to
exist in theory, namely as new operational systems under development. Such a perspective
offers the project management field a new position within the science of management and
organizations, between operational management and strategy.
REFERENCES
Ackoff, R.L., 1971. Towards a System of Systems Concept. Management Science. 17(11): 661–671.
Ackoff, R.L., 1979. The Future of Operational Research Is Past. Journal of the Operational Research
Society 30(2): 93–104.
Alderman, N., Ivory, C.J., McLoughlin, I.P., Vaughan, R., 2014. Managing Complex Projects: Networks,
Knowledge and Integration. Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203502921
APM, 2015. Conditions for Project Success: The Voice of the Profession. https://www.apm.org.uk/
media/1621/conditions-for-project-success_web_final_0.pdf.
Baccarini, D., 1999. The Logical Framework Method for Defining Project Success. Project Management
Journal. December, 25–32.
Breese, R., 2012. Benefits Realisation Management: Panacea or False Dawn? International Journal of
Project Management. 30: 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.08.007
Chase, R.B., Jacobs, F.R., Aquilino, N.J., 2006. Operations Management for Competitive Advantage,
11th ed. Irwin McGraw Hill, Boston, MA.
Chih, Y.-Y.Y., Zwikael, O., 2015. Project Benefit Management: A Conceptual Framework of Target
Benefit Formulation. International Journal of Project Management. 33: 352–362. https://doi.org/10
.1016/j.ijproman.2014.06.002
Cooke-Davies, T., 2002. The “Real” Success Factors on Projects. International Journal of Project
Management. 20, 185–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263–7863(01)00067–9
Cooper, R.G., 2008. Perspective: The Stage-Gates Idea-to-Launch Process—Update, What’s New, and
NexGen Systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 25: 213–232.
Daniel, P.A., Daniel, C., 2018. Complexity, Uncertainty and Mental Models: From a Paradigm of
Regulation to a Paradigm of Emergence in Project Management. International Journal of Project
Management. 36: 184–197. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.07.004
Davies, A., Mackenzie, I., 2014. Project Complexity and Systems Integration: Constructing the London
2012 Olympics and Paralympics Games. International Journal of Project Management. 32: 773–790.
Eisenhardt, K.M., 1989. Making Fast Strategic Decisions in High-Velocity Environments. Academy of
Management Journal. 32: 543–576.
Emery, F.E., Trist, E.L., 1960. Socio-Technical Systems, Management Sciences, Models and Techniques.
Pergamon Press, New York.
Gardiner, P., Stewart, K., 2000. Revisiting the Golden Triangle of Cost, Time and Quality: The Role
of NPV in Project Control Success and Failure. International Journal of Project Management. 18:
251–256.
Geraldi, J.G., Maylor, H., Williams, T., 2011. Now, Let’s Make It Really Complex (Complicated):
A Systematic Review of the Complexities of Projects. International Journal of Operations &
Production Management. 31: 966–990. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571111165848
Haass, O., Guzman, G., 2020. Understanding Project Evaluation: A Review and Reconceptualization.
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. 13: 573–599. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB
-10–2018–0217
Hazır, Ö., Ulusoy, G., 2020. A Classification and Review of Approaches and Methods for Modeling
Uncertainty in Projects. International Journal of Production Economics. 223: 1–15.
Huemann, M., Silvius, A.J.G., 2017. Projects to Create the Future: Managing Projects Meets Sustainable
Development. International Journal of Project Management. 35: 1066–1070. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ijproman.2017.04.014
Ika, L.A., 2009. Project Success as a Topic in Project Management Journals. Project Management
Journal. 40(4): 6–20.
Ika, L.A., Diallo, A., Thuillier, D., 2012. Critical Success Factors for World Bank Projects: An Empirical
Investigation. International Journal of Project Management. 30: 105–116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijproman.2011.03.005
Jensen, A., Thuesen, C., Geraldi, J., 2016. The Projectification of Everything: Projects as a Human
Condition. Project Management Journal. 47: 21–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697281604700303
Kaplan, R.S., Norton, D.P., 2008. Mastering the Management System. Harvard Business Review. https://
hbr.org/2008/01/mastering-the-management-system
Keeys, L.A., Huemann, M., 2017. Project Benefits Co-Creation: Shaping Sustainable Development
Benefits. International Journal of Project Management. 35: 1196–1212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijproman.2017.02.008
Kivilä, J., Martinsuo, M., Vuorinen, L., 2017. Sustainable Project Management through Project Control
in Infrastructure Projects. International Journal of Project Management. 35: 1167–1183. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.02.009
KPMG, 2010. KPMG New Zealand Project Management Survey 2010. 1–20.
Lenfle, S., 2011. The Strategy of Parallel Approaches in Projects with Unforeseeable Uncertainty: The
Manhattan Case in Retrospect. International Journal of Project Management. 29: 359–373. https://doi
.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2011.02.001
Lenfle, S., Loch, C.H., 2010. Lost Roots: How Project Management Came to Emphasize Control over
Flexibility and Novelty. California Management Review. 53: 32–56.
Littauer, S.B., 1965. Fundamental Scientific Aspects of Marketing and the Development of Marketing
Models, in: Langhoff, S.P. (Ed.), Models, Measurement and Marketing: A Special Project of the
Market Research Council. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 83–123.
Littauer, S.B., Ehrenfeld, S., 1964. Introduction to Statistical Methods. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Loch, C.H., De Meyer, A., Pich, M.T., 2006. Managing the Unknown: A New Approach to Managing
High Uncertainty and Risk in Projects. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ.
Loch, C.H., Solt, M.E., Bailey, E.M., 2008. Diagnosing Unforeseeable Uncertainty in a New Venture.
Journal of Product Innovation Management. 25: 28–46.
Lundin, R.A., Arvidsson, N., Brady, T., Ekstedt, E., Midler, C., Sydow, J., 2015. Managing and Working
in Project Society: Institutional Challenges of Temporary Organizations. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Maylor, H., Brady, T., Cooke-Davies, T., Hodgson, D., 2006. From Projectification to Programmification.
International Journal of Project Management. 24: 663–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2006
.09.014
Midler, C., 2019. Projectification: The Forgotten Variable in the Internationalization of Firms’
Innovation Processes? International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. 12: 545–564. https://
doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-07–2018–0126
Moehler, R., Hope, A., Algeo, C., 2018. Sustainable Project Management: Revolution or Evolution? in:
Academy of Management Proceedings, pp. 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410391111097438
Ngacho, C., Das, D., 2014. A Performance Evaluation Framework of Development Projects: An
Empirical Study of Constituency Development Fund (CDF) Construction Projects in Kenya.
International Journal of Project Management. 32: 492–507. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013
.07.005
Padalkar, M., Gopinath, S., 2016. Are Complexity and Uncertainty Distinct Concepts in Project
Management? A Taxonomical Examination from Literature. International Journal of Project
Management. 34: 688–700. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.009
Pellegrinelli, S., 2011. What’s in a Name: Project or Programme? International Journal of Project
Management. 29, 232–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.02.009
Pich, M.T., Loch, C.H., De Meyer, A., 2002. On Uncertainty, Ambiguity and Complexity in Project
Management. Management Science. 48: 1008–1023.
PMI, 2013. The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK® Guide). PMI, Newtown Square,
PA.
Prakash Prabhakar, G., 2008. What Is Project Success: A Literature Review. International Journal of
Business and Management. 13(8): 3–10.
Project Management Institute, 2014. The High Cost of Low Performance 2014: PMI Pulse of Profession.
PMI’s Pulse Prof.
Rubinstein, M.F., 1975. Patterns of Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall, Hoboken, NJ.
Sabini, L., Muzio, D., Alderman, N., 2019. 25 Years of “Sustainable Projects”: What We Know and
What the Literature Says. International Journal of Project Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijproman.2019.05.002
Sauser, B.J., Reilly, R.R., Shenhar, A.J., 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. 27: 665–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.01.004
Schoper, Y.G., Wald, A., Ingason, H.T., Fridgeirsson, T.V., 2018. Projectification in Western
Economies: A Comparative Study of Germany, Norway and Iceland. International Journal of Project
Management. 36: 71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.07.008
Serra, C.E.M., Kunc, M., 2015. Benefits Realisation Management and Its Influence on Project Success
and on the Execution of Business Strategies. International Journal of Project Management. 33:
852–862. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2014.03.011
Serrador, P., Turner, R., 2015. The Relationship between Project Success and Project Efficiency. Project
Management Journal. 46. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.21468
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., 1996. Toward a Typological Theory of Project Management. Research Policy.
25: 607–632. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0048–7333(95)00877–2
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., Maltz, A.C., 2001a. Project Success: A Multidimensional Strategic
Concept. Long Range Planning. 34: 699–725. https://doi.org/10.1002/em.20518
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., Maltz, A.C., 2001b. Project Success: A Multidimensional Strategic
Concept. Long Range Planning. 34: 699–725. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0024–6301(
01)00097–8
Shewhart, W.A., 1931. Economic Control of Quality of Manufactured Product. Van Nostrand Company,
New York.
Slack, N., Brandon-Jones, A., Johnston, R., 2013. Operations Management, 7th ed. Pearson, New York.
Sommer, S.C., Loch, C.H., 2004. Selectionism and Learning in Projects with Complexity and
Unforeseeable Uncertainty. Management Science. 50: 1334–1347. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.1040
.0274
Sommer, S.C., Loch, C.H., Dong, J., 2009. Managing Complexity and Unforeseeable Uncertainty in
Startup Companies: An Empirical Study. Organization Science. 20: 118–133.
The Standish Group International, 2015. CHAOS Report 2015. Standish Gr. Int. Inc. 13.
Thomke, S.H., 1998. Simulation, Learning and R&D Performance: Evidence from Automotive
Development. Research Policy. 27: 55–74.
Thomke, S.H., 2001. Experimentation: The New Imperative. Harvard Business Review. 80: 74–81.
Thomke, S.H., 2003. Experimentation Matters. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
Thomke, S.H., Reinertsen, D., 1998. Agile Product Development: Managing Development Flexibility in
Uncertain Environments. California Management Review. 41: 8–30.
Turner, J.R., Müller, R., 2003. On the Nature of the Project as a Temporary Organization. International
Journal of Project Management. 21: 1.
Weaver, W., 1948. Science and Complexity. American Scientist. 36: 536–544.
Williams, T.M., 1999. The need for new paradigms for complex projects. International Journal of Project
Management. 17: 269–273. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0263–7863(98)00047–7
Williams, T.M., Vo, H., Bourne, M., Bourne, P., Cooke-Davies, T., Kirkham, R., Masterton, G.,
Quattrone, P., Valette, J., 2020. A Cross-National Comparison of Public Project Benefits Management
Practices: The Effectiveness of Benefits Management Frameworks in Application. Production
Planning & Control. 31: 644–659. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1668980
Yu, A.G., Flett, P.D., Bowers, J.A., 2005. Developing a Value-Centred Proposal for Assessing Project
Success. International Journal of Project Management. 23: 428–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.ijproman.2005.01.008
Zwikael, O., Smyrk, J., 2012. A General Framework for Gauging the Performance of Initiatives to
Enhance Organizational Value. British Journal of Management. 23: 6–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j
.1467–8551.2012.00823.x
PART II
TACTICS, STRATEGIES, AND

RISKS
5. Construction and demolition waste recycling
and reuse clause in standard form of contracts:
impact on project performance
Nurhaizan Mohd Zainudin, Ahmad Amir Hafiz Ahmad,
Rahimi A. Rahman, and Fadzida Ismail
INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the generation of construction and demolition waste (CDW) has increased
tremendously and posed multiple threats to the economy, environment, and sustainability. The
alarming rise of CDW generation can be attributed to urbanization and extensive infrastructure
and reconstruction projects (Jain, 2021). Relatively in the European Union, CDW comprises
the largest waste stream with stable amounts produced over time (EEA, 2020). If not treated,
CDW could negatively affect the environment, leading to severe air pollution and increased
concentrations of particulate matter and aerosols (Swarna, Tezeswi, & Siva Kumar, 2022).
Malaysian waste management is in a dire state of improvement. Besides open dumping and
illegal dumping, Malaysian landfills suffer from minimal efforts toward source separation
for recycling despite the dominance of recyclable materials in the waste composition, CDW
inclusive (Moh & Abd Manaf, 2017). In addition to the shortage of dumping sites and scarce
resources for building materials, the critically lacking mentality toward cleanliness and sense
of responsibility toward properly managing waste create the need to incorporate reduce, reuse,
and recycle policy in CDW management in the construction industry.
In line with policymakers’ effort to promote sustainable solid waste management, policy-
makers such as Solid Waste Management and Public Cleansing Corporation (SWCorp) and
the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) are actively conducting awareness
campaigns and 3R workshops and offering advice to contractors, consultants, and customers
to reduce CDW (Nadarason et al., 2018). Policymakers are fully aware that the reduction of
CDW greatly benefits from the recycling and reuse of waste in the construction industry. As
such, the incorporation of a mandatory clause for recycling and reuse of CDW in the standard
form of contracts for construction projects is essential.
With the implementation of the recycle and reuse CDW mandatory clause, contractors will
most likely be affected by the mandatory requirements. It is interesting yet significant to know
the contractors’ perspective on the recycling and reuse of CDW as a mandatory clause in the
standard form of contracts. Therefore, the objectives of this chapter are:
(1) To examine contractors’ perception of recycling and reusing CDW in the construction
industry
(2) To examine contractors’ opinions on the inclusion of recycling and reuse CDW in the
standard form of contracts.
55
LITERATURE REVIEW
Construction and Demolition Waste Management
Previous literature has provided widespread definitions of CDW. One generally accepted
definition provided by Tchobanogious, Eliassen, and Theisen (1977) emphasized construction
waste as waste from construction, renovation, and repairing of premises, while demolition
waste is defined as waste accumulated from razed structures. The growth of buildings and
commercial housing in Malaysia makes up a significant amount of building waste generated
by the construction sector (Umar, Shafiq, & Ahmad, 2021). Lai, Yeh, Chen, Sung, and Lee
(2016) proposed that the CDW generated from the life cycle of buildings was aggregated, as
shown in Figure 5.1. The demand for implementing major infrastructure projects in Malaysia
also impacts increasing the production of building waste. As a result of cumulative and
increased volumes of CDW, pollution becomes more detrimental to health and natural ecosys-
tems (Udawatta et al., 2015). CDW management is, therefore, an important area of concern
within the Malaysian construction industry.
The Malaysian construction industry seeks to create a better standard operation procedure
(SOP) and mechanism to increase the efficiency of CDW management (Umar, Shafiq, &
Ahmad, 2021). While several mechanisms have been implemented in the construction indus-
try, certain enforcement will assure proper CDW management among the project stakeholders.
Regardless, the abundant generation of CDW presents multiple challenges to sustainable
development, not only in Malaysia but also across many countries in the world. Therefore,
as the implementer of construction activities, the contractor plays an important role in CDW
management and CDW minimization (Wu, Yu, & Shen, 2017).
Source: Lai et al., 2016.
Figure 5.1 The type of CDW generated throughout the life cycle of buildings
Construction and demolition waste recycling and reuse clause in standard form 57
Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling
CDW management includes processes of identification, collection, storage, and recycling

(Iodice et al., 2021). Over the years, prior works have been conducted by both researchers and
practitioners to find effective ways to prevent and minimize CDW in projects by utilizing the
resources (Elizar, Wibowo, & Koestalam, 2015). Recycling is one of the efforts implemented
in many areas and industries to reduce waste. The need for the reuse and recycling of CDW
has increased over the years, primarily to promote environmental protection and sustainable
construction materials (Lai et al., 2016).
Recycling is the reprocessing and converting of recycled materials into a new item or use
(Bao & Lu, 2021). Recycling or reusing waste from development or demolition depends on
the market for each waste. Prior works suggested incineration as a CDW management strat-
egy. However, it is somehow proven ineffective and not well accepted because of its limited
applicability (Kabirifar et al., 2020). Recycling and reuse, on the other hand, has been the area
of interest for many prior works and researchers from various perspectives: environmental
impacts, economic impacts, and social impacts, as well as the effect of the recycle and reuse
strategy on project life cycle, stakeholders’ decision, and tools and technologies. Nevertheless,
the literature is flawed when it comes to the implementation of such a strategy in the CDW
management of the construction industry as a mandatory clause in the standard form of
contracts.
It is generally acknowledged that major progress has been made in recycling over the
years and it is safe to expect that more building and demolition waste will be recycled in
the future (Kabirifar et al., 2020). Environmental issues, rising costs for CDW disposal, and
demolition of waste dumps have led to this. Therefore, implementing recycling and reuse
strategies as a mandatory clause in the standard form of contracts is considered necessary for
the CDW management. It is even more vital to understand the perspective of contractors as
the implementer of such strategies on having the mandatory clause to recycle and reuse CDW
in building projects.
Construction and Demolition Waste Management Performance
Every year, building projects have been promoted and urban renewal plans have caused the
demolition of existing buildings (Lai et al., 2016). Building and demolition operations produce
large quantities of solid waste such as concrete blocks, steel, wood, and glass. Such waste was
listed as resources that can be utilized for renewable resources, thus the need to recycle and
reuse CDW. Although recycling and reuse options have their respective strengths and weak-
nesses when considering the size, time, cost, market, and government policy, the options are
still worth implementation in managing CDW.
According to Elizar, Wibowo, and Koestalam (2015), for effective and improved CDW
management performance, some variables must be controlled and monitored. The variables
are assets, human resources, knowledge, technology, and policy. The effort to include the
recycle and reuse clause in the standard form of contracts benefits the environment, social,
and economic situations of a country and contributes to the overall CDW management perfor-
mance of the construction industry.
RESEARCH FRAMEWORK
A conceptual model was developed to represent the expected relationship of the study varia-
bles visually. As depicted in Figure 5.2, the first to understand in the study is the environmental
issue regarding CDW and CDW management. By imposing a mandatory clause for recycling
and reuse of CDW in the standard form of contracts, the contractors’ perspective toward the
mandatory clause of recycling and reusing CDW is another variable to explore in the study.
Figure 5.2 Research framework
METHODOLOGY
This study adopted a quantitative research approach for its data collection and analysis. A set
questionnaire was developed and utilized to collect data and answer the study objectives
developed for the study. The quantitative research design was chosen for the study to achieve
rational, objective, and impartial results and findings (Sekaran & Bougie, 2010).
Questionnaire Survey
A questionnaire was developed to gather primary data for the study. The main data focus on
the inclusion of a mandatory clause to recycle and reuse in the standard form of contracts for
construction projects in Malaysia and contractors’ perception if the clause is implemented. The
questions in the survey were designed and developed based on a literature review conducted
in the study.
The final version of the questionnaire involved closed-ended questions and was divided into
three sections: section (1) general information, section (2) environmental issues and recycling
CDW, and section (3) contractors’ opinion toward mandatory clause for recycling and reuse
of CDW. A five-point Likert scale was used for the closed-ended questions from 1 – Strongly
Disagree to 5 – Strongly Agree, considering that a five-point Likert scale is more common
in many research areas and convenient for respondents (Taherdoost, 2019). Two academics
with industry backgrounds in construction management and expertise in CDW management
reviewed the questionnaire to improve its structure, content, language, and capability to empir-
ically test the conceptual framework of the study (Babbie, 2015).
Questionnaires were distributed online to construction companies in Kuala Terengganu,
Malaysia. The simple random sampling method was implemented where samples were ran-
domly selected from a list of construction companies in Kuala Terengganu. The samples were
obtained from the CIDB directory of companies. The construction companies are registered
with the CIDB ranging from Grade 7 (G7) to Grade 5 (G5) categories. The wide range of
backgrounds allowed the researchers to produce a more comprehensive result.
The data collection process spanned two months and data were compiled electronically
since it is easy, cost-efficient, and provides the participants with some anonymity. Online
data collection also helps reach target respondents that are difficult to access and contact. The
online questionnaires were accompanied by a formal covering letter mentioning the study title,
its objectives, and a declaration of anonymity/confidentiality. A reminder email was sent to the
companies at seven-day intervals.
Statistical Analysis
The statistical analysis was conducted using Microsoft Excel. The results were analyzed
descriptively using the mean value in order to achieve the study objectives. Since the questions
included in the questionnaire used a five-point Likert scale, a reliability test of data is required.
Using the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS), the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha
test was done to verify the reliability and consistency of data collected using the questionnaire.
Sekaran and Bougie (2010) stated that the range of alpha values is from 0 to 1, where higher
values will indicate higher data reliability.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Reliability of Data
After the recording of data, the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha test is applied to check the relia-
bility of the collected data. The purpose of applying Cronbach’s alpha is to measure the inter-
nal consistency to identify the closeness of the relation of a set of items in a group (Dornyei
& Taguchi, 2009). The Cronbach’s alpha is a coefficient of reliability (or consistency) and
any Cronbach’s alpha that equals to or is greater than 0.7000 is often regarded as satisfactory.
The collected data were computed using the SPSS software on environmental issues, CDW
recycling, and contractors’ perspective toward recycling CDW as mandatory. The results of
the Cronbach’s coefficient alpha are shown in Table 5.1. All elements – environmental issues,
recycling CDW, and contractors’ opinion on the inclusion of a mandatory reuse and recycling
clause – presented a Cronbach’s alpha value of more than 0.70, where each element scored
0.872, 0.909, and 0.944, respectively. These values signify that the data collected are interre-
lated and that the scales used are reliable.
Table 5.1 Cronbach’s coefficient alpha test
Element Item AVE CR Cronbach’s alpha

Environmental issues The development needs to move in line with 0.609 0.903 0.872
environmental sustainability
I am aware that the environment is now deteriorating due
to waste from construction and demolition
Inefficiencies in CDW management and demolition waste
among contractors lead to environmental pollution
I realize that many contractors are not aware of the
environmental problems facing the country now
I realize that many contractors take the easy way out of
their CDW by dumping it in the wrong place
I am willing to help the environment by recycling my
CDW materials
Recycling CDW I know that recycling building materials waste and 0.662 0.931 0.909
demolition waste will help to reduce the environmental
problems we face now
Recycling is easy to apply in the construction industry
I always recycle my CDW
Recycling CDW is profitable to contractors
Recycling CDW makes work easier
Recycling CDW will not affect the construction time of

new buildings
Using building materials from recycled products will not
affect the life span of a building
Contractors’ opinion Recycling CDW should be included as one of the clauses 0.752 0.955 0.944
in a contract document
There should be a penalty imposed on contractors failing
to recycle CDW
Recycling CDW should be made mandatory for all
projects
Inclusion of recycling CDW in the clause will benefit the
contractors
Recycling CDW enshrined in the clause will not be to the
detriment of the contractor
I am willing to receive a penalty for violating the rules of
recycling CDW contained in the clause
I am willing to report environmental pollution by other
contractors to the responsible party
Results of Section 1
Only 146 responses were recorded within two months after the questionnaires were distributed
online to all samples. Table 5.2 summarizes the breakdown of the respondents, including
positions and percentages. As mentioned earlier, section 1 of the questionnaire focused on the
respondents’ general information, including the types of projects their companies carried out,
academic qualifications, years of involvement in the construction industry, and their current
position in the company. A range of positions responded to the questions. However, the major-
Table 5.2 Summary of demographic scales of respondents
Profile Description Count Percentage

Types of projects carried out Building construction 52 35.62%
Civil construction 86 58.90%
Other 8 5.48%
Gender Female 42 28.77%

Male 104 71.23%
Academic qualification SPM 34 23.29%

Diploma 54 36.99%
Degree 50 34.25%
Master 8 5.48%
Years of involvement in the construction industry Less than 3 years 60 41.10%

3 to 5 years 40 27.40%
6 to 10 years 42 28.77%
11 to 15 years 4 2.74%
Position in current company Contractor 64 43.84%

Designer 6 4.11%
Engineer 40 27.40%
Executive 2 1.37%
Nonexecutive 2 1.37%
Project manager 24 16.44%
Quantity surveyor 4 2.74%
Safety and health officer 2 1.37%
Site supervisor 2 1.37%
Total 146 100%
ity were at the operational level: 44% were engineers and 27% were contractors. Accordingly,
the majority of the respondents had been involved in the construction industry for less than
three years. Only 3% of the respondents had vast construction industry working experience,
between 11 and 15 years in the construction industry.
Respondents’ concerns about environmental issues

Table 5.3 summarizes the respondents’ concerns about the environmental issues in relation to
CDW management in the construction industry. Respondents strongly agreed that any devel-
opment and construction projects must progress and move toward sustainability (mean score
of 4.73) to maintain a healthy and safe environment for the community. Construction projects
produce various waste that might harm the environment and humans. Therefore, the need to
properly manage the waste is significantly important. Additionally, the respondents strongly
agreed that the environment is deteriorating because of the poor management of CDW in
Table 5.3 Respondents’ concerns about environmental issues
Item Min Max Mean Standard Excess Skewness

deviation kurtosis
The development needs to move in line with 3 5 4.73 0.51 1.89 -1.65
environmental sustainability
I am aware that the environment is now 3 5 4.49 0.55 -0.86 -0.47
deteriorating due to waste from construction
and demolition
Inefficiencies in CDW management and 3 5 4.48 0.55 -0.91 -0.41
demolition waste among contractors lead to
environmental pollution
I realize that many contractors are not aware 3 5 4.45 0.62 1.70 -1.03
of the environmental problems facing the
country now
I realize that many contractors take the easy 3 5 4.40 0.57 -0.79 -0.27
way out of their CDW by dumping it in the
wrong place
I am willing to help the environment by 2 5 4.18 0.73 -0.26 -0.51
recycling my CDW materials
the construction industry (mean score of 4.49) and that the inefficiencies in managing CDW
among contractors are leading to poor environmental conditions (mean score of 4.48). With
a mean score of 4.18, the respondents were slightly willing to help improve the management
of CDW in the construction industry and indirectly improve the environmental condition by
recycling CDW in their projects. This result shows that this concept is still new, and contrac-
tors are still embracing the idea of having to recycle and reuse their CDW on-site.
Respondents’ perceptions of recycling CDW

The respondents were asked to explore the feasibility and suitability of adopting the recycle
and reuse principles in the management of CDW on construction sites. Seven questions were
asked and the respondents were required to give an opinion on the impact of having to recycle
and reuse CDW at different stages of the construction period – the recycle and reuse principles
could be implemented during the construction work by using recycled materials, or during the
initial stage by integrating the reimagine and redesign elements. Table 5.4 summarizes the
respondents’ perceptions of recycling CDW on construction sites.
The majority of the respondents slightly agree (mean score of 4.25) that recycling CDW in
construction projects will help reduce the environmental problems in many countries, includ-
ing Malaysia. However, some respondents are still contemplating whether the recycling and
reuse principles are the best solutions to improve the poor state of Malaysia’s pollution level.
Besides that, the respondents were generally neutral, with slight agreement toward recycling
and reusing CDW at construction sites. On average, the respondents agreed (mean values
ranging from 3.30 to 3.56) on the idea of recycling CDW and that implementing the recycling
and reuse principles in CDW management will not affect the overall progress of construction
activities. Therefore, it is obvious that the suitability of waste minimization through recycling
and reuse needs more exposure among the key players of the construction industry, particu-
larly in the Malaysian construction industry.
Table 5.4 Respondents’ perceptions of recycling CDW

deviation kurtosis
I know that recycling building materials 3 5 4.25 0.62 -0.57 -0.21
waste and demolition waste will help to
reduce the environmental problems we
currently face
Recycling is easy to apply in the construction 2 5 3.56 0.80 -0.53 0.25
industry
I always recycle my CDW 2 5 3.30 0.83 -0.37 0.28
Recycling CDW is profitable to contractors 2 5 3.48 0.80 -0.44 -0.10
Recycling CDW makes work easier 2 5 3.41 0.79 -0.46 -0.04
Recycling CDW will not affect the 2 5 3.49 0.76 -0.34 -0.17
construction time of new buildings
Using building materials from recycled 2 5 3.53 0.73 -0.22 -0.12
products will not affect the life span of
a building
Respondent opinions on the inclusion of recycling CDW clause in the standard form of
contracts
Table 5.5 summarizes the respondents’ opinion on the inclusion of recycling and reuse as
a mandatory clause in the standard form of contracts for construction projects. Seven questions
were asked to respondents about including a mandatory clause to recycle and reuse CDW in
construction projects, and the majority of the respondents neither agreed nor disagreed with
the idea. The highest mean value was 3.81, where respondents thought it is quite fair if other
contractors or the public log a report to the local authorities if a violation of the environmental
act causing pollution occurred on construction sites during the construction period. When
asked if the recycle and reuse clause should be made mandatory and included in the standard
form of contracts for all construction projects, the respondents neither opposed nor supported
the effort. The mean value scored at 3.33, and the respondents had a slight tendency toward
agreeing to have the mandatory clause included in the standard form of contracts.
However, the respondents argued that they were not willing to be penalized should the
recycle and reuse clause be made mandatory for all construction projects. With the mean value
of 2.99, the respondent did not agree with having a penalty for breaching the contract clause,
indicating that the respondents did not agree with the inclusion of the recycling and reuse
clause in the standard form of contracts. Accordingly, when asked whether or not the recycling
and reuse initiative should be included as a mandatory clause in the standard form of contracts,
the respondents remained neutral with only a slight agreement (mean value of 3.32). The result
shows that the key players in the Malaysian construction industry do not fully acknowledge
the importance of protecting the environment and minimizing the production of CDW on
construction sites. Therefore, policymakers should take further actions toward implementing
the recycling and reuse principles in all construction projects.
Table 5.5 Respondents’ opinions on the inclusion of recycling CDW as a mandatory

clause in the standard form of contracts

deviation kurtosis
Recycling CDW should be included as one of 1 5 3.32 0.86 0.16 -0.40
the clauses in a contract document
There should be a penalty imposed on 1 5 3.36 0.88 0.40 -0.77
contractors failing to recycle CDW
Recycling CDW should be made mandatory 1 5 3.33 0.85 0.30 -0.41
for all projects
Inclusion of recycling CDW in the clause 1 5 3.30 0.81 -0.24 -0.46
will benefit the contractors
Recycling CDW enshrined in the clause will 1 5 3.25 0.88 -0.19 -0.38
not be to the detriment of the contractor
I am willing to be penalized for violating 1 5 2.99 0.89 -0.08 -0.21
the rules of recycling CDW contained in the
clause
I am willing to be reported for environmental 2 5 3.81 0.81 -0.63 -0.11
pollution by other contractors to the
responsible authorities
Table 5.6 Overall element statistics
Element Min Max Mean Std. deviation Kurtosis Skewness

Environmental issues 2 5 4.45 0.613 0.226 -0.779
Recycling CDW 2 5 3.88 0.812 -0.498 -0.053
Contractors’ opinion 1 5 3.33 0.880 0.009 -0.378
Finally, Table 5.6 summarizes the overall mean value of each section included in the ques-
tionnaire. As discussed earlier, the respondents were in agreement that the construction
activities contributed to the production of CDW, resulting in the poor environmental condition
in Malaysia with an overall mean value of 4.45. However, the respondents neither disagreed
nor approved the inclusion of the recycle and reuse as a mandatory clause in a standard form
of contracts (overall mean values of 3.88 and 3.33). Although there is a slight tendency that
respondents think recycling is a solution toward improved CDW management and hence
a better environment for the country, the results indicate that the key players were not ready
for the enforcement of such initiatives and that policymakers should make more effort to
demonstrate the importance of having a mandatory recycle and reuse clause in the standard
form of contracts.
CONCLUSION
For this study, the focal point is to gauge the perception of the key players in the construction
industry, specifically those working in the construction companies in Kuala Terengganu,
Malaysia. The findings were analyzed descriptively using the mean values to rank the var-
iables included in the questionnaire. The questionnaires were distributed online to the con-
structing companies registered and located in Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia. The companies
were registered with the CIDB, ranging from Grade 7 to Grade 5. The respondents for the
questionnaire have verified the following:
(a) Players in the construction industry, particularly those who are registered and located
in Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia, are aware of the environmental impacts of the CDW
production and that a better CDW management is required to improve the pollution level
of the country.
(b) Although it is generally acknowledged that reuse and recycle is imperative at each stage
of the construction cycle, the key players in Kuala Terengganu were not affected by
the initiative to recycle and reuse to minimize the CDW production, thus reducing the
pollution level caused by the CDW.
(c) Players in the construction industry, with reference to those in Kuala Terengganu,
Malaysia, are not ready for the inclusion of a recycling and reuse initiative as a manda-
tory clause in the standard form of contracts. Despite the players’ acknowledgment that
the CDW generated from the construction activities is a contributing factor to the high
level of pollution in the country, they are not ready to embrace recycling and reusing
waste as a mandatory clause for all construction projects.
Finally, the study findings are only an initial step to understanding the perception of the key
players in the construction industry toward implementing recycling and reuse initiatives in
CDW management. Although the findings do not favor the inclusion of a mandatory recycle
and reuse clause in the standard form of contracts, the results should be taken as a trigger for
the need to make the key players aware of the importance of the recycle and reuse initiatives.
Particularly for the contractor who will be the implementer of such initiatives, it is of utmost
importance that the contractor can support and be ready to work in line with policymakers’
intention to minimize CDW generation and reduce the pollution level of the country.
REFERENCES
Babbie, E.R. (2015). The Basics of Social Research. Boston: Nelson Education.
Bao, Z. & Lu, W. (2021). A decision-support framework for planning construction waste recycling:
A case study of Shenzhen, China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 309(2021), 127449. doi: 10.1016/j.
jclepro.2021.127449
Dornyei, Z. & Taguchi, T. (2009). Questionnaires in Second Language Research: Construction,
Administration, and Processing. Second edition. New York: Routledge.
Elizar, E. Wibowo, M.A., & Koestalam, P. (2015). Identification and analyze of influence level on
waste construction management of performance. Orocedia Engineering, 125, 46–52. doi: 10.1016/j.
proeng.2015.11.008
Esa, M.R., Halog, A., & Rigamonti, L. (2016). Developing strategies for managing construction and
demolition wastes in Malaysia based on the concept of circular economy. Journal of Material Cycles
and Waste Management, 19(3), 1144–1154. doi: 10.1007/s10163–016–0516-x
Esa, M.R, Halog, A., & Rigamonti, L. (2020). Strategies for minimizing construction and demolition
wastes in Malaysia. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 120, 219–229.
European Environment Agency (EEA). (2020). Construction and demolition waste: Challenges and
opportunities in a circular economy. ETC/WMGE Report, 1/2020. Retrieved at https://www.eionet
.europa.eu/etcs/etc-wmge/products/etc-wmge-reports/construction-and-demolition-waste-challenges
-and-opportunities-in-a-circular-economy.
Iodice, S., Garbarino, E., Cerreta, M., & Tonini, T. (2021). Sustainability assessment of construction
and demolition waste management applied to an Italian case. Waste Management, 1(128), 83–98.
doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2021.04.031
Jain, M.S. (2021). A mini review on generation, handling, and initiatives to tackle construction and
demolition in India. Environmental Technology & Innovation, 22, 101490.
Kabirifar, K., Mojtahedi, M., Wang, C.C., & Tam, V.W.Y. (2020). A conceptual foundation for effective
construction and demolition waste management. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 1(2020),
100019. doi: 10.1016/j.clet.2020.100019
Lai, Y., Yeh, L., Chen, P., Sung, P., & Lee, Y. (2016). Management and recycling of construction waste
in Taiwan. Procedia Environmental Sciences, 35, 723–730. doi: 10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.077
Moh, Y.C. & Abd Manaf, L. (2017). Solid waste management transformation and future challenges of
source separation and recycling practice in Malaysia. Resource, Conservation and Recycling, 116,
1–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2016.09.012
Nadarason, K.S., Nagapan, S., Abdullah, A.H., Yunus, R., Abas, N.H., Hasmori, M.F., & Vejayakumaran,
K. (2018). Recycling practices of construction and demolition (C&D) waste in construction industry.
Journal of Advanced Research in Dynamical and Control System, 10(6), 281–289.
Sekaran, U. & Bougie, R. (2010). Research Methods for Business: A Skill-Building Approach. Fifth
edition. London: Wiley.
Swarna, S.K., Tezeswi, T.P., & Siva Kumar, M.V.N. (2022). Implementing construction waste man-
agement in India: An extended theory of planned behaviour approach. Environment Technology &
Innovation, 27, 102401.
Taherdoost. H. (2019). What is the best scale for survey and questionnaire design: Review of different
lengths of rating scale/attitude scale/Likert scale. International Journal of Academic Research in
Management (IJARM). Helvetic Editions, 8.
Tchobanogious, G., Eliassen, R., & Theisen, R. (1977). Solid Waste: Engineering Principles and
Management Issues. New York: McGraw Hill.
Udawatta, N., Zuoa, J., Chiveralls, K., & Zillante, G. (2015). Improving waste management in construc-
tion projects: An Australian study. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 101, 73–83.
Umar, U.A., Shafiq, N., & Ahmad, F.A. (2021). A case study on the effective implementation of the
reuse and recycling of construction and demolition waste management practices in Malaysia. Ain
Shams Engineering Journal, 12(2021), 283–291.
Wu, Z., Yu, A.T.W., & Shen, L. (2017). Investigating the determinants of contractor’s construction and
demolition waste management behavior in Mainland China. Waste Management, 60, 290–300. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.09.001
6. Project monitoring and data integrity
James Marion and Tracey Richardson
PROJECT MONITORING AND DATA INTEGRITY
Project monitoring and controlling has been studied for decades. Left to its own devices,
a project would likely never arrive at the finish line with the required deliverables—much
less within the specified budget and schedule. It is project management that keeps projects
on target, and it does so by collecting status information and using that information to drive
corrective action. While this process may appear straightforward, there are many challenges
associated with monitoring projects. To begin with, projects are temporary and unique. They
often break new ground. When many unknowns are involved, the progress toward a novel goal
is often difficult to measure. Adding to this is the often-chaotic experience of the project team
members who carry out the work of the project. Monitoring a project requires the collection of
status information from team members who, when under schedule and budget pressure, may
choose to focus on doing work rather than providing timely reports.
When team members do report status, they may at times be doing little more than guessing,
creating data integrity problems. This is particularly the case in complex software-intensive
projects. Given that software is invisible and has an infinite number of moving parts, the exact
status of code is difficult to gauge. These factors suggest that to enhance the likelihood of
success, project managers need to be well versed in effective project monitoring practices.
An examination of the literature associated with project monitoring provides a starting point.
THE BASELINE
The progress of any project is determined by comparing the current state with the original
plan. The original project plan detailing a complete picture of the scope, the schedule, and
the budget is the baseline (Kim, Wells, & Duffey 2003; Larson & Gray, 2018; Kloppenborg,
Anantatmula, & Wells, 2018). The baseline is the plan that is “cast in stone” so that any change
to the plan must be proposed through the integrated change control process (Shafiq, Zhang, et
al., 2018). Changes that are accepted are documented and implemented and are incorporated
into a new baseline (Bhatti et al., 2010). What is essential in the context of project monitoring
is that the absence of a clear-cut project baseline eliminates the ability for the project manager
to report progress. There is no “progress to plan” without a plan—regardless of if the infor-
mation collected from project monitoring is accurate or not. While the baseline is the basis for
reporting progress, the baseline is not a tool for monitoring or collecting project performance
data. It is in effect the paper upon which the progress of the project is recorded and measured
against. The challenge for project managers is that while the baseline is well known and under-
stood, the progress against the baseline plan is not (Bhatti et al., 2010).
67
EARNED VALUE AS PROJECT MONITORING
Earned value is an important tool for removing some of the ambiguity of progress reporting,
as it measures the work accomplishment and budget consumption (Willems & Vanhoucke,
2015). For example, when the project reports that it is under budget—with no other infor-
mation except for the original budget plan and current date of the project—the reason for the
apparent “under budget” state is unclear. For example, is the project truly under budget? Or has
the project spent less than planned because it is behind schedule? The answer to this question
becomes clearer when the monetary value of the completed work is reported (EV) along with
the original budget (planned value: PV) and the actual spending (actual cost: AC). The benefit
of EV is only attainable if the project team can measure the “monetary value of the completed
work”, which is also defined as percent complete × budget. Determining the budget (PV) and
AC values are normally trivial exercises. However, the central problem is determining the
percent complete and its associated value. In the case of a tangible project such as clearing
a piece of land or building a backyard deck, EV determination is straightforward consumption
(Willems & Vanhoucke, 2015). But what about the case of a complex software-intensive
system development that requires the development of use cases, architecture, system design,
and development and integration of modules (Varajão, Fernandes, & Silva, 2020)? When
determining EV within a project becomes guesswork, the reported status of the project may
be misleading and may not reflect reality. One approach designed to address such concerns is
to employ EV at the level of the work package. The granular nature of monitoring at the work
package level offers the possibility for greater accuracy. Once again, however, the accuracy of
the reporting depends upon the nature of the work characterized by the work package, often
constrained by resources (Song, Martens, & Vanhoucke, 2022).
Another possibility for improving the accuracy of EV monitoring is to use it at key intervals
within the project (Kerzner, 2017). An example of this is to use EV only at key business deci-
sion points within the project. Carrying out EV at discrete intervals where tangible milestones
have been achieved provides advantages over attempting to monitor using EV on a continuous
basis (Acebes, Pajares, Galan, & Lopez-Paredes, 2014). A decision point or gate milestone is
typically associated with clear targets or milestones for accomplishment of key project deliver-
ables. When this approach is applied, the completion (or lack of it) for key deliverables comes
into clearer focus. One challenge is that progress associated with individual deliverables
may not say much about the progress of the overall project (Kerzner, 2017). As an example,
consider a project where three important software modules are to be completed at a specific
milestone. If the milestone is achieved, then the progress on the modules could be said to be
excellent—if not complete. But what will be the progress at the next milestone when the mul-
tiple modules are integrated into the complete system? Integration is typically where hidden
defects are brought to the surface. Prior to an integration milestone, then, the project may be on
target. After an integration milestone, the project may find itself well behind schedule because
of the sudden appearance of a tsunami of integration-related defects.
THE REARVIEW MIRROR
While EV indexes can be used to make projections about the future (Caron, Ruggeri, & Merli,
2013), progress monitoring is fundamentally about looking back at what was accomplished—
Project monitoring and data integrity 69
as well as what was not. Another way to employ EV is to look ahead at the project and denote
what “should” be completed at specific milestones and create EV-based control charts that
anticipate outcomes (Rodrigo, Linda, & Fernando, 2020). This “ex-ante” approach has been
cited as a means for improving accuracy in EV monitoring and making the scheme more
forward-looking and anticipatory in nature (Mortaji, Noori, Noorossana, & Bagherpour,
2018). This approach foreshadows other methods of looking ahead using metrics.
Progress reporting communicates what has been completed—so it is natural to think of EV,
as well as any progress-reporting methodology, as a rearview mirror approach. The challenge
is the time span between what happened in the project and when it was reported. In projects,
objects in the rearview mirror may be further away than they appear, thereby making the
information obsolete by the time it is reported.
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS AND KEY PERFORMANCE

INDICATORS AS PROJECT MONITORING
Critical success factors (CSFs) are those outcomes that must be in place for a project to be
considered successful (Kerzner, 2017). Progress toward the achievement of CSFs is meas-
ured using key performance indicators (KPIs). The benefit of CSFs is that project goals are
explicitly stated and the measured achievement against the stated goals is captured in KPI
measures and plotted. On the other hand, the project deliverables also constitute project goals
and the measurement of such progress also requires the collection of timely and accurate data
that may or may not be available. If accurate data on progress to plan is difficult to come by
when measuring overall project progress, the challenge will exist in equal measure for CSF
and KPI progress measurement. The benefit of the CSF methodology is successful for project
monitoring purposes only if the progress captured from the project team members is accurate
and of high quality. It may not be.
Control Charts
Modern quality management systems focus on the principle of “manage the process and the
quality of the deliverables will take care of itself”. In project management, the process being
managed for the purpose of project quality is the project life cycle. The life cycle, whether
expressed in phases, sprints, or a monolithic end-to-end schedule, is primarily measured
using methods such as EV. For example, performance indexes may be plotted on a control
chart in the same way that control charts are developed within the context of construction or
manufacturing (Votto, Lee Ho, & Berssaneti, 2021). The challenge in project management
is that measuring progress of complex intangible work such as system development is not as
straightforward as testing tangible products on an assembly line (Aliverdi, Moslemi Naeni, &
Salehipour, 2013; Galante, La Fata, & Passannanti, 2019).
While it is a simple matter to plot the measurement of specifications of products in manufac-
turing (Leu & Lin, 2008), measuring the percent complete of code development depends upon
many factors—some of which requires estimation on the part of the developer. For example,
progress could be measured in terms of number of modules completed versus the plan, lines of
code written, or the completion of a complete system, to name but a few. However, while such
metrics may be captured, they may often be incomplete because of many unknown factors. For
example, questions that could be asked include:
(1) While code (and/or system design) is said to be complete, does it work?
(2) Has the completed work been tested?
(3) Does the completed work require integration into other systems? (If so, what is the
confidence level that defects will not emerge en masse once integration is attempted?)
(4) Are there any changes in requirements, standards, or assumptions that changed while the
code and/or system was being developed?
(5) How long ago was the work completed (and if time has passed, does the progress report
remain valid)?
While the control chart remains an important means for visualizing progress, it is only as
useful as its accuracy (Bauch & Chung, 2001).
HOW DO ORGANIZATIONS COLLECT PROJECT PROGRESS

DATA?
What is not well documented in the literature is the process to ensure the data collected for
reporting is accurate and consistent across the project. Organizations may adopt a “rule of
thumb” for reporting an activity’s progress, described as the percent complete, or the 0% rule,
50% rule, and the 100% rule (Larson & Gray, 2018). The 0% rule states that if an activity is
started but not yet complete, the activity will be reported as zero progress until completion, at
which time it will be documented as 100% complete. The 50% rule states that if an activity is
started but not yet complete, the activity will be reported as 50% progress until completion, at
which time it will be documented as 100% complete. The 100% rule states that if an activity
is started but not yet complete, the activity will be reported as 100% complete as soon as
it begins. Each of these rules of thumb has pros and cons associated with their use, but the
bottom line is that they are not an accurate representation of progress. The lack of data integ-
rity could be impacting project progress reporting and organizational decision making, as it is
fundamentally flawed (Anbari, 2003). When looking for ways to improve its project progress
reporting, an organization may seek a solution to data integrity question by filling the gap with
a part of the organization that exists to control projects: the Change Control Board (CCB).
TRADITIONAL ROLE OF THE CHANGE CONTROL BOARD (CCB)
In its traditional role, the CCB oversees the formal change control progress for all projects
(Hinojosa, 2008). Its purpose is to review all requested project changes, evaluate the changes’
impact to all aspects of the project, and, if the change is approved, issue responses by sending
out change orders to the project team. The CCB is generally considered a committee with
a committee chair and committee membership includes subject matter domain experts,
a system engineer (they help balance trade-offs across domains), those who oversee shared
resources, and other organizational representatives as needed.
The change control process (see Figure 6.1) begins when a stakeholder identifies that some-
thing in the project plan needs to be changed. The change might be additions to the scope,
requirements to meet regulatory guidance, or missing details from the original project plan, to
name a few reasons. In this case, we will refer to the person who submits the change request
as the originator. The originator, in collaboration with the project manager, will document the
request, including changes to requirements, cost, and additions to the schedule, and submit the
details to the CCB.
Figure 6.1 The change control process
The CCB will evaluate the merits of the change request and consider its impact on the scope,
schedule, and budget of the project. But this evaluation’s scope does not stop at the impact of
the project. Because the CCB has oversight of the organization’s project portfolio, it can also
consider the impact on other projects, as shared resources can be a critical asset.
If the CCB deems the change acceptable, the change control process will identify the
affected work packages and send out work order changes. Those change orders are issued to
the project’s stakeholders and the work packages will be updated to reflect scope, schedule,
and budget updates.
ADDING THE ROLE OF ‘MONITORING’ TO THE CCB
The CCB, by virtue of its oversight role of the project baseline, is uniquely positioned to
provide insights on project progress information arising from Work Package Team Leads.
In addition to taking on the responsibility for capturing accurate progress information, the
CCB would continue its function to approve project changes (see Figure 6.2). Whether due
to specialized training or unique experience working on the CCB, the CCB members have
a better understanding of an organization’s risk tolerance. Additionally, those who serve on
the CCB have a unique perspective and likely have relationships with project managers and
work package leads. Finally, the membership of the CCB involves project team members who
possess significant domain expertise. Such expert judgment puts team members in a position
where they can ask the right questions about reported progress, aid in backfilling what is
missing, and cast a skeptical eye over overly optimistic progress reports. In this scenario, the
CCB members—in the same way as project core team members—are assigned oversight of
work package leads associated with their specific domain expertise. Once progress reports are
vetted by CCB members, the reports are combined to assemble the formal status of the project
along with EV metrics. In cases where cross-domain issues or discrepancies arise among the
different reports submitted by CCB members, a designated arbiter of the issues will evaluate.
Typically, this individual will be the Chief Technical Officer of the organization or project, or
a team member assigned to system engineering responsibilities.
While this data integrity role increases the scope of the CCB, it has the potential to increase
the data accuracy making project status much more valid. Since the CCB maintains the integ-
rity of the baseline considering change and updating the baseline (or PV) as necessary, this
additional obligation in effect makes the CCB responsible for the project progress or EV line.
The CCB therefore owns not only PV but also EV integrity.
Figure 6.2 Adding the role of ‘monitoring’ to the Change Control Board
IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS
The decision to add the monitoring function of EV in addition to PV oversight and data
integrity requires more than the determination to implement it. The implementation of the
methodology requires answering the following questions:
(1) Who are the Work Package Leaders and what is their specific area of responsibility (i.e.
project domain expertise)?
(2) Which Work Package Leaders are assigned to which CCB members?
(3) How specifically will CCB members collect data from Work Package Leaders?
(4) How often will progress data be collected?

(5) How will the progress reports be evaluated and vetted?
These questions relate to the specific strategy of “plan progress measurement” processes
thought through in advance of the project. The first two questions to be answered are ones
associated with project stakeholder identification and assessment. It is recommended that the
Work Package Leader and CCB member mapping could take place in the initiating of the
project during stakeholder analysis. The next two questions incorporate communication and
stakeholder engagement planning. Finally, the fifth question relates specifically to project
integration as monitor and control project work planning. Establishing a clear strategy to
plan progress management formalizes the process, which can be studied for effectiveness,
efficiency, and success.
CONCLUSION
Organizations continue to struggle with project monitoring efficacy and at its foundation is
questionable data integrity. It is especially problematic with complex projects where tangible
progress cannot be seen. A solution may already exist with specialized knowledge of the
organization: the CCB. While the example in this chapter was illustrated using software
development, the CCB is a solution to any organization struggling with project monitoring
challenges because of questionable data integrity, regardless of industry, sector, or project
complexity.
REFERENCES
Acebes, F., Pajares, J., Galan, J. M., & Lopez-Paredes, A. (2014). A new approach for project control
under uncertainty. Going back to the basics. Elsevier Science. 10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.08.003
Aliverdi, R., Moslemi Naeni, L., & Salehipour, A. (2013). Monitoring project duration and
cost in a construction project by applying statistical quality control charts. International Journal
of Project Management, 31, 411–423.
Anbari, F. T. (2003). Earned value project management method and extensions. Project Management
Journal, 34(4), 12–23.
Bauch, G. T., & Chung, C. A. (2001). A statistical project control tool for engineering managers. Project
Management Journal, 32, 37–44.
Bhatti, M. W., Hayat, F., Ehsan, N., Ishaque, A., Ahmed, S., & Mirza, E. (2010, October). A method-
ology to manage the changing requirements of a software project. In 2010 International Conference
on Computer Information Systems and Industrial Management Applications (CISIM) (pp. 319–322).
IEEE.
Caron, F., Ruggeri, F., & Merli, A. (2013). A Bayesian approach to improve estimate at completion in
earned value management. Project Management Journal, 44(1), 3–16.
Galante, G. M., La Fata, C. M., & Passannanti, G. (2019). Project monitoring by dynamic statistical
control charts. Journal of Modern Project Management, 7(3).
Hinojosa, E. U. (2008). Process Mining Applied to the Change Control Board Process (doctoral disser-
tation, Master’s thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven).
Kerzner, H. (2017). Project Management Metrics, KPIs, and Dashboards: A Guide to Measuring and
Monitoring Project Performance. Wiley.
Kim, E., Wells Jr, W. G., & Duffey, M. R. (2003). A model for effective implementation of Earned Value
Management methodology. International Journal of Project Management, 21(5), 375–382.
Kloppenborg, T., Anantatmula, V., & Wells, K. (2018). Contemporary Project Management. 4th ed.
Cengage.
Larson, E. W., & Gray, C. F. (2018). Project Management: The Managerial Process. McGraw Hill.
Leu, S., & Lin, Y. (2008). Project performance evaluation based on statistical process control techniques.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 134(10), 813–819.
Mortaji, S. T. H., Noori, S., Noorossana, R., & Bagherpour, M. (2018). An ex-ante control chart for
project monitoring using earned duration management observations. Journal of Industrial Engineering
International, 14(4), 793–806. 10.1007/s40092–017–0251–5
Rodrigo, V., Linda, L. H., & Fernando, B. (2020). Applying and assessing performance of earned
duration management control charts for EPC project duration monitoring. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 146(3), 04020001. 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943–7862.0001765
Shafiq, M., Zhang, Q., Akbar, M. A., Khan, A. A., Hussain, S., Amin, F. E., … & Soofi, A. A. (2018).
Effect of project management in requirements engineering and requirements change management
processes for global software development. IEEE Access, 6, 25747–25763.
Song, J., Martens, A., & Vanhoucke, M. (2022). Using earned value management and schedule risk
analysis with resource constraints for project control. European Journal of Operational Research,
297(2), 451–466.
Varajão, J., Fernandes, G., & Silva, H. (2020). Most used project management tools and techniques
in information systems projects. Journal of Systems and Information Technology. doi: 10.1108/
JSIT-08-2017-0070
Votto, R., Lee Ho, L., & Berssaneti, F. (2021). Earned duration management control charts: Role of
control limit width definition for construction project duration monitoring. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 147(9). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002135
Willems, L. L., & Vanhoucke, M. (2015). Classification of articles and journals on project control and
earned value management. International Journal of Project Management, 33(7), 1610–1634.
7. Don’t ask what makes projects successful,
but under what circumstances they work:
recalibrating project success factors
Lavagnon A. Ika and Jeffrey K. Pinto
INTRODUCTION: TROUBLE IN PARADISE
The islands of Hawai’i are among the most idyllic settings in the United States, offering
beautiful beaches, temperate climates, and stunning and varied scenery. As a booming tourist
destination for millions of travellers each year, government and tourism officials have worked
to balance the needs of the local populations with the expectations of the islands’ many guests.
One area that represents a particular sore point for residents of the most heavily populated
island of O’ahu is the lack of sufficient infrastructure to support the congestion around the
capital city of Honolulu. Commutes along the main highway from the airport and western
environs into the city centre can take hours and are a constant source of frustration for travel-
lers and locals alike.
With a goal of easing traffic congestion, the state and federal officials embarked on a series
of studies from 2005 to 2008 to identify the best means for developing an infrastructural
solution to urban and suburban congestion. In 2008, voters approved a proposal to fund the
building of a 20-mile elevated rail system. The timing of the project was unfortunate, as it
coincided with the “great recession,” which effectively tabled all major infrastructure projects
for over 18 months. However, after a careful study was undertaken by planners and state
regulators, the City and County of Honolulu signed an agreement in 2012 with the Federal
Transit Administration to build the project for $5.122 billion. The funding for the rail system
would cover development of the 20-mile, 21-stations project, as well as paying for 80 rail cars.
Performance to date has been disappointing, to put it mildly. In fact, the rail project has been
the subject of multiple state and city audits that identified a consistent record of fiscal waste
and poor management, plus lawsuits, calls for a forensic audit to investigate whether criminal
activity occurred, and U.S. Department of Justice subpoenas (Frosch & Overberg, 2019).
Among the litany of mistakes made to date are: (1) the development and subsequent abandon-
ment of a public–private partnership when bids came in much higher than expected, (2) poor
planning, and (3) a continuing opaque and confusing funding process that clouds the effec-
tive costs of the project (Fujii-Oride, 2021). Technical challenges with transport car design,
inability to locate underground utilities, and infighting among stakeholders have also slowed
development to a crawl (Nakaso, 2021). The project has not been helped by the continuous
stream of upbeat projections and public assurances that it has turned the corner, a state audit
determined: “We found that, from the beginning, unrealistic deadlines and revenue projections
resulted from a desire to demonstrate that the project was progressing satisfactorily and to
minimize public criticism, which could have eroded support for the project.”
75
Concerns about the project’s mismanagement have caused the federal government to with-
hold $744 million since 2015. As of the end of 2021, the project is estimated to be only 63%
completed, with 15 miles of the 20-mile guideway in place, 68 of the 80 cars delivered, and
a current budget shortfall of $3.5 billion deficit – the difference between the latest estimate of
the final overall cost and revenue expected by 2030, when the tax increases that are funding
most of the construction expire (Fujii-Oride, 2021). Cost overruns have been attributed
notably to limited supply of labour, superficial or inadequate initial planning, and increases in
the cost of materials. The current expected budget at completion for the project is estimated
at about $12 billion – 136% more than when the full funding grant agreement was signed in
2012. With a budget that has more than doubled and a new completion estimate that is 11
years past the original plan, the Honolulu rail project offers a large set of “How not to” lessons
for megaproject organizations and urban planners alike. In project management theory and
practice, these lessons are what have been called critical success factors (CSFs), the levers
that project funders and managers may use to bolster a project’s chances of success, those
few elements “where things must go right” if project funders and managers are to create “an
environment where projects are managed consistently with excellence” (Kerzner, 1987, p. 32)
or, put simply, those “conditions, events, and circumstances that contribute” to positive project
outcomes (Ika, 2009, p. 8).
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS
The idea of CSFs connects with the notions of project success – the achievement of the goal
towards which project management efforts are directed – and project performance – the
degree to which, during project execution or after project completion, success is likely to
be reached – that remain complex and elusive in theory and practice (Pinto, Davis, Ika,
Jugdev, & Zwikael, 2021; Ika & Pinto, 2022). Projects have increasingly become a means for
organizations, both public and private, to achieve strategic, medium- or long-term, business
case objectives and deliver value for multiple stakeholders with differing if not conflicting
expectations. Further, at the time when the imperative of sustainability – that is, the triple
bottom line of economic, social, and environmental considerations (Elkington, 1997) or the
UN Sustainable Development Goals (UN, 2015) – is gaining momentum in the project man-
agement literature (Huemann & Silvius, 2017), project funders and managers seek to reach the
targets of efficiency, without sacrificing the goals of effectiveness and sustainability (Carvalho
& Rabechini, 2017; Ika & Pinto, 2022).
The increased interest in understanding project success and the factors that can lead to
improved performance offers an interesting irony; namely that at a time when the use of
project-based work is at an all-time high, as the demand for new and enhanced infrastructure,
emergency development of vaccines and other pharmaceuticals, efforts supporting green
technologies and net-zero initiatives continue to capture the public’s attention and earn signif-
icant public and private funding, the success rates of projects in many settings languish. Most
recent Chaos Reports (Standish Group, 2020), for example, cite a success rate of only 31%
for new software projects. Moreover, these disappointing numbers reflect the steady state of
substandard performance that has occurred for some 20 years. As our opening example illus-
trates, worldwide, megaprojects offer little reason for optimism, as they collectively continue
to overrun their initial budgets and schedules to the tune of billions (USD) (Flyvbjerg, 2014).
Don’t ask what makes projects successful, but under what circumstances they work 77
Therefore, despite decades of work, the question “what makes projects successful?” continues
to garner attention from both practitioners and researchers alike. In particular, since the 1960s,
research has continued apace on CSFs both inside and outside project management journals
(Rubin & Seeling, 1967; Murphy, Baker, & Fisher, 1974; Morris & Hough, 1987; Pinto &
Slevin, 1988; Cooke-Davies, 2002; Jugdev & Müller, 2005; Ika, 2009; Rodríguez-Segura,
Ortiz-Marcos, Romero, & Tafur-Segura, 2016; Unterhitzenberger & Bryde, 2019; Wang, Xu,
He, & Chan, 2022).
Our goal in this chapter is to critically examine the current state of theory and research on
project CSFs, both in terms of reinforcing what we, as a scholarly profession, know as well
as highlighting areas that continue to pose challenges for scholars and practitioners alike.
Although the topic of CSFs is one that has been addressed in the project management literature
for some time now, with probably the earliest papers on the topic appearing in the 1960s (e.g.,
Rubin & Seeling, 1967), we still face a paradox in our knowledge of the topic. Specifically, as
we learn more about the complex nature of project behaviour (Ika, Love, & Pinto, 2022), we
find that CSFs become increasingly complex and generalizations previously made about them
more open to qualification and even contradiction. Further, CSF research offers an interesting
juxtaposition with an equally active research stream on the nature of project success. That is,
project scholars continue to identify complications in the previously “well-recognized” rela-
tionship between CSFs and subsequent effect (project outcomes). As our knowledge of what
it means to be “successful” has been progressively challenged and/or modified in the literature
(Zwikael & Meredith, 2021; Ika & Pinto, 2022), it is important to re-examine CSFs.
This chapter first updates the most significant literature on project CSFs and, building
on key existing frameworks, highlights the importance of more modern perspectives, citing
additional CSFs. In an attempt to further “complexify” CSF research, the chapter then reveals
five gaps in the CSF literature. We conclude with a call for practitioners and scholars to switch
from a narrow and unproductive focus on success factors to a broader and more promising
focus on success conditions in the face of complexity and uncertainty. The chapter also ends
with an agenda highlighting future research to move our understanding of CSFs forward.
FROM OLD FRAMEWORKS TO A NEW FRAMEWORK OF

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS?
The lessons from the longitudinal and historic reviews of project success (Jugdev & Müller,
2005; Ika, 2009; Wang et al., 2022) are clear: there has been a gradual broadening in our
understanding of CSFs since the 1960s. Table 7.1 lists some of the key frameworks of CSFs
in the project management literature. It is important to note that for some scholars the focus
was jointly on factors that promote project success or failure (e.g., Rubin & Seeling, 1967;
Belassi & Tukel, 1996; Unterhitzenberger & Bryde, 2019); that is, “[t]he body of literature on
project success also encompasses project failures” (Jugdev & Müller, 2005, p. 26). Although
not intended to be exhaustive, Table 7.1 offers a fair treatment of various studies of success
and failure, while also providing a glimpse into the manner in which these models have both
maintained continuity and modification through some 50+ years of work on the topic.
As we have learned from contingency theory, while it is virtually impossible to develop an
exhaustive list of CSFs that would work for all projects, the idea of a universal grouping
of CSFs seemed to be garnering attention until recently (Ika, 2009). However, research on
Table 7.1 Seven key frameworks of project critical success factors
Murphy et al. Project manager

(1974) (commitment to project goals; authority and influence; task orientation; administrative skill; human skill; technical
skill; early and continued involvement; participation in goal setting and criteria specification)
Project team
(capabilities; commitment to goals; participation in goal setting, setting budgets and schedules, major
decision-making, problem solving; early and continued involvement; “sense of mission”; structural flexibility)
Parent organization
(coordinative efforts; structural flexibility; effective strategic planning; rapport maintenance; adaptability to change;
past experience; external buffering; prompt and accurate communications; enthusiasm; project contributes to parent
capabilities)
Client organization
(coordinative efforts; rapport maintenance; establishment of reasonable and specific goals and criteria; change
procedures; prompt and accurate communication; commitment; lack of red-tape; prompt decision-making; influence
and authority of contact)
Managerial techniques
(judicious and adequate but not excessive, use of planning, control, and communication systems)
Preconditions
(clearly established specifications and design; realistic schedules; realistic cost estimates; avoidance of buy-ins;
avoidance of over-optimism; favourable interface with legal-political environment; conceptual clarity)
Baker et al. Clear goals
(1983) Goal commitment of project team
On-site project manager
Adequate funding to completion
Adequate project team capability
Accurate initial cost estimates
Minimum start-up difficulties
Planning and control techniques
Task (vs social orientation)
Absence of bureaucracy
Morris & Project objectives and viability
Hough Technical uncertainty innovation
(1987) Politics
Community involvement
Schedule duration urgency
Financial, legal, and contractual matters
Project implementation
Pinto & 10 CSFs under project team control:
Slevin (1987) Project mission
Top management support
Project schedule/plan
Client consultation
Personnel
Technical tasks
Pinto & Client acceptance

Slevin (1987) Monitoring and feedback
(continued) Communication
Troubleshooting
4 CSFs outside project team control:
Characteristics of the project team leader
Power and politics
Environment events
Urgency
Cooke- Adequacy of company-wide education of risk management
Davies Organizational maturity for risk ownership assignment
(2002) Adequacy of risk register maintaining
Adequacy of up-to-date risk management plan
Adequacy of documentation of organizational responsibilities
Keep project (or project stage duration) as far below 3 years as possible (1 year is better)
Allow changes to scope only through a mature process
Maintain integrity of performance measurement baseline
Effective benefits delivery and management process that involves mutual co-operation of PM and management line
functions
Portfolio and programme management practices that allow strategic alignment of projects
A suite of project, programme, portfolio metrics for aligning decisions
Effective means of “learning from experience”
Hyväri Project
(2006) (size and value; having a clear boundary; urgency; uniqueness of the project activities; density of the project
network; project life cycle end-user commitment; adequate funds/resources; realistic schedule; clear goals/objectives)
PM/leadership
(ability to delegate; authority; ability to trade off; ability to coordinate; perception of his or her role and
responsibilities; effective leadership; effective conflict resolution; having relevant past experience; management of
changes; contract management; situational management; competence; commitment; trust; other communication)
Project team members
(technical background; communication; troubleshooting; effective monitoring and feedback; commitment; other
scope known by members also)
Organization
(steering committee; clear organization/job descriptions; top management support; project organization structure;
functional manager’s support; project champion)
Environment
(competitors; political; economic; social technological; nature; client; subcontractors)
Khang & Clear understanding of project environment by funding and implementing agencies and consultants
Moe (2008) Competencies of project designers, planners, managers, PM team
Effective consultations with stakeholders
Compatibility of development priorities of the key stakeholders
Adequate resources and competencies available to support the project plan
Compatible rules and procedures for PM
Continuing support of stakeholders
Commitment to project goals and objectives
Adequate provisions for project closing in the project plan
Donors and recipient government have clear policies to sustain project’s activities and results
Adequate local capacities are available
There is strong local ownership of the project
comprehensive, often execution-focused, CSF lists and frameworks has dwindled while work
has continued significantly at the individual project CSF level, most especially as a function
of classic contingency theory (Morris, 1994). One notable but recent exception is the work
of Wang et al. (2022) whose 36-CSF framework on infrastructure construction megaprojects
includes CSFs related to the project (e.g., clear goals), organization (e.g., project manager’s
competency), stakeholders (e.g., public support or acceptance), management (e.g., scope man-
agement), and external environment (e.g., economic, technical, and political stability).
Hoegl and Gemünden (2001) emphasized teamwork quality as a CSF for innovative
projects, which they connected with team performance (efficiency and effectiveness) and
personal success (satisfaction and learning). Gemünden et al. (2005) outlined the contribution
of project autonomy as a CSF. Drawing on the classic contingency theory and noting that
different projects show different CSFs (Dvir, Lipovetsky, Shenhar, & Tishler, 1998), Shenhar
and Dvir (2007) devised the Novelty, Technology, Complexity, and Pace or NTCP diamond
model, which is akin to a CSF model. As our understanding of project success evolves, we
have discovered that project sponsorship – also known as project supervision or the “manage-
ment of project management,” as the British Association for Project Management (APM) calls
it – is a CSF (e.g., Bryde, 2008). Likewise, along with the (organizational) project manage-
ment, leadership, and governance approach itself (e.g., Müller, Drouin, & Sankaran, 2019),
project management maturity (e.g., Ibbs & Kwak, 2000), procurement method and contract
management (e.g., Hyväri, 2006), ownership (e.g., Zwikael & Meredith, 2021), (external)
stakeholder engagement (e.g., Lehtinen & Aaltonen, 2020), and even organizational justice
(e.g., Unterhitzenberger & Bryde, 2019) have all been identified as project CSFs. Moreover,
learning from institutional theories, additional CSFs such as familiarity and compliance with
and efficiency of the public procurement regulatory framework and professionalism of staff
have been identified (Mwelu, Davis, Ke, Watundu, & Marcus, 2021).
Still, despite these burgeoning lists, a brief glance at professional and scholarly journals
suggests that most of the CSF research tends to focus on short-term, objective, project man-
agement success, rather than medium-term, business case success, not to mention subjective
stakeholder success or long-term, green success, or societal success (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007;
Ika, Meredith, & Zwikael, 2021). For example, while behavioural CSFs such as de-biasing
project estimates (e.g., the application of “optimism bias uplifts”) have come to the fore,
as a result of the contribution of the Planning Fallacy principle – that is, the tendency to
over-promise and under-deliver in projects (Flyvbjerg, 2014) – they have largely focused on
minimizing cost overruns, thus espousing a narrower and more short-term view of project
success (Ika et al., 2022).
In light of a much-needed reconceptualization of project success to encapsulate other issues
such as the delivery of benefits and value, issues of timing, and sustainability considerations
(Ika & Pinto, 2022), new CSFs continue to come to the fore. Examples include but are not
limited to: applying benefits realization practices and having a sound business case from
the outset (Zwikael & Meredith, 2021); agency on the part of funders and managers as they
grapple with shifting internal and external environment and resort to changing leadership,
strategy, governance, plans, and scope (Ika et al., 2021); agility/flexibility in the project man-
agement approach (Winch, Dongpin, Maytorena-Sanchez, Pinto, Sergeeva, & Zhang, 2021)
to cope with complexity and uncertainty and increase their projects’ odds of success; project
resilience, defined as the ability to adapt to and recover from pressure, adversity, distress, or
disturbances with minimal effects on the project’s performance (Williams, Gruber, Sutcliffe,
Shepherd, & Zhao, 2017); temporal ambidexterity on their part as they deal with short-term
and long-term tensions in the project (Slawinski & Bansal, 2015; Ika et al., 2021); and “sus-
tainability by the project” (i.e., managing the project in a socially, economically, ethically,
and/or environmentally viable fashion) (Huemann & Silvius, 2017).
Our review shows that the majority of existing frameworks of CSFs offers a mixed bag,
incorporating generic items that are relevant for all projects (e.g., clear goals, top management
support, project manager competence) or broad items that are difficult to operationalize in
practical or measurable terms (e.g., adaptability to change, leadership, governance), and they
also include project or industry-specific items such as private vs public sector. As Hyväri
(2006) notes: “the success factors are usually listed in either very general terms, or very spe-
cific terms affecting only particular projects” (Hyväri, 2006, p. 31).
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTOR RESEARCH: FIVE GAPS
CSFs confront both practitioners and scholars with a few important challenges. The chapter
singles out five gaps in CSF theory and practice that warrant significant attention.
Gap #1: The Underperformance Gap
Practice reveals that, all too often, projects (sometimes entire classes like infrastructure or IT/
software) underperform not only in terms of their time, cost, and scope but also in terms of their
target benefits and stakeholder expectations (Flyvbjerg, 2014; Denicol, Davies, & Krystallis,
2020). Whether the causes of such problems are behavioural (e.g., human bias in estimation),
technical (R&D and other “discovery projects” rarely lend themselves to accurate forecasts),
institutional (the result of a lack of adequate training of project staff), intra-organization
cultural (the existence of a variety of toxic workplace behaviours; cf. Pinto, 2014), abusive
leadership (Gallagher, Mazur, & Ashkanasy, 2015), or some other systemic pathologies, there
is strong evidence that our approach to CSFs requires continuous modification and reanalysis,
as we acknowledge that steps taken to adequately address this topic still struggle to keep up
with the practical realities of modern project management practices.
Consider one simple but important example: software project management operated with
the so-called “waterfall” model of system development and implementation, featuring a struc-
tured and rigorously planned set of steps from features development to system introduction.
Unfortunately, researchers and practitioners alike came to realize that this focus on project
efficiency at the expense of user satisfaction was rendering project after project under-utilized
or outright cancelled. At the turn of the century, an alternative project development model,
agile, was introduced into many organizations with the implicit goal of shortening planning
cycles and focusing on system acceptance and use over development efficiency. Success rates
began to improve as professionals realized that they had been focusing their energies towards
promoting the wrong set of goals (Serrador & Pinto, 2015).
Gap #2: The Temporal Conflation Gap
As emerging strategy theories suggest, our understanding of the factors that can improve the
likelihood of project success is often muddled by a variety of external forces, impacts, and
events that may be outside the direct control of project managers and organizations. That is,
time plays a big role and may turn projects into success-failure or failure-success paradoxes,
as we learn from time theories (Ika et al., 2021, 2022). For example, some projects that were
initially deemed as failures at their completion, such as the Sydney Opera House, became
resounding business successes over time, while others, like the second generation of Ford
Taurus and the Los Angeles Red Line Metro, which were considered successes at their com-
pletion, were ultimately business failures.
There is a tendency, especially with high-profile projects such as public works or infra-
structure, to focus too quickly on assessments of their value, which, history and experience
tend to strongly argue, typically occur too early or before adequate time has elapsed to offer
a reasonable assessment.
Gap #3: The Context Gap
As we learn from contingency and institutional theories, some classes of projects may be
highly successful in a given setting and then fail, either partially or completely, in another
setting, making context particularly important in understanding what makes projects success-
ful (Ika & Donnelly, 2017; Chipulu & Vahidi, 2020; Pinto et al., 2021). Indeed, Engwall’s
(2003) point that “No project is an island” is especially important in that it militates against
a “one and done” attitude, where organizations assume that having accomplished a particular
challenge once implies that the steps can simply be replicated in other settings. For example,
China’s massive, multi-trillion (USD) “Belt-and-Road” infrastructure initiative has had
a mixed success rate in achieving the goals of cultural and economic integration because of the
resistance of ethnic minorities in some parts of the country (Li, Liu, & Qian, 2019).
Gap #4: The “Complexification” Gap
The idea of success factors assumes a probabilistic nature of what constitutes project success
and downplays the complexity and uncertainty associated with the delivery of many projects.
Success factor research implicitly conjectures that all the relevant alternatives, probabilities,
and consequences when we make decisions can be known. In other words, if we can learn
from past projects and work on their best-practice success factors, we can repeat success in our
current projects. Yet, this assumption may fall short for the more complex projects, for which
many decision variables are unknown or unknowable (Love, Ika, Matthews, & Fang, 2022).
We should realize that “success is, in fact, a dangerous guide to follow too closely”
(Petroski, 2013, p. 23). Thus, it is important to understand that it might be virtually impossible
to replicate the CSFs that prevail “in advance of the project” or “in the wake of the project”
(Hirschman, 1967, p. 146). To put this argument in a slightly different way, if we go into
a project assuming a priori that there is a clear and defined set of CSFs to which we must pay
heed in order for the project to succeed, we ignore context and contingency, a point we raised
in our third argument. For us to depend too heavily on formulaic approaches to the application
of CSFs is to remove critical reasoning and the recognition of special circumstances or con-
texts within which we are managing projects.
Gap #5: The External Environmental Impact Gap
Recent CSF literature reviews suggest we may have reached a point in time where CSFs are
more strategy-, organization-, and stakeholder-related (Jugdev & Müller, 2006; Ika, 2009;
Wang et al., 2022). For example, Pinto and Slevin (1988) note that while CSFs such as project
mission and top management support are more or less under the control of the project manager
and team, others may be outside their control: characteristics of the project team leader, power
and politics, environmental events, and urgency. Yet, project management research has not
fully examined the CSFs associated with the external environment.
This latter gap is an important issue that we will address in more detail below. For now,
consider the implications of our changing understanding of project success, from its earlier
conceptualization as the simple “iron triangle” of time, cost, and quality to one that has
evolved to recognize an increasing complexity: not only to the customer and the project organ-
ization, but to the larger environment, as well as society as a whole (Pinto et al., 2021; Ika &
Pinto, 2022). Research on CSFs, however, has not proceeded in the same evolutionary manner,
with much of the recent work still locked into an emphasis on project execution efficiency,
and categorizing a relatively limited set of factors (Fortune & White, 2006). Thus, the clear
question emerges: can we be confident in our sets of CSFs if we no longer understand what
“success” actually means?
MOVING FROM SUCCESS FACTORS TO SUCCESS CONDITIONS
CSF researchpresents us with a paradox: we seem to know why project management or busi-
ness cases fail or how projects can be successful, yet they still fail; a lot. This paradox suggests
that CSF research continues to fall short of its ambitions. Indeed, in light of the above five gaps
in CSF research, it is not surprising that there still prevails (Fortune & White, 2006; Ram &
Corkindale, 2014; Ika & Donnelly, 2017):
● a lack of consensus among scholars on which of the CSFs are really “critical”
● a dearth of exploration of the empirical interrelationships between different CSFs
● a variety of competing theoretical explanations attempting to explain why projects succeed
or how they can succeed
● a narrow focus of the literature on short-term, project management success, or the old “iron
triangle” of time, cost, and quality, rather than business case, stakeholder, green, or societal
success
● a propensity to take CSFs as being essentially static, rather than dynamic or evolving over
the life cycle of the project
● a tendency to offer little guidance in terms of practice, especially as project success knowl-
edge often occurs in hindsight, not foresight
● a lack of emphasis on complexity and uncertainty
● a mismatch between research on success criteria and research on success factors; that is,
the expansion of success criteria has significantly outpaced our ability to predict project
success. Thus, CSF lists need constant upgrading to address newly introduced measures of
project success; e.g., sustainability or net-zero criteria.
Hundreds of success factors have been proposed over the years to the point that it has been
suggested, in a tongue-in-cheek manner, that any new scholar that proposes a new CSF should
be required to eliminate two existing CSFs (Ika, Diallo, & Thuillier, 2012, p. 114). As Dalcher
(2012, p. 656) notes:
Ironically, the idea of critical success factors was meant to address success in a different fashion.
Rockart (1979) asserted that there were a small number of critical factors that were specific to
a manager and critical to their success. These factors were therefore specific rather than general.
Indeed, Rockart asserted that one could not generate a generic list of factors.
Another significant problem with this continuous, incremental identification of new CSFs is
that we simply add them to a steadily lengthening list, without attempting to address them
jointly in real project settings. Thus, new CSFs are constantly being proposed and, within
reason, empirically proven; however, much of this current generation of research lacks a will-
ingness to examine new CSF candidates within the larger pool of all items, thereby potentially
minimizing joint and even contradictory effects of CSFs. Specific project classes, settings, and
other contingency variables are still highly relevant to the study of CSFs, but the lack of larger
studies of multiple constructs constrains our understanding.
We argue that project management research should abandon the narrow and unproductive
quest for universal, non-contextual, project success factors (e.g., Dvir et al., 1998; Ika, 2009).
In light of the complexity and uncertainty associated with the delivery of projects both in the
short and long terms and the differing if not conflicting perceptions of stakeholders on project
success, we propose a switch from success factors to success conditions. Notably, while CSF
research has focused a lot on things such as events that affect project success (Ika, 2009), it has
rarely focused on success conditions (see Table 7.2 for rare exceptions). This needs to change!
Turner (2004, p. 349) defines project success conditions as “things that must be in place before
a project can have a successful outcome.” We take this definition as a point of departure but
note that it offers a static conceptualization of success conditions. Indeed, events (both positive
and negative) occur in a project and the conditions that must be in place for the project to
succeed may change and others may arise as time goes by. As Ika and Donnelly (2017) and Ika
et al. (2021) demonstrate, there are initial success conditions that prevail before the business
case approval and emerging success conditions that arise after the business case approval (e.g.,
during project execution or at the operations or benefits realization phase). Hence, following
Ika and Donnelly (2017), success conditions are the necessary states of being; that is, circum-
stances or prerequisites that must exist or emerge for project success to occur. As they include
the circumstances that exist prior to the business case approval or that emerge thereafter,
success conditions could help make more progress.
Indeed, they can, in contrast to success factors, deal with key issues such as environment,
time, and complexity/uncertainty that impact project outcomes including project management,
business case, stakeholder, green, and societal success. Consequently, instead of asking what
makes projects successful, we should rather ask: under what circumstances do projects work
and more importantly (Ika & Donnelly, 2017, p. 59): “What is occurring in the project setting
that prompts us to believe that project success will occur?”
To be sure, we are not the first authors to highlight the concept of success conditions.
Hirschman (1967, p. 188) submitted that much “remains to be done in understanding the
conditions for failure and success of projects.” He then advised looking into what happens
before and after the project as this constitutes the essence of “the dilemma of design” (p. 146).
Table 7.2 Four key frameworks of success conditions
Murphy et Clearly established specifications and design

al. (1974) Realistic schedules
Realistic cost estimates
Avoidance of buy-ins
Avoidance of over-optimism
Favourable interface with legal-political environment
Conceptual clarity
Morris & Positive attitude to success shared by all parties
Hough Workable properly defined project, careful monitoring of external factors
(1987) Clear understanding of the impact of the definition on the schedule and finance
Implementation structure cognizant of organization and contracting with clear communication and controls
Good, well-qualified personnel, and tolerance towards errors, even with the greatest experts
Turner The success criteria should be agreed with the stakeholders before the start of the project, and repeatedly at
(2004) configuration review points throughout the project
A collaborative working relationship should be maintained between the project owner and project manager, with both
viewing the project as a partnership.
The project manager should be empowered, with the owner giving guidance as to how they think the project should be
best achieved, but allowing the project manager flexibility to deal with unforeseen circumstances as they see best
The owner should take an interest in the performance of the project
Ika & Structural conditions:
Donnelly Legal/regulatory frameworks
(2017) Financial resources
Contextual environment
Institutional conditions:
Beneficiary organization capacity:
Accountability/public participation
Capability to commit
New technical expertise
Capability to attract resources
Capability to manage diversity
Capability to adapt knowledge and skills
Implementing agency capacity:
Capability to commit
New technical expertise
Capability to attract resources
Capability to manage diversity
Capability to adapt and self-renew
Managerial conditions:
Project leadership
Project monitoring
Project design
Stakeholder coordination
Meta-conditions:
Multi-stakeholder commitment
Collaboration
Alignment
Adaptation
He further cites “a minimum of mutual toleration and understanding” between the parties
involved in the project as a vivid example of a critical condition for its success (p. 150).
Moreover, context, institutions and project management circumstances – whether existing or
emerging – matter for the manifestation of project outcomes. Consider, after Ika and Donnelly
(2017) and Ika et al. (2021), three success conditions, whether they occur before or after the
business case approval:
(1) Structural or political, economic, physical/geographic, sociocultural, historic, demo-

graphic, and environmental circumstances; for example, as noted earlier, the economic
condition of “the US’s great recession” delayed the start of the Honolulu rail project.
(2) Institutional circumstances such as governance, principal–agent, corruption, organiza-
tional capabilities, and compliance with the legal procurement regulatory framework;
for example, in the case of the Honolulu rail project, the winning contractor bid did not
deliver value for money.
(3) Managerial or initiation, planning, implementation, monitoring and evaluation, benefits
realization problems, behavioural factors, managerial agency, agility, temporal ambi-
dexterity, and “sustainability by the project”; for example, there was poor planning,
over-optimism, and mismanagement in the Honolulu rail project.
Table 7.2 also points to four meta-conditions after Ika and Donnelly (2017): multi-stakeholder
commitment, collaboration, alignment, and adaptation, which are in interrelationships with the
above threefold categories of success conditions. Ika and Donnelly (2017, p. 61) termed these
“meta-conditions” “as they appeared to incorporate not only the structural, institutional, and
project management conditions but also provided a stronger link between and project context
and success factors such as supervision, monitoring, design, coordination, consultations,
understanding the project environment, competency of project staff.”
Moreover, as perceptions of project success also depend on who you ask, we propose that
success conditions should be appreciated by internal stakeholders such as project funders and
managers and they should agree on a shared, inter-subjective appreciation of those success
conditions in order to make decisions and enact them in a timely manner, through managerial
agency (Ika et al., 2021). This set of success conditions are more practitioner-friendly as they
hold the potential of a “diagnosis” instrument.
In a manner similar to other professions like meteorology or medicine, project management can also
benefit from the use of “diagnostic” conditions to gauge the state of their projects and make changes
to increase the likelihood of a positive outcome. Project managers can use the presence or absence
of the conditions to assess the likelihood that success will (or will not) occur and adjust their project
practice accordingly. For instance, the presence of strong alignment and adaptability conditions may
indicate the possibility of novel adjustments to changing environmental circumstances or, as men-
tioned earlier, indicate the potential of a project intervention to expand or scale out. (Ika & Donnelly,
2017, p. 59)
Figure 7.1 displays the success conditions and Table 7.3 offers practical guidance in terms of
how to apply the meta-conditions.
Source: Adapted from Ika and Donnelly, 2017.
Figure 7.1 Project success conditions
Table 7.3 Meta-conditions and their practical application (adapted from Ika &
Donnelly, 2017, p. 58)
Meta- Process (how conditions are achieved) Application

conditions
Multi- Attainability of objectives (strengthened Attainability of objectives
stakeholder commitment) Break down objectives, make them attainable; regular
commitment engagement
Demonstrating project value (strengthened Demonstrating project value
commitment) Build narrative; provide tools; create sharing opportunities
Collaboration Ability of stakeholders (enabled effective Ability of stakeholders
collaboration) Complementary teams; mutual accountability through joint
ownership
Inclusiveness (enabled effective Inclusiveness
collaboration) Create spaces for interaction; mediate tension; facilitate
partnerships
Alignment Planning and design (contributed to Planning and design
alignment) Plan incrementally; involve implementing stakeholders in
design and planning stages
Mutual interest (contributed to alignment) Mutual interest
Find the win-win-win scenario for multiple key stakeholders;
timing
Adaptation Monitoring (contributed to adaptation) Monitoring
Observe for opportunities and risks; act in a timely manner
Support (contributed to adaptation) Support
Motivate; advise; facilitate; provide guidance
Finally, we would reiterate that this argument to switch from success factors to success con-
ditions is critical, as an important paradox prevails in project management research regarding
success factors and ultimate project success; namely that CSF research, voluminous though it
has become over the years, is hamstrung by a fundamental misunderstanding of its relationship
to project success. Since Ika’s (2009) reconceptualization of project success, numerous addi-
tional articles have identified the fact that modern project management is changing to adapt to
a more complex environment within which it operates and, at the same time, the discipline is
moving to include multiple new metrics, including “green,” or sustainability in project devel-
opment, health and safety, success in achieving the business case, and so forth (e.g., Carvalho
& Rabechini, 2017; Zwikael & Meredith, 2021; Wang et al., 2022). In effect, we have been
steadily moving the goal posts. “Project success” in 2022 means a very different thing than
what we understood it to mean in 1972, or even in 2002. Unfortunately, a scan of much of the
current CSF literature demonstrates that this acknowledgement has been slow to take place.
Scholars mostly continue to assume a narrowly focused set of success criteria, usually centred
on traditional measures of time, cost, functionality/quality, and some assessment of (often
internal) stakeholder satisfaction (cf. Müller & Turner, 2007). Thus, our dependent measure is
evolving while much CSF literature has failed to keep pace.
CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK
Project success and CSFs remain crucial yet complex, multidimensional, contingent, and
dynamic notions at the heart of project management theory and practice. As project man-
agement often fails and business cases frequently underperform and disappoint stakeholders,
the quest for CSFs continues to be of interest to practitioners and scholars alike. This chapter
takes stock of decades of research and updates and recalibrates the most significant literature
on CSFs. The chapter highlights the importance of CSFs such as benefits realization practices,
external environment, (external) stakeholder engagement, managerial agency, agility/flexibil-
ity, temporal ambidexterity, and sustainability management practices. The chapter questions
CSF research and invites practitioners and scholars to abandon the narrow and unproductive
search for success factors and focus instead on the investigation of success conditions in the
face of complexity and uncertainty.
The chapter indicates the need for empirical research to tackle the following questions:
(1) Under what circumstances do projects work (or do not)? And are there other
meta-conditions than multi-stakeholder commitment, collaboration, alignment, and
adaptation?
(2) How do emerging success conditions (e.g., after the business case approval) relate
to initial success conditions (e.g., before the business case approval)? And how do
meta-conditions relate to both initial and emerging conditions?
(3) What’s the role of managerial agency in the (timely) response to success conditions?
(4) To what extent can temporal ambidexterity of project funders and managers help in
dealing with emerging success conditions?
(5) How do project funders and managers come to a shared feeling on project success
conditions?
REFERENCES
Baker, B.N., Murphy, D.C., & Fisher, D. (1983). Factors affecting project success. In Project
Management Handbook, ed. D.I. Cleland & W.R. King, Van Nostrand Reinhold, 669–685.
Belassi, W., & Tukel, O.I. (1996). A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in
projects. International Journal of Project Management, 14, 141–151.
Bryde, D. (2008). Perceptions of the impact of sponsorship practices on project success. International
Journal of Project Management, 26(1), 800–809.
Carvalho, M.M., & Rabechini, R. (2017). Can project sustainability management impact project success?
An empirical study applying a contingent approach. International Journal of Project Management,
35(6), 1120–1132.
Chipulu, M., & Vahidi, R. (2020). The dependence upon context of project critical success factors:
Test of the contingency hypothesis and effects of technological uncertainty and collectivism culture.
Production Planning & Control, 31(15), 1261–1275.
Dalcher, D. (2012). The nature of project management: A reflection on The Anatomy of Major Projects
by Morris and Hough. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), 643–660.
Denicol, J., Davies, A., & Krystallis, I. (2020). What are the causes and cures of poor megaproject
performance? A systematic literature review and research agenda. Project Management Journal, 51,
328–345.
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, 915–935.
Elkington, J. (1997). The triple bottom line. In Environmental Management: Readings and Cases, 2, ed.
M.V. Russo, SAGE, 49–66.
Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an island: Linking projects to history and context. Research Policy,
32(5), 789–808.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview. Project
Management Journal, 45(2), 6–19.
Fortune J., & White, D. (2006). Framing of project success critical success factors by a system model.
International Journal of Project Management, 24(1), 53–65.
Frosch, D., & Overberg, P. (2019). How a train through paradise turned into a $9 billion debacle. Wall
Street Journal, March 22, retrieved from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-a-20-mile-train-line
-swelled-into-a-9-billion-debacle-11553270393
Fujii-Oride, N. (2021). How rail got to $12.45 billion and 11 years late. Hawaii Business Magazine,
November 9, retrieved from: https://www.hawaiibusiness.com/hart-history-hawaii-rail-project-when
-finished-budget
Gallagher, E.C., Mazur, A.K., & Ashkanasy, N.M. (2015). Rallying the troops or beating the horses?
How project-related demands can lead to either high-performance or abusive supervision. Project
Gemünden, H.G., Salomo, S., & Krieger, A. (2005). The influence of project autonomy on project
success. International Journal of Project Management, 235, 366–373.
Hirschman, A.O. (1967). Development Projects Observed. The Brookings Institution.
Hoegl, M., & Gemünden, H.G. (2001). Teamwork quality and success of innovation projects: A theoret-
ical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12(4), 435–449.
Huemann, M., & Silvius, G. (2017). Projects to create the future: Managing projects meets sustainable
development. International Journal of Project Management, 35(6), 1066–1077.
Hyväri, I. (2006). Success of projects in different organizational conditions. Project Management
Journal, 37(4), 31–41.
Ibbs, C.W., & Kwak, Y.H. (2000). Assessing project management maturity. Project Management
Journal, 31(1), 32–43.
Ika, L. (2009). Project success as a topic in project management journals. Project Management Journal,
40(4), 6–19.
Ika, L.A., & Donnelly, J. (2017). Success conditions for international development capacity building
projects. International Journal of Project Management, 35(1), 44–63.
Ika, L., & Pinto, J.K. (2022). Nothing succeeds like success, but what is it, anyway? In A Research
Handbook on Complex Project Organizing, ed. G. M. Winch, M. Brunet, & C. Dongping, Edward
Elgar.
Ika, L., Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2012). Critical success factors for World Bank projects: An empirical
investigation. International Journal of Project Management, 30(1), 105–116.
Ika, L.A., Meredith, J., & Zwikael, O. (2021). Project performance over time: The why and
when of success-to-failure projects. Proceedings, European Academy of Operations Management
(EUROMA), Berlin, July, 4–7.
Ika, L. A., & Pinto, J. K. (2022). The “re-meaning” of project success: Updating and recalibrating for
a modern project management. International Journal of Project Management, 40(7), 835–848.
Jugdev, K., & Müller, R. (2005). A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success.
Project Management Journal, 36(4), 19–31.
Kerzner, H. (1987). In search of excellence in project management. Journal of Systems Management,
38(2), 30–39.
Khang, D.B., & Moe, T.L. (2008). Success criteria and factors for international development projects:
A life-cycle-based framework. Project Management Journal, 39(1), 72–84.
Lehtinen, J., & Aaltonen, K. (2020). Organizing external stakeholder engagement in inter-organizational
projects: Opening the black box. International Journal of Project Management, 38(2), 85–98.
Li, J., Liu, B., & Qian, G. (2019). The belt and road initiative, cultural friction and ethnicity: Their effects
on the export performance of SMEs in China. Journal of World Business, 54(4), 350–359.
Love, P.E.D., Ika, L.A., Matthews, J., & Fang, W. (2022). Risk and uncertainty in the cost contingency
of transport projects: Accommodating bias or heuristics or both? IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management. In press.
Morris, P.W. (1994). The Management of Projects. Thomas Telford.
Morris, P.W., & Hough, G.H. (1987). The Anatomy of Major Projects. John Wiley and Sons.
Müller, R., & Turner, J.R. (2007). Project success criteria and project success by type of project.
European Management Journal, 25, 298–309.
Müller, R., Drouin, N., & Sankaran, S. (2019). Elgar Introduction to Organizational Project Management:
Theory and Implementation. Edward Elgar.
Murphy, D.C., Baker, B.N., & Fisher, D. (1974). Determinants of Project Success. NASA.
Mwelu, N., Davis, P.R., Ke, Y., Watundu, S., & Marcus, M. (2021). Success factors for imple-
menting Uganda’s public road construction projects. International Journal of Construction
Management, 21(6), 598–614.
Nakaso, D., (2021). Problems piling up for the Honolulu rail project. Star Advertiser, May 13, retrieved
from: https://www.staradvertiser.com/2021/05/13/hawaii-news/problems-piling-up-for-the-honolulu
-rail-project
Petroski, H. (2013). Success through failure. Ask Magazine, 23–25.
Pinto, J.K. (2014). Project management, governance, and the normalization of deviance. International
Pinto, J.K., & Slevin, D.P. (1987). Critical factors in successful project implementation. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 34(1), 22–27.
Pinto, J.K., & Slevin, D.P. (1988). Critical success factors across the project life cycle. Project
Pinto, J.K., Davis, K., Ika, L.A., Jugdev, K., & Zwikael, O. (2021). Call for papers for special issue
on project success. International Journal of Project Management, retrieved from: https:// www
.journals.elsevier.com/international-journal-of-project-management/call-for-papers/call-for-papers
-for-special-issue-on-project-success
Ram, J., & Corkindale, D. (2014). How “critical” are the critical success factors (CSFs)? Examining the
role of CSFs for ERP. Business Process Management Journal, 20(1), 151–174.
Rockart, J.F. (1979). Chief executives define their own information needs. Harvard Business Review,
25(4), 17–27.
Rodríguez-Segura, E., Ortiz-Marcos, I., Romero, J.J., & Tafur-Segura, J. (2016). Critical success
factors in large projects in the aerospace and defense sectors. Journal of Business Research, 69(11),
5419–5425.
Rubin, I.M., & Seeling, W. (1967). Experience as a factor in the selection and performance of project
managers. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 14(3), 131–134.
Serrador, P., & Pinto, J.K. (2015). Does agile work? A quantitative analysis of agile project success.
Shenhar, A.J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing Project Management. The Diamond Approach to
Successful Growth and Innovations. Harvard Business School Press.
Slawinski, N., & Bansal, P. (2015). Short on time: Intertemporal tensions in business sustainability.
Organization Science, 26, 531–549.
Slevin, D.P., & Pinto, J.K. (1987). Balancing strategy and tactics in project implementation. Sloan
Management Review, (Fall issue) 33–41.
The Standish Group International Inc. (2020). Chaos 2020: Beyond Infinity. Technical report.
Turner, R. (2004). Five necessary conditions for project success (Editorial). International Journal of
Project Management, 22, 349–350.
UN. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. A/RES/70/1.
United Nations.
Unterhitzenberger, C., & Bryde, D. J. (2019). Organizational justice, project performance, and the medi-
ating effects of key success factors. Project Management Journal, 50(1), 57–70.
Wang, T., Xu, J., He, Q., & Chan, A.P.C. (2022). Studies on the success criteria and critical success
factors for mega infrastructure construction projects: A literature review. Engineering, Construction
and Architectural Management. In press.
Williams, T.A., Gruber, D.A., Sutcliffe, K.M., Shepherd, D.A., & Zhao, E.Y. (2017). Organizational
response to adversity: Fusing crisis management and resilience research streams. Academy of
Management Annals, 11, 733–769.
Winch, G.M., Dongpin, C., Maytorena-Sanchez, E., Pinto, J., Sergeeva, N., & Zhang, S. (2021).
Operation Ward Speed: Projects responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Project Leadership and
Society, 2, 100019.
Zwikael, O., & Meredith, J. (2021). Evaluating the success of a project and the performance of its
leaders. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 68(6), 1745–1757.
8. Understanding the causes and effects of
low-risk management: implementation in
projects using the DEMATEL algorithm
Chia-Kuang Lee, Wen-Nee Wong, Nurhaizan Mohd
Zainudin and Ahmad Huzaimi Abd Jamil
1. INTRODUCTION
According to Zavadskas et al. (2010), construction projects are risky in general. In Malaysia,
the construction industry can be defined as one of the most challenging and risky industries
as compared to the others. The activities for construction are rife with risks and uncertainties.
Oliveira (2017) stated that risk can be defined as the occurrence of possibility of either positive
or negative events that happen to be recognized as uncertainties.
Risks can be categorized into either external or internal risks (PMI, 2013; Zhi, 1995;
Abderisak & Lindahl, 2015). External risk can be defined as the uncertainties that exist
outside of the project that will be influenced by the surrounding or environment factors, while
internal risks are uncertainties that exist in the project itself. External risks include economic
and political factors that may affect the risk management of construction projects (Adeleke et
al., 2018). However, while negative outcomes or consequences can be associated with risks
to projects, they also have the possibility of being seen as chances of positive events (Adeleke
et al., 2018; Farooq et al., 2018; Goh et al., 2012). According to Adeleke et al. (2018), it is
necessary to manage the possible risks in order to ensure there is no threat being brought to the
project to ensure project success.
Some of the effects that might occur because of the negative risks or negative events in the
construction project are project delays and cost overruns. According to Abd El-Karim, Mosa
El Nawawy and Abdel-Alim (2017), the common scenario that happens among stakeholders
(contractors, clients, suppliers and owners) of the project are estimations of costs and sched-
ules that are inaccurate. In order to adapt to any circumstances or unexpected events that might
occur in the project, it is important to make both budgeting and scheduling flexible.
Based on the studies by Goh et al. (2012), most of the construction firms in Malaysia only
practice risk identification and qualitative risk analysis but not the risk analysis and risk
response: 17.78% of organizations were willing to employ a formal risk management process
in their practices or construction projects (Goh et al., 2012). One of the weaknesses of the
construction industry is to cope with risks successfully. Thus, it is essential to have implemen-
tation of risk management in either projects or the companies. This could lead to improvement
in profits and reputation and ensure business success.
92
Understanding the causes and effects of low-risk management 93
The causes and effects of low-risk management implementation in the construction indus-
try need to be researched in order to intervene in the relationship between them effectively.
Therefore, the objectives of this chapter are threefold:
1. To identify the causes of low-risk management implementation.

2. To determine the effects of low-risk management implementation.
3. To develop the causal relationship among causes and effects of low-risk management
implementation.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Risk in the Construction Industry
Risk can be explained as an event that has impact on the project objectives with positive or
negative outcomes that take place in the environment (Iqbal et al., 2015). According to Iqbal et
al. (2015), risk can also be defined as the exposure or the probability of occurrence to gain or
loss multiplied by its respective magnitude. Based on research by Bon-Gang et al. (2014) and
Zavadskas et al. (2010), risk can be assessed using various types of information. The level of
risks will affect the success and implementation of risk management in the construction indus-
try. According to the Project Management Institute (PMI) (2004), because of the involvement
of different contracting parties, such as contactors, clients, suppliers and owners, the projects
in construction are perceived to have more inherent risks.
As construction projects involve numerous stakeholders, the possibility of risks tends to
increase as they are expected to complete volatile tasks with a complex procedure and finish
within a limited period (Odimabo & Oduoza, 2013). The causes of risks or uncertainties can
be from different sources such as commitment from the project parties, project team perfor-
mances and the condition of the environment (Abd El-Karim et al., 2017). Failure to cope with
risks will cause stakeholders such as clients, contractors and the public to suffer (Zavadskas et
al., 2010). Consequently, managing projects with high risks effectively remains challenging
for industry practitioners (Kapliński, 2009). Therefore, it is necessary to understand the causes
and effects of poor risk management that might affect the project.
2.2 Risk Management Implementation
According to the Project Management Book of Knowledge (PMBOK), risk is an uncertain

event that can either be positive or negative. Olsson (2008) stated that risk is generally an
event that is likely to occur and could positively or negatively affect the project outcomes in
terms of the triple constraints and other relevant criteria that are related to the project perfor-
mance. Additionally, risk management is considered as a process of identifying, analyzing
and responding to project risks that is systematic and iterative, which helps to decrease the
probability of project failure (Florio & Leoni, 2017). It consists of five steps: Risk Planning
Identification, Qualitative Analysis, Quantitative Analysis, Response Planning, and Risk
Monitoring and Controlling. The process helps the project team to predict the unpredictable
and control the project risks. According to Carbone and Tippett (2004), it is important to have
a supportive system to plan for and handle the risks and uncertainties of the project activities. It
is a vital management instrument that helps to control construction project risks (Mills, 2001).
However, because of the uniqueness of construction projects, there is a problem of lacking
enough data to refer to when managing the project risks as there are no two identical projects.
Therefore, the implementation of risk management in the construction industry is different
from other industries where references are available to take up as an actuarial assessment
(Elshandidy et al., 2018). Based on the Association for Project Management (2004), risk man-
agement in the construction industry needs a pragmatic approach because of its variables such
as technical, engineering, innovative, procurement and strategic content. Risk management
has become an essential and important element of project management (Chapman & Ward,
2003), with a direct effect on project success, since risks are usually assessed by their potential
impact on project objectives (Zou et al., 2007).
2.3 Causes of Low-Risk Management Implementation
While there have been many studies conducted on project risk management, the manifestation
of causes to low-risk management implementation is a less-explored topic (Kutsch & Hall,
2010). The failure in identifying and eliminating the causes for risk management will affect the
practices of risk management and thus lead to adverse effects such as financial losses, delay
of project, loss of customer trust, loss of competitive advantage and negative press. Therefore,
there is a strong need to improve project success (Yim et al., 2015).
2.3.1 Resistance to change (A)

According to Lundy and Morin (2013), employees’ resistance to change is one of the fre-
quently encountered causes for implementing effective risk management. It happens when
there is uncertainty of change or pressure. Tummala and Burchett (1999) stated that the
primary reasons that caused resistance to change among employees include lack of clarity,
interference with interests and reluctance to learn. Resistance to change can be one of the
most powerful causes of the organization having low implementation of risk management in
projects. It has effects on both evolutionary and strategic type of changes but is believed to be
generally higher in strategic changes than evolutionary ones (Pardo & Fuentes, 2003). Some of
the other causes include different perceptions among employees and management, barriers in
communication and gaps in capabilities in organizations. All these can cause the organization
to have even stronger resistance to changing to implement risk management in construction
projects.
2.3.2 Lack of managerial support and communication (B)

Another factor of low-risk management implementation stems from the lack of support from
the top management of an organization (Liu et al., 2015). Repeated interactions and communi-
cation with the top management help to gain the confidence of employees and prevent project
failure (Malik et al., 2019). Poor communication between top management and the project
team will lead to risk avoidance as the employees are uncertain without direction (Bhoola
et al., 2014; Aziz et al., 2019). This will affect the closeness of relationships and employee
engagement in the project. Berger and Meng (2014) stated that communication is the corner-
stone of determining the success of an organization as it is a two-way process that involves
constructive feedback. Watson (2012) emphasized that it is essential for the organization to
have a risk manager with excellent communication skills with employees and the project team
pertaining to the implementation of risk management.
2.3.3 Low-risk attitude (C)

Risk attitude refers to the orientation of an individual toward taking risks where this can vary
from risk-averse (very unwilling to take risks) to risk-seeking (very willing to take risks)
(Winsen et al., 2014). Every individual has their own perceptions of risk and these can cause
the individual to handle risks differently based on their own perceptions. An individual’s
positive and negative evaluation of characteristics of different types of behaviors represents
the base of the attitude (Dikmen et al., 2018). However, this attitude can be improved and rein-
forced through knowledge acquisition. Absence of formal training in project risk management
would impede the implementation of risk management. Training is an enabler of competency
(Hanna et al., 2016).
2.3.4 Lack of resources (D)

Farr-Wharton (2003) suggests that inadequate resources can result in project failure, regard-
less of the efforts of the team. Resources include funds, manpower, equipment and machines.
A lack of resources affects the implementation of risk management in any project. According
to Olsson (2008), an organization requires more than having a good project plan or moni-
toring and control systems and should focus on implementing effective strategies for risk
management. Proper risk management may incur high costs for an organization as it includes
planning, estimating, costing, financing and other forms of costs control. Organizations that
do not have any experts in risk management will need sufficient training and thus increase in
their expenses (Ikechukwu et al., 2017).
2.3.5 Lack of knowledge in risk management implementation (E)

According to Dikmen et al. (2018), knowledge is fundamental in cultivating favorable atti-
tudes toward project risk management. Bratianu (2018) stated that a proper risk analysis before
initiating a project will help in reducing risks that may occur later in a project and this cannot
be done without adequate knowledge in risk management. Besides that, it is important to
understand how risk management techniques are being utilized in phases of risk management
that are undertaken in a project (Dikmen et al., 2018). Organizations should also provide
proper training for risk managers to ensure they are well equipped with knowledge of the
project activities so that they can demonstrate and show support to the other employees. Good
planning for a risk management process comes from knowledge to prevent project failure
(Frese & Sauter, 2003; Zieba & Durst, 2018). Roshana and Akintoye (2005), however, stated
that risk management is still rhetorical in the Malaysian construction industry due to insuffi-
cient knowledge. Therefore, it is important for the industry to reinforce both awareness and
knowledge in risk management.
2.3.6 Poor risk culture in the organization (F)

As early as 1998, risk culture was defined as the perception of a manager of the organization’s
propensity to take risks and of the leadership of organizational propensity to either reward or
punish the risk-taking (Bozeman & Kingsley, 1998). The Institute of International Finance
(IIF) then referred to culture as “the norms and traditions of behavior of individuals and
groups within an organization that determine the way in which they identify, understand,
discuss and act on the risks the organization confronts and the risks it takes” (Wood & Lewis,
2018). According to Bostanci (2013), risk culture is extremely important for risk management
practices in an organization. Risk culture can affect all risk management-related activities and
ultimately decides whether risk management structures, methods and procedures will benefit
or damage an organization (Paalanen, 2013).
2.4 Effects of Low-Risk Management Implementation
Risk management implementation is very important in the construction industry as it can

reduce project failure (Wang & Moczygemba, 2015). A construction project may be defined
as successful when it has satisfied the time, cost and quality constraints. A successful project
should achieve satisfaction for all stakeholders (Chan & Kumaraswamy, 1998). However,
many of the construction companies tend to skip this as they see it as time-consuming and
increasing project cost. Failure in implementing proper effective risk management will cause
more impact to the project.
2.4.1 Project delay/time overrun (G)

Project time overrun is defined as an extension of time beyond the contractual time as per
agreed stage (Endut et al., 2009). According to Shi, Cheung and Arditi (2001), the impact
of project delay often relates to the completion of the project. Sweis et al. (2008) mentioned
that almost all types of construction projects experience delay. According to Al-Momani
(2000), schedule delay has always been one of the major causes of project failure in Malaysia.
Ballesteros-Perez et al. (2015) also stated that delays in construction projects are recognized
as one of the most prominent in the industry. Based on Dandage, Mantha, Rane and Bhoola
(2017), delays in the schedule will directly affect the project cost due to the inflation, contract
termination and resulting delaying damages. This is often defined as mismanaged event(s) and
is one of the project risks. Delays in the schedule will cause even more negative effects to the
project stakeholders such as contractors, clients and the project team. The impact of delaying
in construction projects is not just limited to contracting and consulting the clients but also
extends to the national economy, especially in developing countries (Faridi & El-Sayegh,
2006; Al-Kharashi & Skitmore, 2009).
2.4.2 Cost overrun (H)

Cost overrun can be defined as an extra cost beyond the contractual cost agreed during the
tender stage (Endut et al., 2009). According to Enshassi et al. (2009) and Sweis et al. (2008),
cost overruns have frequently happened in construction industries in many developed and
developing countries. It is also among the most common phenomena in the construction
industry (Koushki et al., 2005; Ikechukwuet al., 2017). The construction industry plays a vital
role in the socio-economic growth of the country, especially in developing countries; there-
fore, it is important to ensure the project is completed within budget as this affects the overall
development of the country. Based on a global study on construction project performance by
Flyvbjerget al. (2003), cost overrun was identified as the major problem where nine out of ten
projects faced overrun in the range of 50% to 100%, and this had immediate consequences for
the stakeholders and country’s economy (Flyvbjerg et al., 2004). Angelo and Reina (2002)
stated that the problem of cost overrun is critical and needs to be further studied to alleviate
the problem in future as it can cause a slower payout and reduce early return on the investment
made.
2.4.3 Accidents (I)

According to Idris (2019), accident risk in the construction sector is higher as compared to
other sectors. The accidents that happen on construction sites not only increase the fatality
rates of workers but also have a huge impact on the company. Páez and Mejía (2011) men-
tioned that current industrial health and safety uses common corresponding standards but they
are poorly applied and thus generate difficulties in project development associated with risks;
if these risks are not proper evaluated, they can end up affecting the regular progress of the
construction work (Alkhadim et al., 2018). The numbers of site accidents and deaths related
to work are still alarmingly high despite the efforts to improve the performance of health and
safety in the industry. According to Lee, Chen and Fo (2018), accidents that occur at construc-
tion sites are either caused by the negligence of the company or the workers themselves, which
will affect the operation of construction. However, accidents that are caused by the human
factor can be avoided by having a proper and effective risk management implementation.
2.4.4 Conflicts/disputes (J)

Conflict can be defined as “a clash between hostile or opposing elements or ideas” (Guan,
2007), while a dispute is “any contract question or controversy that must be settled beyond the
jobsite management” (Diekmann & Girard, 1995). According to Verma (1998) and Rauzana
(2016), conflict is inevitable and unavoidable in a project as the project stakeholders have dif-
ferent perceptions in the construction industry. Conflict often arises in the consecution phase
of a project when the team fails to meet the stakeholders’ expectations. This issue remains
a challenge in the industry as it has high potential to lead to project failure (Walton & Dutton,
1969; Kassab et al., 2010). Therefore, it is essential for the organization to be aware of the
importance of implementing risk management to the projects in order to minimize any of the
damages that might occur.
2.4.5 Failure to meet desired quality and requirements (K)

Ultimately, the importance of risk management is to enhance the project performance and
meet the required standards for its quality (Flanagan & Norman, 1993; Malik et al., 2019).
Sabariyahe et al. (2010) stated that the basic elements of project success are measured in
cost, time and quality performance. As different parties have different perceptions of the term
“quality”, the broadest sense of quality might change along the project’s life cycle (Chionis &
Karanikas, 2018). According to Jin and Yean (2006), risk management is essential in influenc-
ing the performance of a successful project. There is a close relationship between effective risk
management and project success (Wadesango & Shava, 2018). The risk identification process
will help in identifying the potential risks that might influence the objectives of a project
(Baloi & Price, 2003). Moreover, Sundarajan (2004) stated that there will be consequences
such as cost overruns, project delay, changing capital structure and poor quality of the end
product if the risk events are not handled and managed properly. Therefore, it is essential to
have proper mitigation strategies against the risks to ensure the desired performance of the
project can be achieved.
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Systematic Review
A systematic review has been done to achieve objectives 1 and 2. It was first started by framing
the research questions for review. Based on Ke et al. (2009), search keywords must be set to
meet the requirements of the study. Next, the data sources were selected for this study. It is
important to select a comprehensive and extensive search from relevant database and journals
(Khan et al., 2003). Appropriate journals that are related to the study were obtained and the
“Scopus” database was used for the whole systematic review process.
Then, a preliminary search was done using the search keywords within the defined specific
elements such as the titles, keywords and abstract. This ensured the consistency of the search
results. The keywords for this study included “Project Risks” and “Construction Risks” with
the document type of “Article or Review”.
To assess different qualities, the articles and journals from the search results were then
analyzed. They were filtered and limited to the subject areas such as “Business, Management
and Accounting”, “Decision Sciences”, “Economics, Econometrics and Finance”, “Energy”,
“Engineering”, “Environmental Science” and “Social Science”. The process was then contin-
ued by conducting a detailed review of the remaining filtered articles and journals related to
the topics of interest.
3.2 Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) Method
3.2.1 Introduction to the DEMATEL method

DEMATEL (Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory)is used to achieve objective 3
of the study by developing the causal relationship among the causes and effects. DEMATEL
method was first introduced in 1972 by the Science and Human Affairs Program of the Battelle
Memorial Institute of Geneva. It aimed to study the complex and intertwined problematic
group. According to Gabus and Fontela (1972), it has been used to assist in solving many
global complex problems such as scientific, economic and political issues by considering the
attitudes of experts involved. It is now widely accepted as one of the best tools to solve the
cause-and-effect relationship among the evaluation criteria (Liou et al., 2007; Tzeng et al.,
2007; Wu & Lee, 2007; Lin & Tzeng, 2009; Sujak et al. 2018). According to Wu and Tsai
(2011), DEMATEL can help in identifying the interdependencies between the factors of the
same level in a decision-making network structure using the relations of cause-and-effect
between the factors. DEMATEL generates an Impact-Relation Map (IRM) effectively.
3.2.2 Procedures of the DEMATEL method

Step 1: collect experts’ opinion and calculate the average matrix Z
The opinions of the experts/targeted respondents were collected by interviewing them using
the designed questionnaire. Each expert was required to give their opinion using an integer
score through a pair-wise comparison. The degree to which the expert perceived factor i
effects on factor j is denoted as xij . The range of the integer score is respectively from 0 (no
impact), 1 (low impact), 2 (moderate impact), 3 (high impact) to 4 (very high impact). The
integer score was automatically set to zero (0) when i = j. An n x n
1 m k
zij xij (8.1)
m i 1
The factor that has a higher integer score indicates that the greater improvement in i is required
to improve on j. The average matrix is also named as initial direct-relation matrix Z. It helps
to indicate the initial direct effect that each criterion exerts on and receives from other criteria.
Step 2: create and compute the normalized initial direct-relation matrix D

The normalized initial direct-relation matrix D = [ d ij ], where all the values in the resulting
matrix D are ranged between [0,1]. The formula used is shown below:
D= λ * Z (8.2)
or
dij = � zij (8.3)

nxn nxn
where

1 1 (8.4)
Min ,
max 1 i n n z max 1 i n n z
j 1 ij i 1 ij
All the elements in this normalized initial direct-relation matrix D will only fall within the
range between zero and one.
Step 3: attain the total relation matrix T

T D I D in
1
The total-influence matrix T was obtained by utilizing the equation of
which I is an n x n identity matrix. The element of tij represents the indirect effects that
factor i had on factor j, and the matrix T reflects the total relationship between each pair of
system factors.
T D I D
1
(8.5)
Step 4: compute the sums of rows and columns of matrix T

In the total-influence matrix T, the sum of rows and sum of columns were being computed
separately using the following formulas. They are represented by vectors r and c, respectively.
r ri nx1 t
n
j ij nx1
(8.6)
' '
jtij (8.7)
n
c c j
lxn lxn
'
where c j is denoted as the transposition matrix.
th
Let ri be the sum of i row in matrix T. The value of ri indicates the total given both direct
and indirect effects that factor i has on the other factors.
th
Let c j be the sum of the j column in matrix T. The value of c j shows the total received
both direct and indirect effects that all other factors have on factor j. If j=1, the value of
(ri + c j ) represents the total effects both given and received by factor i. In difference, the
value of (ri − c j ) shows the net contribution by factor i on the system. In addition, when
(ri − c j ) is positive, factor i will be the net cause. When (ri − c j ) is negative, factor i will be
the net receiver (Tzeng et al., 2007).
Step 5: set a threshold value (α)

It is necessary to set up a threshold value in order to obtain the diagraph. According to Yang
(2008), this calculation aims to eliminate some minor effects elements in matrix T as the
threshold value is set to filter out some of the insignificant effects. The directed graph will then
only show the effects that are greater than the threshold value as it represents the average of the
elements in the matrix T. The formula used for the calculation is:

n n
i 1
[t ]
j 1 ij
(8.8)
N
where N is the total number of elements in matrix T.
Step 6: construct a cause-and-effect relationship diagram

According to Shieh et al. (2010), the cause-and-effect diagram was constructed by mapping all
coordinate sets of ( ri + � c j , ri − c j ) to visualize the complex interrelationship where
r � c represents the horizontal axis (x-axis) while (r − c ) represents the vertical axis
i j i j
(y-axis). It is also used to provide information to judge which are the most important factors
and how influence affected factors. The factors that tij is greater than α are selected as shown
in the cause-and-effect diagram (Yang, 2008). The plot graph that results clearly defines the
interrelationship between the factors.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Demographic Profile
Data were collected from 17 individuals including project managers and engineers who were
considered experts in the construction industry as they all had at least 10 years’ experience
contributing to the industry. In order to collect the data required, a set of questionnaires
was developed fitting the requirements of the DEMATEL method. The experts were then
interviewed face-to-face to fill in the questionnaire. They were asked to determine the degree
to which the causes and effects influence each other by answering in Likert-scale form. The
background of the respondents is presented in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1 Respondents’ demographic profiles
Frequency Percentage (%)

Gender:
Male 11 64.70
Female 6 35.30
Type of company:
Main contractor 9 52.94
Subcontractor 3 17.65
Consultant 4 23.53
Other 1 5.88
Experience (years):
10–15 12 70.59
16–20 1 5.88
>20 4 23.53
Total 17
4.2 Causes of Low-Risk Management Implementation
The causes have been labeled as follows:
● A – Resistance to change
● B – Lack of managerial support and communication
● C – Low-risk attitude
● D – Lack of resources
● E – Lack of knowledge in risk management implementation
● F – Poor risk culture in organization
Table 8.2 Average matrix Z of causes
A B C D E F Sum
A 0 2.705882 2.117647 2.705882 2.705882 2.588235 12.82353
B 2.882353 0 2.352941 2.529412 2.470588 2.470588 12.70588
C 2.352941 2.294118 0 2.411765 2.647059 2.411765 12.11765
D 2.470588 2.705882 2.411765 0 2.470588 2.470588 12.52941
E 2.705882 2.411765 2.411765 2.294118 0 2.529412 12.35294
F 2.117647 2.411765 2.470588 2.470588 2.294118 0 11.76471
Sum 12.52941 12.52941 11.76471 12.41176 12.58824 12.47059
Table 8.3 Normalized direct-relation matrix D
A B C D E F
A 0 0.211009 0.165138 0.211009 0.211009 0.201835
B 0.224771 0 0.183486 0.197248 0.192661 0.192661
C 0.183486 0.178899 0 0.188073 0.206422 0.188073
D 0.192661 0.211009 0.188073 0 0.192661 0.192661
E 0.211009 0.188073 0.188073 0.178899 0 0.197248
F 0.165138 0.188073 0.192661 0.192661 0.178899 0
Table 8.4 Total relation matrix T
A B C D E F
A 4.758211 4.932154 4.651193 4.892458 4.945509 4.905279
B 4.907026 4.723028 4.630708 4.848634 4.898257 4.864234
C 4.687653 4.684002 4.295732 4.652855 4.716837 4.671347
D 4.826954 4.839227 4.57948 4.626227 4.839993 4.806484
E 4.783029 4.76682 4.525881 4.722353 4.62213 4.753721
F 4.562547 4.578364 4.35124 4.545026 4.584939 4.40132
Step 1: collect experts’ opinion and calculate average matrix Z

In this phase, the essential causes and influence of causes over one another were identified
with the assistance of the experts using DEMATEL. As mentioned earlier in section 3.2.2,
the steps involved in DEMATEL were applied. In this step, the causes identified from the
literature were rated by the experts on a scale of 0–4. The ratings indicate the influence of
one cause on another. From these ratings, the average matrix Z was obtained and tabulated in
Table 8.2 using equation 8.1. Similarly, all the following steps were conducted as outlined in
the previous section.
Step 2: create and compute normalized initial direct-relation matrix D

The direct-relation matrix D was normalized using equations 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4 and the results
are tabulated in Table 8.3.
Step 3: attain total relation matrix T

From the normalized matrix, total relation matrix T was computed using equation 8.5 and the
resulting matrix is shown in Table 8.4.
Table 8.5 Sum of influence received
SUM R SUM C R+C R-C

A 29.0848 28.52542 57.61022 0.559385
B 28.87189 28.5236 57.39548 0.348292
C 27.70842 27.03423 54.74266 0.674191
D 28.51836 28.28755 56.80592 0.230812
E 28.17393 28.60767 56.7816 -0.43373
F 27.02344 28.40238 55.42582 -1.37895
Step 4: compute the sums of rows and columns of matrix T

The total influences received and given by each dimension were calculated using equations 8.6
and 8.7 and the results are shown in Table 8.5.
Step 5: set a threshold value (a)

The threshold value was set to filter out some of the insignificant effects. The threshold value
was calculated using equation 8.8 and obtained a value of � 4.705024.
Step 6: construct a cause-and-effect relationship diagram

An influence diagram was created on the basis of influence of each dimension on others. It
explained the role of each dimension in relation to others. The diagram is shown in Figure
8.1. The x-axis represents the degree of influence exerted by a dimension, while the y-axis
represents the extent of influence experienced by a factor from others. The direction of arrows
represents the influences among the factors.
Figure 8.1 Causes of low-risk management implementation
The diagraph presented in Figure 8.1 reveals the relationship among the causes of low imple-
mentation of risk management. The term +� c j shows how much importance a given factor
has, whileri −� c j indicates whether the factor belongs to the causal group or effect group. The
factor would appear to be in the causal group if its ri −� c� j value is positive and belongs to the
effect group if it is a negative value.
In Table 8.5, resistance to change (A) is the most important cause of low-risk management
implementation as it has the largest value of ri +� c j ( r1 +� c1 = 57.61022), whereas low-risk
attitude (C) is the least important cause as it has the smallest value of ri +� c j ( r3 +� c3 =
54.74266). Regarding the ri +� c j values, the prioritization of the importance of the causes is
resistance to change (A) > lack of managerial support and communication (B) > lack of
resources (D) > lack of knowledge in risk management implementation (E) > poor risk culture
in organization (F) > low-risk attitude (C).
Based on the value of ri −� c j , the causes are divided into (i) causal group and (ii) effect
group.
i. The causal group contains the factors that have a positive value of −� c j . The highest
ri −� c j value also indicates that it is the most critical factor that is influential in low-risk
management implementation and has the greatest direct impact on others. In this study,
resistance to change (A), lack of managerial support and communication (B), low-risk
attitude (C) and lack of resources (D) are classified in the causal group as they have posi-
tive ri −� c j values of 0.559385, 0.348292, 0.674191 and 0.230812, respectively. Based on
the matrix in Table 8.4, it is found that factors A, B, D and E had a mutual interaction as
all their values are greater than the threshold value ( 4.705024) .
ii. The effect group contains the factors that have the negative value of ri −� c j and is largely
influenced by the other factors. The lowest ri −� c j value indicates the factor to be the most
influenced factor in low-risk management implementation. In this study, it shows that lack
of knowledge in risk management implementation (E) and poor risk culture in organization
(F) are categorized in the effect group with the values of -0.433731 and -1.378949, respec-
tively. Poor risk culture in organization (F) is also the factor that is affected most by other
factors because of its lowest ri −� c j value.
4.3 Effects of Low-Risk Management Implementation
The effects have been labeled as follows.
● G – Project delay/time overrun

● H – Cost overrun
● I – Accidents
● J – Conflicts/disputes
● K – Failure to meet desired quality and requirements
Under each perspective, the effects of low-risk management implementation were analyzed
using the same DEMATEL procedures as described. Listed below are the tables and diagraph
Table 8.6 Average matrix Z of effects
G H I J K Sum
G 0 3.411765 1.941176 3.176471 3.058824 11.58824
H 2.647059 0 2.352941 2.882353 3.058824 10.94118
I 2.294118 2.352941 0 2.176471 2.529412 9.352941
J 2.411765 2.647059 1.764706 0 2.647059 9.470588
K 2.823529 3.117647 1.941176 2.941176 0 10.82353
Sum 10.17647 11.52941 8 11.17647 11.29412
G H I J K
G 0 0.294416 0.167513 0.274112 0.263959
H 0.228426 0 0.203046 0.248731 0.263959
I 0.19797 0.203046 0 0.187817 0.218274
J 0.208122 0.228426 0.152284 0 0.228426
K 0.243655 0.269036 0.167513 0.253807 0
G H I J K
G 1.85431 2.283191 1.653441 2.225666 2.225396
H 1.949077 1.953248 1.603508 2.109564 2.125899
I 1.714367 1.884653 1.261588 1.836335 1.863109
J 1.745793 1.929322 1.413884 1.705365 1.896672
K 1.95011 2.156218 1.571968 2.104092 1.907654
Table 8.9 Sum of influences received
SUM R SUM C R+C R-C

G 10.242 9.213657 19.45566 1.028347
H 9.741295 10.20663 19.94793 -0.46534
I 8.560051 7.504389 16.06444 1.055662
J 8.691035 9.981022 18.67206 -1.28999
K 9.690042 10.01873 19.70877 -0.32869
Threshold value, ± = 1.876977

for effects of low-risk management implementation. Table 8.6 shows the average matrix Z of
effects; Table 8.7 shows the normalized direct-relation matrix D, Table 8.8 shows the total
relation matrix T and Table 8.9 shows the sum of influences received. Following that, Figure
8.2 shows the causal relationship among the effects of low-risk management implementation.
Based on the ri +� c j values in Table 8.9, this shows that the most important effect of low-risk
management implementation is cost overrun (H) with its highest ri +� c j value of 19.94793,
while the lowest ri +� c j value of 16.06444 belongs to the least important effect, which is
accidents (I). The importance of the effects can be arranged in the order of cost overrun (H) >
failure to meet desired quality and requirements (K) > project delay/time overrun (G) > con-
Figure 8.2 Effects of low-risk management implementation
flicts/disputes (J) > accidents (I), based on the ascending order of ri +� c j values shown in
Table 8.9.
The effects are then divided into (i) causal group and (ii) effect group regarding their ri −� c j
values.
i. In this study, the effect factors classified under causal group are project delay/time overrun
(G) and accidents (I) due to the positive ri −� c j values of 1.028347 and 1.055662. This
also shows that factors G, H, J and K have mutual interactions with each other based on
their values that are greater than the threshold value ( 1.876977 ).
ii. The other factors such as cost overrun (H), conflicts/disputes (J) and failure to meet desired
quality and requirements (K) are categorized under the effect group with their respective
values of -0.46534, -1.28999 and -0.32869. This also shows that the factor J is affected the
most by other factors as it has the lowest ri −� c j value.
4.4 Causes and Effects of Low-Risk Management Implementation
By using the same DEMATEL procedure as described earlier, the relationship between causes
and effects of low-risk management implementation was also examined and is shown in
Tables 8.10, 8.11, 8.12 and 8.13. The causal relationship among causes and effects of low-risk
management implementation is depicted in Figure 8.3.
Table 8.10 Average matrix Z of causes and effects
A B C D E F G H I J K Sum
A 0 2.705882 2.117647 2.705882 2.705882 2.588235 2.882353 2.882353 2.352941 2.705882 2.352941 26
B 2.882353 0 2.352941 2.529412 2.470588 2.470588 2.647059 2.647059 1.882353 2.647059 2.470588 25
C 2.352941 2.294118 0 2.411765 2.647059 2.411765 2.411765 2.411765 2.705882 2.117647 2.352941 24.11765
D 2.470588 2.705882 2.352941 0 2.470588 2.470588 3.235294 3 1.882353 2.470588 2.882353 25.94118
E 2.705882 2.411765 2.411765 2.294118 0 2.529412 2.588235 2.235294 2.411765 2.411765 2.352941 24.35294
F 2.117647 2.411765 2.470588 2.470588 2.294118 0 2.294118 2.470588 2.411765 2.411765 2.352941 23.70588
G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.411765 1.941176 3.176471 3.058824 11.58824
H 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.647059 0 2.352941 2.882353 3.058824 10.94118
I 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.294118 2.352941 0 2.176471 2.529412 9.352941
J 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.411765 2.647059 1.764706 0 2.647059 9.470588
K 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.823529 3.117647 1.941176 2.941176 0 10.82353
Sum 12.52941 12.52941 11.70588 12.41176 12.58824 12.47059 26.23529 27.17647 21.64706 25.94118 26.05882
A B C D E F G H I J K
A 0 0.103139 0.080717 0.103139 0.103139 0.098655 0.109865 0.109865 0.089686 0.103139 0.089686
B 0.109865 0 0.089686 0.096413 0.09417 0.09417 0.100897 0.100897 0.071749 0.100897 0.09417
C 0.089686 0.087444 0 0.091928 0.100897 0.091928 0.091928 0.091928 0.103139 0.080717 0.089686
D 0.09417 0.103139 0.089686 0 0.09417 0.09417 0.123318 0.11435 0.071749 0.09417 0.109865
E 0.103139 0.091928 0.091928 0.087444 0 0.096413 0.098655 0.085202 0.091928 0.091928 0.089686
F 0.080717 0.091928 0.09417 0.09417 0.087444 0 0.087444 0.09417 0.091928 0.091928 0.089686
G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.130045 0.073991 0.121076 0.116592
H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.100897 0 0.089686 0.109865 0.116592
I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.087444 0.089686 0 0.08296 0.096413
J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.091928 0.100897 0.067265 0 0.100897
K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.107623 0.118834 0.073991 0.112108 0
A B C D E F G H I J K
A 0.080624 0.174119 0.150403 0.173305 0.174208 0.169948 0.324178 0.336611 0.267963 0.322575 0.312134
B 0.178997 0.079949 0.157171 0.16716 0.166239 0.165576 0.311174 0.323255 0.248352 0.314864 0.309655
C 0.15869 0.156773 0.071765 0.159815 0.168329 0.160223 0.29505 0.30641 0.268436 0.288935 0.297301
D 0.164626 0.172017 0.155982 0.07777 0.164765 0.164159 0.333515 0.338954 0.25115 0.313788 0.327141
E 0.171269 0.161967 0.157161 0.157572 0.078074 0.165375 0.303306 0.303929 0.260955 0.301222 0.29989
F 0.149103 0.158458 0.155949 0.159678 0.154982 0.073947 0.287208 0.304082 0.255268 0.294202 0.293277
G 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.064978 0.188322 0.120766 0.179368 0.175866
H 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.153071 0.068844 0.131075 0.166103 0.171862
I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.133579 0.141824 0.042477 0.134629 0.146201
J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.138292 0.152337 0.106317 0.05923 0.151008
K 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.158194 0.174855 0.117626 0.167752 0.067097
Table 8.13 Sum of influences received
SUM R SUM C R+C R-C

A 2.486068 0.90331 3.389378 1.582758
B 2.422392 0.903282 3.325674 1.51911
C 2.331726 0.848431 3.180158 1.483295
D 2.463866 0.8953 3.359166 1.568565
E 2.360721 0.906596 3.267317 1.454124
F 2.286155 0.899227 3.185382 1.386927
G 0.7293 2.502544 3.231844 -1.77324
H 0.690956 2.639424 3.330379 -1.94847
I 0.598709 2.070385 2.669095 -1.47168
J 0.607184 2.542668 3.149852 -1.93548
K 0.685524 2.551433 3.236957 -1.86591
Threshold value, ± = 0.145972
Figure 8.3 Causes vs effects
Table 8.13 shows that resistance to change (A) has the highest ri +� c j value of 3.389378 as
the most important factor in low-risk management implementation with its position at the most
top-right corner of the diagraph, whereas the least important factor in this study is accidents (I)
due to its lowest ri +� c j value of 2.669095 and its position at the bottom-left of the diagraph.
Based on the ri +� c j values, this shows that the prioritization of importance of these factors
can be arranged in the order of resistance to change (A) > lack of resources (D) > cost overrun
(H) > lack of managerial support and communication (B) > lack of knowledge in risk manage-
ment implementation (E) > failure to meet desired quality and requirements (K) > project
delay/time overrun (G) > poor risk culture in organization (F) > low-risk attitude (C) > con-
flicts/disputes (J) > accidents (I).
All the factors have been categorized into (i) causal group and (ii) effect group based on
their ri −� c j values.
i. In this study, all the causes of low-risk management implementation fall within the causal
group based on their positive ri −� c j values. It is found that resistance to change (A) has
the greatest direct impact on the effects and has the highest correlation as it has the highest
ri −� c j value ( r1 c1 1.582758) among the factors. Table 8.12 also shows that all the
factors in the causal group have interactions with all the factors in the effect group based
on their values that are greater than the threshold value, 0.145972.
ii. The effect group consists of all the effects of low-risk management implementation as they
have negative ri −� c j values. The factor that is influenced the most by the other factors is
cost overrun (H) based on its lowest ri −� c j value ( r8 −� c8 = -1.948468). It can be con-
cluded that all the effect group factors are influenced by all the causal group factors and
their interactions are shown in Table 8.12 and Figure 8.3.
5. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Risk management is essential in influencing project success as low-risk management imple-

mentation is detrimental to projects. Previous studies have been carried out to investigate
the causes and effects that may influence project success but less has been done to draw
conclusions on the risk factors to be improved. By using the DEMATEL method, this study
has determined the causes and effects of low-risk management implementation and the causal
relationship between them in the form of diagraphs.
The results show that the relationships among all causes and effects are significant. The
results also show that the most critical cause of low-risk management implementation is resist-
ance to change. Therefore, organizations should focus more on this issue in order to improve
the use of risk management in construction projects. Change is always difficult in the begin-
ning as it means new ways of doing things and people may fear the unknown. Therefore, it is
important for organizations to provide their direction, goals and parameters to the employees
in order for them to understand the need for change.
Organizations may start off in managing resistance to change by preparing courses for their
employees. It helps to provide employees with insights and better understanding of the impor-
tance of implementing risk management in projects. They can also provide training programs
and workshops for the employees to get proper knowledge, skills and information on risk
management in construction projects. It is very important for organizations to communicate
with their employees regarding the change that is going to be made. This enables the manage-
rial team to understand the thoughts and responses that employees have to even the simplest
change. They should also encourage their employees to voice their opinions on the proposed
change as this helps in reducing their uncertainties.
Minimizing employees’ resistance to change helps to improve communication between
the managerial team and employees. Moreover, it also helps to increase the engagement
of employees in the project by encouraging them to advocate for change. Additionally, the
progress of going through changes will facilitate in gaining employees’ support and go more
smoothly by being open, sincere and honest. In a nutshell, the implementation of risk man-
agement in the construction industry can be improved by managing the causes carefully to
minimize the impact on the project and avoid project failure.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the MTUN Commercialisation Fund and Universiti Malaysia
Pahang (university reference UIC191204) for supporting this study.
REFERENCES
Abd El-Karim, M. S. B. A., Mosa El Nawawy, O. A., & Abdel-Alim, A. M. (2017). Identification and
assessment of risk factors affecting construction projects. HBRC Journal, 13(2), 202–216.
Abderisak, A., & Lindahl, G. (2015). Take a chance on me? Construction client’s perspectives on risk
management. Procedia Economics and Finance, 21, 548–554.
Adeleke, A. Q., Bahaudin, A. Y., Kamaruddeen, A. M., Bamgbade, J. A., Salimon, M. G., Khan, M.
W. A., & Sorooshian, S. (2018). The influence of organizational external factors on construction risk
management among Nigerian construction companies. Saf Health Work, 9(1), 115–124.
Al-Kharashi, A., & Skitmore, M. (2009). Causes of delays in Saudi Arabian public sector construction
projects. Construction Management and Economics, 27(1), 3–23.
Al-Momani, A.H. (2000). Construction delay: A quantitative analysis. International Journal of Project
Management, 18(1), 51–59.
Alkhadim, M., Gidado, K., & Painting, N. (2018). Risk management: The effect of FIST on perceived
safety in crowded large space buildings. Safety Science, 29–38.
Angelo, W.J., & Reina, P. (2002). Megaprojects Need More Study Up Front to Avoid Cost Overruns.
McGraw-Hill.
APM (Association for Project Management). (2004). PRAM Project Risk Analysis and Management
Guide. APM.
Aziz, N. F., Akashah, F. W., & Aziz, A. A. (2019). Conceptual framework for risk communication
between emergency response team and management team at healthcare facilities: A Malaysian per-
spective. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 41, 101282.
Ballesteros-Perez, P., del Campo-Hitschfeld, M. L., Gonzalez-Naranjo, M. A., & Gonzalez-Cruz, M.
C. (2015). Climate and construction delays: Case study in Chile. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 22(6), 596–621.
Baloi, D., & Price, A. (2003). Modelling global risk factors affecting construction cost performance.
International Journal of Project Management, 21(4) 261–269.
Berger, G. S., & Meng, J. (2014). Public Relations Leaders as Sense Makers: A Global Study of
Leadership in Public Relations and Communication Management. Routledge.
Bhoola, V., Hiremath, S. B., & Mallik, D. (2014). An assessment of risk response strategies practiced in
software projects. Australia Information System, 18(3), 161–191.
Bon-Gang, H., Xianbo, Z., & Ping, T. L. (2014). Risk management in small construction projects in
Singapore: Status, barriers and impact. International Journal of Project Management, 32(1), 116–124.
Bostanci, O. (2013). Presentation of a Risk Culture Framework and Assessment of Risk Culture at
Garanti Bank, Turkey. Project Management and Operational Development MSc. Programs, Kungliga
Teknisha Hogskolan, Stockholm.
Bozeman, B., & Kingsley, G. (1998). Risk culture in public and private organizations. Public
Administration Review, 58, 109–118.
Bratianu, C. (2018). A holistic approach to knowledge risk. Management Dynamics in the Knowledge
Economy, 6, 593–607.
Carbone, T. A., & Tippett, D. D. (2004). Project risk management using the project risk FMEA.
Engineering Management Journal, 16(4), 28–35.
Chan, D. W., & Kumaraswamy, M. M. (1998). A comparative study of causes of time overruns in Hong
Kong construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 15(1), 55–63.
Chapman, C., & Ward, S. (2003). Project Risk Management: Process, Techniques and Insight. Wiley.
Chionis, D., & Karanikas, N (2018). Differences in risk perception factors and behaviours amongst and
within professionals and trainees in the aviation engineering domain. Aerospace, 5, 62.
Dandage, R. V., Mantha, S. S., Rane, S. B., & Bhoola, V. (2017). Analysis of interactions among barriers
in project risk management. Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 14(1), 153–169.
Diekmann, J., & Girard, M. (1995). Are contract disputes predictable? Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 121(4), 355–363.
Dikmen, I., Budayan, C., Talat, B. M., & Hayat, E. (2018). Effects of risk attitude and controllability
assumption on risk ratings: Observational study on international construction project risk assessment.
Journal of Management in Engineering, 34(6).
Elshandidy, T., Shrives, P., Bamber, M., & Abraham, S. (2018). Risk reporting: A review of the literature
and implications for future research. Journal of Accounting Literature, 40(1), 54–82.
Endut, I., Akintoye, A., & Kelly, J. (2009). Cost and time overruns of projects in Malaysia. https://www
.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB10633.pdf
Enshassi, A., Choudhry, R., & El-Ghandour, S. (2009) Contractors’ perception towards causes of claims
in construction projects. International Journal of Construction Management, 9(1), 79–92.
Faridi, A., & El-Sayegh, S. M. (2006). Significant factors causing delay in the UAE construction indus-
try. Construction Management and Economics, 24(11), 1167–1176.
Farooq, M. U., Thaheem, M. J., & Arshad H. (2018). Improving the risk quantification under behavioural
tendencies: A tale of construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 36(3),
414–428.
Farr-Wharton, R. (2003). Multimedia projects and the optimum choice of individuals and teams.
Flanagan, R., & Norman, G. (1993). Risk Management and Construction. Wiley.
Florio, C., & Leoni, G. (2017). Enterprise risk management and firm performance: The Italian case. The
British Accounting Review, 49(1), 56–74.
Flyvbjerg, B., Holm, M., & Buhl, S. (2003). How common and how large are cost overruns in transport
infrastructure projects. Transportation Review, 23(1), 71–88.
Flyvbjerg, B., Skamris Holm, M. K., & Buhl, S. L. (2004). What causes cost overrun in transport infra-
structure projects? Transport Reviews, 24(1), 3–18.
Frese, R., & Sauter, D. V. (2003). Project success and failure: What is success, what is failure, and how
can you improve your odds for success? System Analysis. http://www.umsl.edu/~sauterv/analysis/
6840_f03_papers/frese
Gabus, A., & Fontela, E. (1972). World Problems: An Invitation to Further Thought within the
Framework of DEMATEL. Battelle Geneva Research Centre.
Goh, C. S., Abdul-Rahman, H., & Abdul Samad, Z. (2012). Applying risk management workshop for
a public construction project: Case study. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
139(5), 572–580.
Guan, D. (2007). Conflicts in the Project Environment. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2007,
Asia Pacific, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China. Project Management Institute.
Hanna A. S., Thomas, G., & Swanson, J. R. (2016). Construction risk identification and allocation:
Cooperative approach. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 139(9), 1098–1107.
Hsu, C.-C., & Lee, Y.-S. (2014). Exploring the critical factors influencing the quality of blog interfaces
using DEMATEL method. Behaviour & Information Technology, 33(2), 184–194.
Idris, N. (2019). Occupational accidents statistics by sector until July 2017. DOSH [Online]. https://www
.dosh.gov.my/index.php/list-of-documents/statistics/occupational-accident-statistics/occupational
-accident-2017
Ikechukwu, A. C., Emoh, F. I., & Kelvin, O. A. (2017). Causes and effects of cost overruns in public
building construction projects delivery, in Imo State, Nigeria. IOSR Journal of Business and
Management, 19(07), 13–20.
Iqbal, S., Choudhry, R. M., Holschemacher, K., Ali, A., & Tamošaitienė, J. (2015). Risk management in
construction projects. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 21(1), 65–78.
Jin, X., & Yean, F. (2006). Key relationship-based determinants of project performance in China.
Building & Environment, 41, 915–925.
Kapliński, O. (2009). Phenomenon of inertia in construction industry. Journal of Civil Engineering and
Management, 7(4), 281–285.
Kassab, M., Hegazy, T., & Hipel, K. (2010). Comprised DSS for construction conflict resolution uncer-
tainty. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 136(12), 1249–1257.
Ke, Y., Wang, S., Chan, A., & Cheung, E. (2009). Research trend of public-private partnership in con-
struction journals. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(10), 1076–1086. doi:
10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:10(1076)
Khan, K. S., Kunz, R., Kleijnen, J., & Antes, G. (2003). Five steps to conducting a systematic review.
Journal of The Royal Society of Medicine, 96(March 2003), 118–121.
Koushki, P. A., Al-Rashid, K., & Kartam, N. (2005). Delays and cost increases in the construction of
private residential projects in Kuwait. Construction Management and Economics, 23(3), 285–294.
Kutsch, E., & Hall, M. (2010). Deliberate ignorance in project risk management. International Journal
of Project Management, 28(3), 245–255.
Lee, B. H. C., Chen, J. C., & Fo, K. W. (2018). Accidents in construction sites: A study on the causes and
preventive approaches to mitigate accident rate. INTI Journal, 1(3), 1–12.
Lin, C. L., & Tzeng, G.-H. (2009). A value-created system of science (technology) park by using
DEMATEL. Expert Systems with Applications, 36(6), 9683–9697.
Liou, J. J. H., Tzeng, G.-H., & Chang, H.-C. (2007). Airline safety measurement using a hybrid model.
Air Transport Management, 13(4), 243–249.
Liu, G. H., Wang, E., & Chua, C. E. H. (2015). Leveraging social capital to obtain top management
support in complex, cross-functional IT projects. Journal of the Association for Information Systems,
16(8), 707.
Lundy, V., & Morin, P. P. (2013) Project leadership influences resistance to change: The case of the
Canadian public service. Project Management Journal, 44(4), 45–64.
Malik, F., Zaman, M. M., & Buckby, S. (2019). Enterprise risk management and firm performance: Role
of the risk committee. Journal of Contemporary Accounting & Economics, 16(1), 100178.
Mills, A. (2001). A systematic approach to risk management for construction. Structural Survey, 19(5),
245–252.
Odimabo, O. O., & Oduoza, C. F. (2013). Risk assessment framework for building construction projects
in developing countries. International Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2(5),
143–154.
Oliveira, R. (2017). Plans of control, measurement and monitoring with risk assessment application to
rehabilitation works. Procedia Structural Integrity, 5, 1129–1135. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prostr
.2017.07.016
Olsson, R. (2008). In search of opportunity management: Is the risk management process enough?
Paalanen, A. (2013). Risk Culture: A Descriptive Model. Master’s Thesis, Aalto University School of
Business.
Páez, K., & Mejía, S. (2011). Gestión de riesgos seguridad industrial y salud ocupacional en la con-
strucción de plataformas petroleras. Tesis. Bucaramanga, Facultad de Ingeniería Civil, Universidad
Pontificia Bolivariana.
Pardo del Val, M., & Martínez Fuentes, C. (2003). Resistance to change: A literature review and empir-
ical study. Management Decision, 41(2), 148–155.
PMI (2004). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. 3rd ed. Project Management
Institute.
PMI (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide). 5th ed. Project
Management Institute.
Rauzana, A. (2016). Causes of conflicts and disputes in construction projects. IOSR Journal of
Mechanical and Civil Engineering, 13(05), 44–48.
Roshana, T., & Akintoye, A. (2005). Process improvement of construction projects in Malaysia: Analysis
case studies. Proceedings of the 2nd Scottish Conference for postgraduate researchers of Built and
Natural Environment (PRoBE), 16–17 November, Glasgow Caledonian University, 263–273.
Sabariyah, D., Zahidy, A.-H., & Bryde, D. (2010). ISO 9000 Certification and Construction Project
Performance: The Malaysian experience. International Journal of Project Management, 29(8),
1044–1056.
Shi, J. J., Cheung, S. O., & Arditi, D. (2001). Construction delay computation method. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(1), 60–65. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733
-9364(2001)127:1(60)
Shieh, J.-I., Wu, H.-H., & Huang, K.-K. (2010). A DEMATEL method in identifying key success factors
of hospital service quality. Knowledge-Based Systems, 23(3), 277–282. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.knosys.2010.01.013.
Sujak, B., Shahadat, K., Kamrul, A., & Shams, R. (2018). Exploring the critical determinants of envi-
ronmentally oriented public procurement using the DEMATEL method. Journal of Environmental
Management, 225, 325–335.
Sundarajan, S. (2004). Project Performance-Based Optimal Capital Structure for Private Financed
Infrastructure Projects. Unpublished Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation.
Sweis, G., Sweis, R., Abu Hammad, A., & Shboul, A. (2008). Delays in construction projects: The case
of Jordan. International Journal of Project Management, 26(6), 665–674.
Tummala, R. V. M., & Burchett, J. F. (1999). Applying a risk management process (RMP) to manage
cost risk for an EHV transmission line project. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4),
223–235.
Tzeng, G.-H., Chiang, C.-H., & Li, C.-W. (2007). Evaluating intertwined effects in e-learning pro-
grams: A novel hybrid MCDM model based on factor analysis and DEMATEL. Expert Systems with
Applications, 32(4), 1028–1044.
Verma, V. K. (1998). Conflict management. The Project Management Institute. Project Management
Handbook, ed. Jeffery Pinto.
Wadesango, N., & Shava, F. (2018). Literature review on the effectiveness of risk management systems
on financial performance in a public setting. Academy of Strategic Management Journal, 17(4).
Walton, R. E., & Dutton, J. M. (1969). The management of interdepartmental conflict: A model and
review. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14(10), 73–84.
Wang, T., & Moczygemba, J. (2015). Risk management in EHR implementation. Journal of AHIMA.
https://bok.ahima.org/doc?oid=301018#.Y4HmN3ZBw2w
Watson, T. (2012). The evolution of public relations measurement and evaluation. Public Relations
Review, 38(3), 390–398.
Winsen, V., de Mey, F. Y., Lauwers, L., Passel, V. S., Vancauteren, M., & Wauters, E. (2014).
Determinants of risk behaviour: Effects of perceived risks and risk attitude on farmers’ adoption of
risk management strategies. Journal of Risk Research, 19(1), 56–78.
Wood, A., & Lewis, A. (2018). Risk culture development and its impact: The case of the Caribbean
Development Bank. International Journal of Business and Economic Development, 6(1), 18–37.
Wu, H.-H., & Tsai, Y.-N. (2011). A DEMATEL method to evaluate the causal relations among the cri-
teria in auto spare parts industry. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 218(5), 2334–2342. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2011.07.055
Wu, W.-W., & Lee, Y.-T. (2007). Developing global managers’ competencies using the fuzzy
DEMATEL method. Expert Systems with Applications, 32(2), 499–507.
Yang, J. B. (2008). Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis. Manchester Business School.
Yim, R., Jason, C., Doolen, T., Tumer, I., & Malak, R. (2015). A study of the impact of project clas-
sification on project risk indicators. International Journal of Project Management, 33(4), 863–876.
Zavadskas, E. K., Turskis, Z., & Tamošaitienė, J. (2010). Risk assessment of construction projects.
Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 16(1), 33–46.
Zhi, H. (1995). Risk management for overseas construction projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 13(4), 231–237.
Zieba, M., & Durst, S. (2018). Knowledge risks in the sharing economy. In: E. M. Vătămănescu &
F. Pînzaru (eds), Knowledge Management in the Sharing Economy. Knowledge Management and
Organizational Learning, vol. 6. Springer, pp. 253–270.
Zou, P. X. W., Zhang, G., & Wang, J. (2007). Understanding the key risks in construction projects in
China. International Journal of Project Management, 25(6), 601–614.
9. Managing risk in Indian construction projects
Chakradhar Iyyunni and Sunil Kumar
INTRODUCTION
We intend to explore the impact of any series of evolving uncertainties that cloud project exe-
cution and the role of the Indian context for evaluating the performance of Indian construction
projects. Poor valuation of projects, poor financing, poor governance schemes, and, finally,
mismanaged project executions can plague a project. In the book An Uncertain Glory (Sen
& Dreze, 2013), the authors portray an economic, social, and political scenario that helps the
reader understand the story of India’s checkered development in various (also infrastructure)
sectors. There are two main forces that are important to consider – state government vs. central
government subject (for example, water is a state subject) and public sector vs. private sector
owner or contractor organizations. The former, state vs. central subject, indicates external
pressures in the form of regulations while the latter, public vs. private, involves internal per-
formance pressures within the organizations.
By managing risk in infrastructure development projects, we contend the uncertainty can be
reduced. Mahatma Gandhi said that “[bridging] the difference between what we do and what
we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.” This bridge is
a risk management framework that incorporates appropriate risk behavior (risk neutrality as
opposed to risk averseness or risk-addicted behavior) and preventive mitigations and contin-
gent countermeasures (to avoid bias, student syndrome, etc.).
Flyvbjerg et al. (2003), Samset et al. (2006), Miller and Lessard (2001), Miller and Floricel
(2005), Miller and Lessard (2008), Kahneman and Tversky (1979), Kahneman and Lovallo
(1993), and Tversky and Kahneman (1986) discuss the issues in the life-cycle of megaprojects
and the management of risks and the global context of decisions. In the context of Indian pro-
jects, organizations also exhibit varying appetites for risk when bidding for new projects based
on their current performance on their project portfolios.
Unjustified preferential partnerships can cause trouble between customers and sub-contractors
and can result in the incomplete accounting of changes to scope besides ignoring of variances
in contractual clauses. Irrespective of the nature of organizational structure, a balanced matrix
or weak/strong matrix or functional, when a strong role is not provided to the risk management
function, management is being reckless and control of project performance is almost impossi-
ble. Additionally, risk-informed autonomous project teams prevent project failure.
Jha and Iyer (2007) and Bhattacharya et al. (2013) discuss measures in people orientation to
manage processes in project performance. Appropriate measures of risk-based communication
is the norm and allows relevant stakeholders to step in and manage the risks when appropriate.
In our case studies to assess attitudes on a variety of risks throughout the project life-cycle,
we find that maladaptive risk behaviors can be controlled if competent personnel manage the
risks. Yet, sometimes, we succeed only partially stemming from the various biases of project
personnel.
115
We seek a model of project team management that has learning and opportunity exploration
in its DNA, thereby infusing “Hope” in all relevant stakeholders. The management of Indian
projects requires multi-level interventions with strong project governance and project leader-
ship such as that demonstrated in the construction of phase 1 of the Delhi International Airport
project and the Delhi Metro project.
We can assess the impact of risk and show hope by studying cascading and compounding
risk conditions associated with emerging risk scenarios that arise out of shifts in multiple
environmental conditions. Using quantitative risk analysis, such as Monte Carlo analysis or
a combination of techniques (Iyyunni, April 21, 2016), along with applying the analytical hier-
archy process (AHP), we integrate ways to deal with barriers stemming from poor forecasting
to poor decision-making.
There is a general pessimism about the performance of Indian public sector projects due
to the same factors that influence the infrastructure industry throughout the world (Miller &
Lessard, 2001). Some of these factors are primarily social (Priemus et al., 2008) and industrial
psychological such as managing stakeholder engagement (Alladi & Iyyunni, 2015); i.e., the
contractually negotiated best interests of each stakeholder (social factor) and within the risk
appetite of stakeholders. Lack of perception or sensing environmental risks, anchoring and
other biases, and lack of reward for exceptional performance can lead to risk aversion.
Success in Indian Projects
Many Indian construction organizations are viable due to their successful portfolio, program,
and project management in the face of large, complex projects with stringent costs and
schedules and VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex, ambiguous) or BANI (brittle, anxious,
nonlinear, incomprehensible) environments.
Galileo said, “Measure what is measurable; make measurable what is not so.” Mindfully
maneuvering multi-level social factors while monitoring technological elements is a balance
that’s imperative for the project team to succeed. An insight/hypothesis this chapter con-
siders is a normative behavior – Indian project managers do not succeed because they (and
most stakeholders) expect failure and are not driven to change this status quo. However,
a self-acceptance and awareness that they have a strong influence in attaining agreed project
outcomes can be the difference between success and failure.
Banerjee and Duflo (2011) and Duflo (2012) indicate that being hopeful can be a compe-
tency – which we interpret as building “hope in a virtuous cycle” (as opposed to a vicious
cycle of pessimism), which can lead to better big or small decision-making capacity, building
confidence, which in turn inspires trust and accountability (Sisodia & Mackay, 2013). The
contextual basis for evaluating the performance of Indian projects is discussed as a series of
evolving uncertainties that cloud project execution. We will use case studies that compound
the mechanisms of risk to the impact and consequences of risk directly.
LITERATURE REVIEW
The evolution of the Delhi Metro project (Dayal, 2012) reveals many failures, but there were
few bad decisions or rarely a win-lose or lose-lose agreement between stakeholders. The “dif-
ference,” in Mahatma Gandhi’s statement above, between success and failure is applying the
Managing risk in Indian construction projects 117
risk lens under dynamic conditions. We integrate ways to deal with barriers stemming from
poor forecasting (Sen & Dreze, 2013) to poor decision-making (Flyvbjerg et al., 2003).
Industry Environment
Evolving uncertainties may cloud elements of Indian infrastructure projects and impact ele-
ments of project execution such as project financing, owner commitment, and the contractual
environment. Project managers’ lack of familiarity with structured decision-making or the use
of decision-making tools results in either over-optimistic risk projections that stem from an
under-estimation of risks, or anchoring of past experience, and/or a lack of understanding of
project managers’ bias toward risk averseness.
The VUCA environment is endemic to all sectors of the Indian economy. The IT industry
is able to cope with similar project needs and economic environments because they use agile
life-cycle models to endure fast-paced delivery, evolving/use of proprietary technologies, and
the vagaries of customers’ industry’s business life-cycles.
The Indian construction industry is in a similar situation. Project success depends on
project type, complexity, site conditions, the owner’s disposition, and environmental condi-
tions. Sanyal and Iyyunni (2014), Remington (2012), and Shenhar and Dvir (2007) advocate
a method to characterize complexity by using industry and project team specific characteriza-
tion for novelty, technology, complexity, and pace.
The Achilles’s heel is the unwarranted use of a huge number of human resources on Indian
projects. This large number of people working on Indian projects leads to a large number of
micro-decisions made during project execution by personnel who are inadequately trained,
dis-empowered, and lack the ethic of teamwork. Jha and Iyer (2007) prescribe three critical
success factors, namely commitment, competence, and coordination, for Indian construction
projects.
Risk Management
Risks can be grouped into two generic categories; i.e., internal and external factors. Internal
project risk factors include the following:
(1) delivery/operational risks

(2) technological risks
(3) financial risks, and
(4) procurement/contractual risks.
External project risk factors include the following:
(1) political risks

(2) environmental risks
(3) social/cultural risks, and
(4) economic risks.
The organization’s senior stakeholders must ensure that the risk profile is adequate, accurate,
defensible, and focuses on risk management from pre-bid to closing. A risk management
program (Chapman & Ward, 2011) should include identification and quantification of assess-
ments and monitoring and controlling of risk in the context of governance-reporting.
Challenges to Effective Risk Management
Flyvbjerg et al. (2003) noted that successful management of risk is tough; it is an “involved
and continuously evolving process because each day, every decision made by management
may eliminate some risk elements while at the same time introducing new risk elements into
a mega-project’s environment.” The changes in a dynamic project environment introduce
additional difficulties.
PMI’s PMBOK (2015) advocates a structured and continuous process for managing risk
that “involves repeatedly implementing and completing a series of steps taken in a sequential
order over the entire life of the megaproject” (Chapman & Ward, 2011). Project managers use
these risk-based activities to manage the technical risk of construction activity with respect to
scope and quality. Project managers’ integration of risk-based actions create their organiza-
tion’s risk culture by:
(1) translating project strategy into tactical/operational objectives, and

(2) assigning appropriate job responsibilities to each manager and employee for the man-
agement of risk.
These actions support effective accountability, performance measurement, and reward, and
promote operational efficiency at all levels.
The organizational culture around risk must align the risk framework, process, culture,
and management with organizational priorities by linking the organizational values to the
management of risk, the organization’s “appetite for risk,” an organizational structure/culture
that supports de-centralized control or distributed decision-making, and to available data and
information to support risk management activities.
Managing stakeholder engagement with external clients throughout the life-cycle of the
project becomes more important.
Including project stakeholders who are external to the organization recognizes the need
to include anybody or anything that may be affected by the execution or existence of
a mega-project. For example, external stakeholders may include the following:
(1) non-financial stakeholders such as the local community in the area where the megapro-
ject will be constructed
(2) affected parties for moving utilities
(3) physical environments that might be affected during the performance of the project, and
(4) the local/state/central governments that must approve the mega-project.
Ultimately, a risk management program is only effective if it meets the needs of both the
mega-project and all of its stakeholders.
Risk and Governance
The London Stock Exchange and RSM Robson Rhodes LLP noted in a 2004 report that “profits
are the reward for successful risk-taking in a modern competitive economy. Companies that
are overly cautious will miss opportunities and are unlikely to succeed in the longer run. Even
more certain failure awaits those who take risks recklessly.”
The board, senior management, and the project sponsor should all ensure project risks are
managed effectively. These stakeholders have a proactive role to recognize that risks are
dynamic. The dynamic risks of mega-projects (Miller & Lessard, 2001, 2005, 2008; Flyvbjerg
et al., 2003; Priemus et al., 2008; Rolstadas et al., 2011) should lead these stakeholders to
a proactive role in the project.
Over the last three decades, risk management has evolved from the management of known-
unknowns of execution risks to the management of uncertainties to, recently, the management
of unknown-unknown factors such as political risks, social risks, economic risks, technologi-
cal risks, legal risks, and environmental risks (Chapman & Ward, 2011). Risk evaluations may
range from labor productivity, cost of materials and equipment, and capital costs to economic
conditions.
The Australian Securities Exchange (ASX Corporate Governance Council, 2006) also
includes operational, compliance, and strategic external risks. Importantly, these risks can
impact the reputation and brand of a company and investor sentiment. Further, in Russia
(FERMA, 2003), organizational risk spans market risk and includes critical success factors
and an understanding of threats and opportunities toward organizational objectives.
Social Risks and Political Risks
Management of social and political risks can be very difficult. Zurich Insurance Group’s
Corporate Responsibility Manager Karin Reiter states “protecting your company can’t be
achieved by insulating your operations from its interdependencies with society. Instead, busi-
ness resilience requires embracing these dependencies” (Unruh, 2016, p. 1).
From a systemic perspective, Japp and Kusche (2008) discuss the modernity, material, and
social-conflict dimensions of social risks. Contractual, legal, and regulatory policies are not
effective methods to manage social risks during execution. Different types of risks require
different approaches to mitigation as suggested later.
(1) Anchors for integration of communication to manage a (structural) shift in societal

communication toward a focus on decisions. This approach recognizes the past is the
history of data before the decision and the future is the consequence. This focus makes
the “now” of time visible; it forms the fundamental basis for a concept of risk in the
context of a theory of modern society.
(2) Transmutation of risks. The political system promotes worries (e.g., re-election) and
expectations. Japp and Kusche suggest that “regulatory/organizations” try to shift the
(social) risk from political/economic to other risk types.
(3) Management of social-conflict dimension by appreciative inquiry.
(a) A society emphasizing responsibility for one’s own actions without social recogni-
tion could lead to violent discharge
(b) The inability to identify any common ground and communication aimed at consen-
sus is bound to fail; only a pragmatic assumption of difference can provide the basis
for discourse. Here, pragmatism means abstaining from any attempt at “real” or
“authentic” understanding! But there is an acknowledgment of differences.
Power in Projects and Managing Social Risks
Flyvbjerg et al. (2003) and Priemus et al. (2008) argue that social science should be recast as
Aristotle’s practical wisdom along with Foucault’s understanding of power: the reinvigorated
understanding of social phenomena by emphasizing contexts, interpretations, and an in-depth
understanding of existing power relations.
MODELS OF DECISION-MAKING
To better understand how Indian companies do not handle risk well, we must ask: “Why do
Indian companies make poor decisions about project risk?” To answer this question, we will
start by taking the models, fallacies, assumptions, and challenges presented by Tversky and
Kahneman (1986), Kahneman and Lovallo, (1993), and Lovallo and Kahneman (2003) and
assess them in the Indian context.
Models
Social scientists create metaphors as ways to understand a phenomenon. “Gambling” has

been described as an apt metaphor for risk in decision-making because the consequences are
uncertain and each option is, actually, a probability distribution over outcomes. This situation
justifies the use of Monte Carlo simulation (@Risk, 2015; Iyyunni, 2013, 2016; Kumar, 2016;
Laufer et al., 2015).
March and Shapira (1987) discuss a model where managers reject the rational model in the
interpretation of their role.
The rational model for a decision-maker has the following characteristics:
(1) business decisions are choices among gambles with financial outcomes
(2) it assumes managers’ judgments of the odds are expected to maximize utility (i.e.,
Bayesian), and
(3) it acknowledges and accepts uncontrollable risks because they are offset by the chances
of gain.
March and Shapira view “risk” as a challenge to be overcome by the application of skill and
“choice” as a commitment to the goal, but they do not deny the possibility of failure.
Decision-makers are not “Bayesian forecasters” or “optimal gamblers.” Decision-makers
are subject to conflicting biases of unjustified optimism and unreasonable risk aversion.
Managing the balance between these two isolation errors affects the risk-taking propensities
of individuals and organizations.
Fallacies, Assumptions, and Challenges
March and Shapira (1987) found the following fallacies project managers hold toward
decision-making.
The following are fallacies espoused by project managers:
(1) decision-makers have a strong tendency to believe their problems are unique
(2) decision-makers isolate current choice from future opportunities, and

(3) decision-makers neglect statistics of past projects in evaluating current plans.
March and Shapira (1987) also found the following assumptions are made about project man-
agers as decision-makers:
(1) Self-image: project managers idealized self-image is not as a gambler but as a prudent
and determined agent, who is in control of both people and events. The reality is,
however, that project managers are not in control of either people or events.
(2) Cognition analysis: project managers accept “choice as a gamble” as a model for
decision-making but not as the rationality for the decision.
(3) Project managers do not take a large enough set of criteria to assess alternatives, thereby
tilting toward poor decisions.
(4) Project managers have an assumption of infinite rationality. In other words, project
managers are not aware of the concepts of requisite holism or bounded rationality, which
could allow for realistic assessments.
Project managers’ main challenges in decision-making are as follows:
(1) The fear of taking/managing risks causes an overly cautious attitude. This attitude
probably results from a failure to appreciate the effects of statistical aggregation while
mitigating relative risk.
(2) Making overly optimistic forecasts result from the adoption of an inside view of the
problem. That is, these forecasts anchor the plans and scenarios on the bias of this inside
view. Saving face – i.e., protecting personal reputation – takes primacy over managing
project risk.
Anchoring bias works against a project manager in a typical situation of his or her sponsor
telling him/her that, “if the situation has happened before, why should we allow it to happen
now or if it has not happened in the past, why do you think it will happen now?”
Following Kahneman and Lovallo (1993), in case study 3, we explain that a conflict
between risk aversion and anchoring bias can cause timid choices. Essentially, risk aversion
stems from narrow decision frames and is the price of social isolation. The lack of both inside
and outside perspective and unnecessary organizational optimism leads to bold forecasts.
“Managers accept risks, in part, because they do not expect that they will have to bear the
consequences (somebody else will!)” (March & Shapira, 1987). This is also applicable, in our
opinion, to project managers.
Hope as a Capability in Managing Projects
We apply Duflo’s (2012) work “Hope as a Competency” to decision-making in projects.

Does hope function as a capability; i.e., are people who are not empowered, in contexts or
scenarios, devoid of hope and hence make bad decisions? We answer a qualified yes to this
question.
Based on Duflo’s work in Banerjee and Duflo (2011) and Duflo (2012), the following
sub-phenomena can be expected:
(1) Hope-deficit – “hope” intrinsically allows people to realize their potential and that antic-
ipation of a non-rewarding, bleak future can worsen their rational capacity. It is rational
not to be over-invested in a business or decision. Also, irrational entrepreneurs exhibit
optimism bias (Kahneman & Lovallo, 1993).
(2) Vicious circle of negative shocks – external negative shocks, outside the control of an
individual, can cause stress leading to a pessimistic explanatory style (Seligman, 2006).
This pessimistic explanatory style tends to promote passivity and lower resilience that
leads to the inability to avoid shocks or resist them – leading to a self-fulfilling, vicious
cycle.
(3) Avoiding the future or non-active attitude toward the future – a psychological sanctuary
may prevent or affect making tough decisions or understanding contextual risks. If
managers are more prone to being blamed, they will spend less time thinking about the
future and, hence, could be less likely to be protected from risks. Project managers must
have a proactive orientation of dealing with situations emerging in projects. It is one of
the habits of successful project managers (Laufer et al., 2015).
(4) Lack of perspective and loss aversion – pessimism about “the possibility that anything
can change” may lead to large losses due to extreme conservatism. This is risk aversion
or may even be risk paranoia. Hopelessness destroys both the will and the ability to
invest in one’s future and one’s capabilities.
CASE METHOD
Flyvbjerg et al. (2003) and Priemus et al. (2008) developed methodologies for dealing with
specific contexts such as “emphasizing little things,” “getting close to reality,” “studying cases
and contexts,” and “looking at practice before discourse.” Also, these authors recommend
the embrace of communal validity supplemented by extensive analyses of power and power
relations between stakeholders and to learn through immersion and by studying real-world
examples that focus more on case studies. Drouin et al. (2013) have also discussed project
management research methodologies via the study of case scenarios.
Four case studies identify various issues that have become pertinent in the Indian context
as outlined below:
(1) project managers are not hands-on with risk management

(2) when tools are applied without processes, the outcome is a poorer understanding of risk,
which leads to
(3) unjustified point-probability estimates for project risk
(4) the use of expected value without the backdrop of baseline risk contingency
(5) the qualitative assessments represented by a 5 × 5 matrix have become decisions, but it
is not clear how the cell is assigned in the matrix (we advocate use of relative probability
and relative impact measures so that the 5 × 5 matrix is effectively used), and
(6) risk assessments do not get updated often enough without an embedded scan for new
risks.
Without the use of the above points, risk review/assessments do not yield the desired “(risk)
quality” – which we define as efficiency in risk processes and the effectiveness of the risk
framework.
CASE STUDY 1
Scenario:
A team of 30 engineering and construction managers were given risk management training
and asked to evaluate risks from certain construction contexts. The managers were also asked
to evaluate/self-assess their risk appetite for each of the construction contexts. We considered
two risk categories: engineering risks and construction risks.
The first case demonstrates the use of risk attitude in risk assessments. This use reflects the
confidence in successfully managing project risk via the appropriate strategies and tactics.
We introduced a straightforward way of assessing risk appetite. We quantify the risk appe-
tite curve (Hillson & Murray-Webster, 2012) from 1 (risk paranoid) to 9 (risk addicted) as
shown in Figure 9.1.
Figure 9.1 Digitization of the risk appetite curve
Observations:
(1) Engineering managers who assessed the engineering/design risks and construction
managers who assessed the construction risks were both found to be risk neutral to
risk-seeking/accepting (from 6 to 9). The managers agreed that they were confident in
managing the said risk.
(2) Engineering managers who assessed construction risks and construction managers who
assessed engineering/design risks were both found to be risk neutral to risk averse (from
1 to 4). The managers agreed that, when they were asked to assess risks that they had no
exposure to, they had poor confidence in managing it.
CASE STUDY 2
Scenario:
Broad Construction Company (Xu, 2014) provided a video of a hotel construction project
executed at a Chinese site for use as a case study.
Observations:
(1) The super-fast construction of a 30-story hotel is replete with lessons ranging from
detailed planning to efficient utilization of equipment and a close working relation-
ship with local government with which the logistics is integrated with the execution
(Just-In-Time) at the construction site.
(2) The organization’s project prowess allowed them to repeat and sustained this type of
delivery for over 15 years.
(3) The story we want to make visible and highlight is the organizational policies of this
company. The workers are trained and are full-time employees, and the CEO has
a strong focus on workers’ interests and their families. These organizational policies
create committed, competent workers (see, for example, Lutchman, 2017).
(4) Another big reason for the success of Broad Construction Company stems from their
exquisite planning; therefore, no (big) decisions can be made during the execution of the
project and all the workers have precise instructions.
The story in India, however, is that there is an “insurmountable” difficulty in obtaining local
approvals from the appropriate stakeholders (i.e., decisions are made against you). None of
the above four observations hold in the management of Indian projects, or Indian construction
organizations or generally, for the Indian construction industry.
A number of risk management next-practices are suggested in our work (Iyyunni, January
2015).
CASE STUDY 3
Scenario:
Kahneman and Lovallo (1993) revealed that poor decisions are often due to the conflict
between risk paranoia and anchoring bias. The following example illustrates this thought.
Imagine that a project manager faces the following pair of concurrent decisions.
Decision 1:
Choose between:
(A a sure gain of $240

(B) 25% chance of gaining $1000 and 75% chance of gaining nothing.
Decision 2:
Choose between
(C) a sure loss of $750

(D) 75% chance of losing $1000 and 25% chance of losing nothing.
Kahneman and Lovallo (1993) found that 84% chose (A) and 16% chose (B); 13% chose (C)
and 87% chose (D). The data shows the test participants preferred risk aversion when options
are favorable and are risk-seeking when options are not-favorable.
Observations:
(1) In the Indian context, amongst project practitioners, our observations are similar in
proportion, but the reasons are not precisely risk aversion or anchoring bias but, rather,
notions of gain and loss.
(2) The project managers who harbor these notions could be linked to the fact that Indian
professionals are moving from Hofstede’s country-specific culture type of being “high”
in the Uncertainty Avoidance Index (UAI).
We tested this reasoning by changing the probability and impact/consequence numbers to see
if the behavior would change significantly: it did not! The project managers seem “opportun-
istic” (i.e., they are not risk savvy), but there are no formal risk assessments; the managers are
grabbing benefits when possible; the full extent of the benefits, however, may not be realized.
If probability and consequence ranges/distributions are given, assessments of confidence
levels within a Monte Carlo simulation (@Risk, 2015; Iyyunni, January 2015) would be
easier. The simulation would also assess the combined effects of risk aversion and anchoring
bias.
CASE STUDY 4
We consider risk assessment as a set of decisions (Iyyunni, 2013; Iyyunni & Purohith 2013).
Scenario:
The following risks are envisioned. There is a construction project with major excavations
(earthwork) with unknown stratified hard and soft rock formation as site condition. The vari-
ance of subcontractors’ commitment to the project impacts the mobilization and availability of
manpower. Another factor influencing the project is creating construction work-front(s) (the
location of current activity in a construction project) for the remaining scope for delivering
substantial progress quickly. Finally, the condition of the machinery (which usually deteri-
orates with time and unknown schedules of preventive maintenance). The project began in
March/April of 2014 and was slated to finish June 2016.
The risk management session discussed later happened in the first week of September
2015 wherein the senior project personnel were on hand including the project director, deputy
project manager, and ten construction managers.
Case Process/Observations:
The question posed for the team to evaluate was whether overall risk increased as the project
progressed. According to most classical estimates due to the fact that project personnel may be
afflicted by anchoring bias, most will claim that risk reduces as milestones are achieved and
sub-structures completed. This scenario ignores the compounding mechanism between risks.
We used the analytical hierarchy process (AHP) technique (Iyyunni et al., 2014; Iyyunni
& Purohith 2013) and expert choice software (Expert Choice, 2014) to make our assessment.
The objective of this process was to assess the risk associated with the “progress of earth-
work.” We used four criteria: sub-contractor manpower availability (stakeholder risk), crea-
tion and availability of work-front (execution risk), condition of machinery (technology risk,
inherent risk), and nature of strata (inherent risk).
The time-periods evaluated were September/November 2014, March/May 2015, and
September/December 2015.
The criteria weights were used for pair-wise comparisons where each comparison was
estimated by two construction managers with at least 10 years of construction experience. The
pair-wise comparison is shown in Figure 9.2.
Figure 9.2 Pair-wise comparison for the criteria set
The weights for each criterion are as follows: sub-contractor manpower availability (34.8%),
creation and availability of construction work-front (15.3%), condition of machinery (30.2%),
and nature of strata (19.7%). The key factors were:
(1) the rain during July/August made the management of strata easier
(2) the latter phase of the project made work-front availability harder
(3) the latter phase of the project meant that there was excessive use of equipment that
resulted in the poor condition of the equipment, and
(4) manpower was moving away to newer projects.
The sensitivity analysis of the four risks as a function of time are shown in Figure 9.3. Figure
9.3 gives a pair-wise comparison (with respect to sub-contractor availability, work-front
availability, machinery, nature of strata) between alternatives for each criterion (September/
November 2014, top; September/December 2015, middle; March/May 2015, bottom).
Figure 9.3 Sensitivity analysis of the criteria with respect to the objective
Figure 9.4 shows the evaluation of risk for the future time-period, September/December 2016.
Figure 9.4 Four criteria for overall project risk evaluation
We claim that the above assessment is reasonably robust because changes in criteria weights
will not impact the overall evaluation/ranking between the alternatives. The risk during
September/December 2015 was almost 20% higher than in March/May 2015, and the overall
risk was reduced only 25% from the beginning of the project. Most risk texts claim that there
is a rather steep drop in risk when this time has elapsed in the project.
The poor risk assessment of September/December 2015 period was averted with the miti-
gations discussed above. The question is, “Why has a highly competent project team missed
this assessment?” This requires an understanding of the interactions between risks belonging
to different (project management) functional groups.
DISCUSSION
At the higher level, the challenges for risk management in the Indian project scenario are
organizational in nature: be they structural, cultural, or senior management distracted by the
pressures in managing program, portfolio, and governance requirements. It’s mostly a social
rather than technical challenge, though the socio-technical combined effect is self-evident.
(1) Herbert Simon in his Nobel Prize in Economics address (Simon, 1978) mentioned two
laws of organizational behavior. The second law is “the use of the right person for each
activity.” We don’t see evidence of Simon’s second law applied systematically across
projects.
(2) Ronald Coase, another winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics, had an insight obtained
in 1937 when he noticed “decreasing returns to the entrepreneur function, with increas-
ing overhead costs and increasing propensity for an overwhelmed manager to make
mistakes in resource allocation” (Coase, 1991). Coase (1991) highlighted the risks
of losing accountability via bad outsourcing practices and unnecessary activities by
employees such as filling up reimbursement bills for company travel. This is endemic to
construction industry globally and specifically to the Indian construction industry.
(3) These risks lead to the promotion of vested interests (i.e., self-interest) over organiza-
tional interests. While the extent and impact of this problem is not clear in the Indian
context, these problems are usually tagged with managerial excuses such as their “hands
are tied.” This situation appears to be a poor delegation of decision-making (Loosemore
et al., 2003) in the hierarchy of an organization. We have alluded to this in the literature
review section.
(4) She (2010) demonstrates the delineating role of trust in project alliancing. She (2010)
highlights that trust between organizational stakeholders is an important attribute for
conscious cultures. Trust is necessary to create a conscious organization that has a sense
of purpose, strong stakeholder integration, a conscious culture and management, and
conscious leadership (Sisodia & Mackay, 2013). This concept or trust can be applied to
projects and create a useful project governance model.
Infrastructure projects are a reflection of the social milieu (Miller & Lessard, 2001), and India
is no exception. In India, the economic growth is not linked to increased human capability
(Kumar, 2016), and project organizations reflect the societal structures (Flyvbjerg et al., 2003)
as evidenced by a (1) lack of trained resources and (2) no freedom to the higher-paying jobs
for the unskilled workers.
This situation illustrates the fallacy of shared trust in decision-making in the Indian context.
In India, project team members focus on managing the boss’ expectations rather than meeting
project objectives and is a major organizational condition that is managed poorly. In the
short run, the manager wins and the project objectives lose. Harvey (2007a) suggests using
group methods to create processes to avoid the Abilene paradox or mismanaged agreement to
help avoid the risk of the poor understanding and management of group emotion (Adams &
Anantatmula, 2010).
Harvey (2007b) also suggests mitigating this risk through straightforward interactions based
on eschewing negative fantasies, assessing real risks, and accountability based on values and
ownership.
(1) Dainty et al. (2005) discusses human resources management from the different per-
spective of behavioral competencies. Jha and Iyer (2007) and Lutchman (2017) discuss
the need for focus on the commitment, coordination, and competence aspects of people
management. Lutchman’s people-readiness model based on the commitment and com-
petency requirements of the people engaged in projects is crucial. This commitment
stems from
(a) meaningful work (including motivation, purpose, challenge, autonomy, etc.)
(Amabile & Kramer, 2011) and
(b) managing the base level of Maslowian needs of taking care of safety and security of
their family members; this is not the state of the Indian construction worker (Kumar,
2016).
(2) The Delhi Metro Rail Corporation project team suggests a host of steps to manage stake-
holder sentiments that led to satisfying overall expectations (Dayal, 2012) and, hence,
success of the project. The interpersonal working relations (amongst stakeholders) are
excellent – as per the TACTILE model spelled out by Sisodia and Mackay (2013), the
project should be a success – and it was.
(3) Laufer et al. (2015) suggest a number of leadership and communication strategies, such
as develop collaboration, integrate planning and review with learning, prevent major
disruptions, maintain forward momentum – for project managers to contend with stake-
holder management and leading teams. Based on Dayal (2012), Sisodia and MacKay
(2013), and Laufer et al. (2015), we see that potentially successful strategies are availa-
ble for project managers. With these available strategies and if Indian project managers
understand their strengths and surrounding culture, then we have a competency issue
(Coase, 1991; Lutchman, 2017) which is not understood by the construction managers
for managing their effectiveness and delivering on project objectives.
(4) The practice of “good human behavior practices” supports agency and development
(i.e., motivation, alignment, and increased competency) (Iyyunni, January 2015), and
Dainty et al. (2005) provides the basis for regaining hope in project execution.
(5) Further, the addition of Sushil’s (2005) flow-stream strategies in the project context
provides huge opportunities for raising the hope and success for project managers.
(6) Henisz et al. (2014) have worked on developing a perspective for managing local
community stakeholders which is yet to catch on with the government, private owners,
or construction (main) sub-contractors in Indian construction projects. These strategies
help to manage the social risks of projects – which are as important within the organiza-
tional context as in the external context.
(7) Loosemore et al. (2003) show that a key characteristic of construction project envi-
ronments is their unpredictability relative to static production industries. Briscoe and
Hall (1999) discuss the demands a project places upon managers to respond flexibly to
rapidly changing circumstances so that they can re-plan and re-focus their strategies for
meeting competing project objectives. Together, these conditions make it imperative
for project managers to have a strong “future orientation” that is risk neutral and, in the
face of crises, use proactive or preventive tactics (Remington, 2012) to navigate through
these challenges.
(8) Dainty et al. (2005) evaluated 43 characteristics for understanding a role-based compe-
tency evaluation and developed a predictive model for construction project managers’
performance. Two parameters of particular interest here are self-control and team
leadership.
(a) “Self-control” consists of a number of elements including self-motivation, enthu-
siasm, self-discipline, and ambition, along with time management and taking
initiative, reasoned and considered decision-making, and analytical and conceptual
thinking.
(b) “Team leadership” consists of managing team socio-dynamics (see also Adams
& Anantatmula, 2010) and a clear, single-minded approach to decision-making.
Chinowsky et al. (2008, 2010; Chinowsky & Songer 2011) give a detailed charac-
terization and methodology for managing the social (and stakeholder) milieu.
CONCLUSIONS
Duflo’s (2012) hope as a competency, capacity, and capability has been explored above. The
challenge with managing risk is dealing with the hopelessness, in the Indian context, that stems
from partially competent teams, workers’ lack of commitment, and organizations being overly
focused on profit margins.
Hope Model
We propose a “hope model” for risk attitude, which forms a virtuous cycle of the following
elements:
(1) Competence (knowledge, skills, experience, exposure) (Lutchman, 2017)

(2) Role (effectiveness and/or stress) (Pestonjee, 1998)
(3) Opportunity
(4) Understanding risk/consequence of action or in-action (Banerjee & Duflo, 2011)
(5) Emotional intelligence (Goleman, 1995)
(6) Managing interpersonal relationships (through transactional analysis)
(7) Curiosity for options and disciplined experimentation (Banerjee & Duflo, 2011)
(8) Team support (Kloppenborg et al., 2003)
(9) Organization support (Kloppenborg et al., 2003), and
(10) Failure immunity (Matson, 2013).
This simple model addresses Duflo’s (2012) challenge of the hopelessness and Harvey’s
(2007a) contextual analysis of vicious cycles in both interpersonal relationships and as “mis-
managed” agreements in teams.
The list of parameters in the model and their qualitative strength were discussed in-depth in
a four-hour training session with 30 construction managers from Water Infrastructure projects
of a large infrastructure construction contractor.
REFERENCES
Adams, S. L. and Anantatmula, V., “Social and behavioral influences on team process,” Project
Management Journal, September 2010, 41(4), 89–98.
Alladi, A. and Iyyunni, C., “Stakeholder management: Cross sectional study”, PMI India Research &
Academic Conference, Mumbai, February13–15 2015.
Amabile, T. and Kramer, S., Progress Principle, Harvard Business Review Press, 2011.
Banerjee, A. V. and Duflo, E., Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global
Poverty, Public Affairs, 2011.
Bhattacharya, S., Momaya, K. S., and Iyer, K. C., “Strategic change for growth: A case of construction
company in India,” Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, March 2013.
Briscoe, J. P., and Hall, D. T., “Grooming and picking leaders using competency frameworks: Do they
work? An alternative approach and new guidelines for practice,” Organizational Dynamics, 1999,
Autumn, 28(2), 37–52.
Chapman, C., and Ward, S., How to Manage Project Opportunity and Risk: Why Uncertainty
Management Can Be a Much Better Approach Than Risk Management, Wiley, 2011.
Chinowsky, P. S., and Songer, A. D., Organization Management in Construction, Routledge, 2011.
Chinowsky, P. S., Diekmann, J., and Galotti, V., “The social network model of construction,” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 2008, 134(10), 804–810.
Chinowsky, P. S., Diekmann, J., and O’Brien, J., “Project organizations as social networks,” Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 2010, 136, 452–458.
Coase, R. H., The Institutional Structure of Production, Nobel Prize lecture, December 9, 1991.
Dainty, A. R. J., Cheng, M.-I., and Moore, D. R., “Competency-based model for predicting construction
project managers’ performance,” Journal of Management in Engineering, January 1, 2005, 21(1).
Dayal, A., “25 management strategies of Delhi Metro,” Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd, 2012.
Drouin, N., Muller, R., and Sankaran, S., Novel Approaches to Organizational Project Management
Research: Translational and Transformational (Advances in Organization Studies), Copenhagen
Business School Press, 2013.
Duflo, E., Lack of Hope and Persistence of Poverty: Hope as a Competency, Marshall Lecture, Oxford
University, 2012.
Expert Choice Software, 2014, www.ExpertChoice.Com.
Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., and Rothengatter, W., Megaprojects and Risk: An Anatomy of Ambition,
Cambridge University Press, 2003.
Goleman, D., Emotional Intelligence, Bloomsbury, 1995.
Harvey, J. B., The Abilene Paradox and Other Meditations on Management, Jossey-Bass, 2007a.
Harvey, J. B., “How come every time I get stabbed in the back my fingerprints are on the knife? And
other meditations on management,” Jossey-Bass, 2007b.
Henisz, W., Dorobantu, S., and Nartey, L., “Spinning gold: The financial and operational returns to
external stakeholder engagement,” Strategic Management Journal, 2014, 35(12), 1727–1748.
Hillson, D. and Murray-Webster, R., Understanding and Managing Risk Attitude, Gower, 2012.
Iyyunni, C., “Residual risk quantification in the engineering outsourcing industry through Monte Carlo
simulation,” PMI Research Conference, January 31 to February 2, 2013.
Iyyunni, C., “Insights into schedule risks from quantitative analysis,” Palisade Risk Conference 2015 –
Best Practices in Risk and Decision Analysis, Mumbai, January 13, 2015.
Iyyunni, C., “Project priority and pressures from portfolio management,” PMI India Research &
Academic Conference, Mumbai, February 13–15, 2015.
Iyyunni, C., “Razor’s edge: Managing risk in the Indian software industry,” Palisade Risk Conference
2016 – Best Practices in Risk and Decision Analysis, Bengaluru, April 19, 2016.
Iyyunni, C., “Regaining hope: Ensuring Indian mega-project scope and schedule performance,” Palisade
Risk Conference 2016 – Best Practices in Risk and Decision Analysis, New Delhi, April 21, 2016.
Iyyunni, C. and Purohith, M. S., “Understanding uncertainty in account-specific project pipeline
management via milieu analysis in engineering outsourcing industry,” Project Management (India)
National Conference, September 27–28, 2013.
Iyyunni, C., Trivedi, V., and Anantatmula V., “An analysis of the process in deriving further benefits of
an AHP model,” International Symposium of the Analytic Hierarchy Process 2014, Washington, DC,
June 30 to July 2.
Japp, K. P. and Kusche, I., “Systems theory and risk” in Social Theories of Risk and Uncertainty: An
Introduction, edited by Jens O. Zinn, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2008.
Jha, K. N. and Iyer, K. C., “Commitment, coordination, competence and the iron triangle,” International
Journal of Project Management, 2007, 25, 527–540.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A., “Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk,” Econometrica,
1979, 47(2), 263–291.
Kahneman, D. and Lovallo, D., “Timid choices and bold forecasts: A cognitive perspective on risk
taking,” Management Science, 1993, 39(1), 17–31.
Kloppenborg, T. J., Shriberg, A., and Venkatraman, J., “Project leadership,” Management Concepts,
2003, 1–137.
Kumar, S., personal communication(s), 2016.
Laufer, A., Hoffman, E. J., Russell, J. S., and Cameron, W. S., “What successful project managers do,”
MIT Sloan Management Review, Spring 2015, 43–51.
Loosemore, M., Dainty, A. R. J., and Lingard, H., Managing People in Construction Projects: Strategic
and Operational Approaches, E&FN Spon, 2003.
Lovallo, D. and Kahneman, D., “Delusions of success: How optimism undermines executives’ deci-
sions,” Harvard Business Review, July 2003.
Lutchman, C., Project Execution Management, CRC Press, 2017.
March, J. and Shapira, Z., “Managerial perspectives on risk and risk taking,” Management Science, 1987,
33, 1404–1418.
Matson, J., Innovate or Die, Amazon, 2013.
Miller, R. and Lessard, D. R., Strategic Management of Projects, MIT Press, 2001.
Miller, R. and Floricel, S., “Project risks,” in A. Manseau and R. Shields (eds), Building Tomorrow:
Innovation in Construction and Engineering, Ashgate, 2005.
Miller, R. and Lessard, D. R., “Evolving strategy: Risk management and the shaping of mega-projects,”
in H. Priemus, B. Flyvbjerg, and B. van Wee (eds), Decision in Mega-Projects, MPG Books, 2008.
Pestonjee, D. M., Stress and Coping: The Indian Experience, Sage, 1998.
PMI, Project Management – Body of Knowledge, Project Management Institute (USA), 2015.
Priemus, H., Flyvbjerg, B., and van Wee, B., Decision in Mega-Projects, MPG Books, 2008.
Remington, K., Leading Complex Projects, Gower Publications, 2012.
@Risk 6.0 Software, 2015, Palisade Corporation, http://www.palisade.com/risk.
Rolstadas, A. Heltand, P. W., Jergeas, G. F., and Westney, R. E., Risk Navigation Strategies for Major
Capital Projects: Beyond the Myth of Predictability, Springer Series in Reliability Engineering, 2011.
Sanyal, S. and Iyyunni C., “Scope management of R&D projects,” National Conference on Industrial
Engineering and Technology Management (NCIETM), National Institute of Industrial Engineering
(NITIE), October 29–31, Mumbai, 2014.
Samset K., Berg, P., and Klakegg, O. J., “Front-end governance of major public projects,” Concept
Research Program, Technical University of Norway, May 2006.
Seligman, M. E. P., Learned Optimism, Vintage, 2006.
Sen, A. and Dreze, J., Uncertain Glory: India and Its Contradictions, Allen Lane Publishers, 2013.
She, L.-Y., “Understanding the conditions of trust between governance and management within project
alliancing.” PhD. Faculty of Architecture, Building and Planning, University of Melbourne, 2010.
Shenhar, A. and Dvir, D., Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond Approach to Successful
Growth and Innovation, Harvard Business School Press, 2007.
Simon, H., “Rational decision-making in business organizations,” Nobel Prize lecture, December 8,
1978.
Sisodia, R. and MacKay, J., Conscious Capitalism, Harvard Business School Press India Limited, 2013.
Sushil, “A flexible strategy framework for managing continuity and change,” International Journal of
Global Business and Competitiveness, 2005, 1(1), 22–32.
Sushil, personal communication, September 2016.
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D., “Rational choice and the framing of decisions,” The Journal of Business,
1986, 59(4), S251–S278.
Unruh, Gregory, “Strategies for business resilience,” MIT Sloan Management Review, September 20,
2016.
Xu, D., “How to build a skyscraper in two weeks – interview of Broad Group CEO Zhang Yue,”
McKinsey Quarterly, May 2014. See also www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdpf-MQM9vY.
10. Risk analytics for project success
Ruchita Gupta, Karuna Jain, and Charu Chandra Gupta
PROJECTS IN A VUCA ENVIRONMENT
Globalization, hyper-competition, and shorter technology and product life cycles have created
an environment that is volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous (VUCA), putting pressure
on companies to innovate at a faster pace. Today, organizations are engaging in Industry
4.0 and digital transformation driven by convergence and integration of technologies—
cyber-physical systems, Internet of Things, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, etc. driving speed
of projects in one way but also increasing their complexity.
Further, this poses challenges for project managers in terms of upskilling employees.
Kaivo-oja and Lauraeus (2018) mentioned a shift in mindset to tackle the challenges of
VUCA—(1) a global mindset by thinking beyond geographic boundaries, valuing integration
across borders, and appreciating regional and cultural diversity, (2) an innovation mindset by
fostering development and the implementation of new ideas, (3) a virtual mindset, handing
over activities to external providers, and (4) a collaborative mindset by engaging in business
partnerships as well as entering into coopetition. Bringing this change of new mindset within
the organization further adds to the new risks in projects. To mitigate the impact of a VUCA
environment on projects, organizations and project leaders need to know the type and severity
of challenges they are dealing with in each unique project.
UNDERSTANDING PROJECT SUCCESS
A project is considered successful only if it performs according to the specified project needs.
Hence, the role of the project manager is considered to be highly critical while defining
and shaping the desired targets of project execution (Shao, 2018). Traditionally and most
commonly a project is known to be a successful project if it is completed on time and within
budget. However, the project success needs to be measured on other important parameters
also (Albert et al., 2017): efficiency, impact on customer, impact on team, business success,
and future (Figure 10.1). One of the recent examples of the construction of the Qatar stadium
for FIFA World Cup 2022, a groundbreaking architectural achievement, revealed unethical
practices and mistreatment of migrant workers on the part of contractors responsible for the
various sites and developments. This attracted severe criticism from human rights groups. Can
it be classified as a successful project?
133
Figure 10.1 Success measures of a project
WHY PROJECTS FAIL
Innovation (be it a product, process, service, or business model) is one of the major drivers
of economic growth, and the needs of every organization are often risky and result in failure
if organizations neglect or oversee the risk management process. For example, 16 failures
out of 38 innovation projects were reported in European industry companies (Tepic et al.,
2013; Shenhar et al., 2016). One of the critical reasons for project failure is undervaluing
the measures of project success and giving high importance to only the schedule and budget.
Projects fail due to project team members’ failure to carry out designated activities properly
(execution). The case of Sydney Opera House (conceptualized in 1956, construction started
in 1959 with a budget of AUS $7 million), where construction started before the designs were
ready, indicated that the planners left gaps in the project plan by failing to anticipate all the
project’s required activities and work streams (white space). The project was delayed by 10
years with AUS $102 million. Further, the case of Heathrow Terminal 5 (joint project by the
British Airport Authority and British Airways, initiated in 1996 and launched in 2008 with the
goal of redefining the customer experience) clearly highlights that team members executed
all tasks flawlessly—on time and within budget with new technologies adopted—but did not
interweave all the project elements together at the end to deliver the intended results (complex-
ity and integration). This damaged the reputation of British Airways and British airlines with
huge financial losses. Further, ignoring early warning signs given by ground staff to present
the project as being certainly successful highlighted the denial and avoidance of uncertainty
by the project management team.
One recent example of a successful project is India’s Mars Orbiter Mission (MoM) by
ISRO (Indian Space Research Organization) in 2014 (budget of $74 million, 15 months). The
project credited into its account cost-effectiveness, short period of realization, economical
mass-budget, miniaturization of five heterogeneous science payloads, etc. The mission to
Mars gained the reputation of being a difficult space exploration as only 21 out of the 51
attempted missions turned out to be successful. The project demonstrated perfect planning,
Risk analytics for project success 135
execution, and integration with risk identification and well-crafted management strategies
(www.isro.gov.in).
Thus, it is critical for project team to:
(1) understand how components of the ecosystem might be changing

(2) predict the nature of the impact and cause–effect relationships
(3) know response alternatives available and predict the possible consequences of the
response choice.
A survey conducted by PMI in 2018 indicates that 29% of project failure happens due to the
absence of risk identification and its management. Further, recently it has been seen that use
of standardized risk management practices has led organizations to enhance their performance
(PMI, 2021). Still, there is no accepted framework to distinguish among projects posing diffi-
culty in understanding the characteristics and risk level of the project.
Further, it has been reported that many corporations engage in innovative new product
development and dedicate significant funding to them while only weakly engaging with risk
analytics. The use of risk analytics to inform decision-making was valued, but was unsystem-
atic due to insufficient training in risk analytics and its understanding (Hartwig & Mathews,
2020). The below sections attempt to highlight the dimensions of project and risk analytics.
UNDERSTANDING THE PROJECT DIMENSIONS
The first and most important task when you receive a project in hand is to develop the project
charter and understand its objectives, stakeholder involvement, timelines, budget, and project
success parameters. Further, the right characterization of the project and understanding the
project key dimensions during the initial stage of the project will aid the project manager
toward project success. Risk is defined as an uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs,
has a positive or negative effect on a project objective (Simon et al., 1997). Importantly, not
every uncertainty becomes risk but every risk is uncertain. Uncertainty that matters to you and
diverts you from achieving the project objectives is risk.
One of the frameworks useful to understand the overall project risk is the Diamond
Typology framework built on four dimensions: novelty, technology, complexity, and pace
(NTCP),developed by Shenhar and Dvir (2007) as shown in Figure 10.2(a). The NTCP
framework is useful for understanding project characteristics and enables an assessment of the
overall risk of the project at large as well as at subproject level within the project and program.
The diamond size depicts the risk level, and the larger the size of the diamond, the higher the
risk involved, as shown in Figure 10.2(b).
Novelty is not only defined by how new the product is to its markets and potential users but
also indicates whether the project is incremental, modular, architectural, or radical in nature.
It indicates whether the organization has dealt with similar kinds of projects in the past or if it
is the first time they are doing it, and how much shift is required from current capabilities and
skills to achieve the project objectives. Complexity depends on the size, number, and variety
of elements and the interconnections among them. Based on complexity, projects can be cat-
egorized as assembly projects (a collection of elements, components, or modules combined
into a unit that performs a single function); system projects (complex collection of interactive
elements and subsystems performing multiple functions to meet a specific operational need);
Figure 10.2 NTCP framework and risk levels
and array projects (large, widely dispersed collections of systems that function together to
achieve a common purpose).
In the current scenario of fast-changing technologies, understanding the technology dimen-
sion of the project becomes critical. The type of technologies to be embedded in the project
will provide insights into technological know-how and its accessibility before the project
enters into an execution phase. Further, it gives an initial assessment of the mode and mech-
anism of technology acquisition needed for the project. Super-high-tech projects are those
requiring development of new technologies that do not exist at the time of project initiation,
and are part of the project effort. Pace determines the project urgency and is classified as
regular (delays not critical); fast-competitive (time to market is important for the business);
time-critical (completion time is crucial for the success-window of opportunity); and blitz
(immediate solution is necessary). Once the project riskiness is known, based on risk-benefit/
opportunity analysis, the decision to approve the project immediately, reject immediately, or
put it on hold for further consideration is taken, and for the approved or projects put on hold,
the risk management process is initiated.
RISK MANAGEMENT PROCESS
The risk management process involves four key stages from risk identification to risk assess-
ment to risk analysis to risk control and monitoring. The first step before identifying risk is to
create a work breakdown structure (WBS) and clearly identify the work packages. Each work
package needs to be looked at carefully to identify risk and plan the contingency measures for
each of the work packages accordingly (Dey, 2002), as shown in Figure 10.3.
Source: Dey, 2002.
Figure 10.3 Risk management process
There is a strong desire to increase insights about the past, present, and future for higher-quality
decisions. Risk identification is conducted by employing qualitative techniques, whereas risk
assessment and analysis requires both qualitative as well as quantitative models and tech-
niques depending upon the type of project/domain and insights needed for the project.
QUALITATIVE MODELS AND TECHNIQUES FOR RISK

IDENTIFICATION AND ASSESSMENT
Qualitative techniques widely used to identify risks are documentation reviews, brainstorming
sessions, nominal group techniques, and the delphi technique, as presented in Table 10.1.
Once the risks are identified, risk categorization is done and a risk breakdown structure
(RBS) is created as shown in Figure 10.4 for the oil refinery construction project (Gupta et
al., 2021). RBS is a hierarchical structuring of risks defining the total risk exposure of the
project. It differs with respect to sources of risk, type of projects, and the environment as well
as industry sectors. It is therefore necessary for any organization wishing to use the RBS as an
aid to its risk management to develop its own tailored RBS.
138
Research handbook on project performance
Source: Gupta et al., 2021.
Figure 10.4 Risk breakdown structure

Table 10.1 Risk identification techniques (adapted from Chapman, 1998)
Characteristics Brainstorming Nominal Group Technique Delphi

Group size 7–12 7–10 No rule of thumb (range 5–30
depending on complexity of
problem in hand)
Group characteristics Heterogeneous group Heterogeneous group Heterogeneous experts
characterized by members characterized by members
with with
substantially different substantially different
perspectives of the project perspectives of the project
Member equality Member dominance occurs Member equality Respondent equality
Discussion intensity Criticism is ruled out Discussion for clarity No discussion
Quantity/quality desire Number i.e., quantity Quantity and quality Consensus
Degree of group Social needs of members Social needs of members Unaffected
compatibility may may
affect members’ responses affect members’ responses
Degree of bias Yes No biases, as the members are kept
anonymous
A qualitative risk analysis also deals with the prioritization of the identified project risks
using a pre-defined rating scale. Risks will be scored based on their probability or likelihood
of occurring and the impact on project objectives should they occur. As the impact of risks
encountered in past projects is imprinted on the psyche of the project manager and will be
remembered in future projects, experts are requested to give their judgment on probability (P)
of occurrence and the degree of impact (I) for all the identified risks on the identified project
objectives, such as cost, time, quality, scope, team performance, efficiency, etc.
The experts provide their inputs on the probability of occurrence of risks using: very high,
high, medium, low, and very low, as well as inputs on the degree of impact of risks using: crit-
ical, major, cautionary, minor, and negligible on project objectives, such as budget, schedule,
or quality, as shown in Figure 10.5. The risks are then plotted on the probability–impact matrix
to understand which are most critical to be looked at as a priority.
Figure 10.5 Probability–impact matrix

QUANTITATIVE MODELS USING ANALYTICS FOR RISK

ASSESSMENT
To make the best decisions about innovation projects, leaders need answers to the following
questions: which risks should be prioritized, what are the interactions, what mitigation strat-
egy works, what issues are trending, and how should contingency be planned? Risk analytics
provides the answers to the above and uses data-driven models where data can be collected on
project sites and/or generated using procedures for eliciting experts’ judgments. It includes (1)
risk prioritization techniques and 2) risk interaction techniques. The techniques can be catego-
rized under (a) statistical and machine learning models (Gondia et al., 2020), (b) multi-criteria
decision-making models (MCDM), (c) interpretive structural modelling (ISM), (d) social
network analysis (SNA), and (e) simulation models.
RISK PRIORITIZATION TECHNIQUES
A very simple risk ranking and prioritization technique is to convert the subjective evaluations
of probability (likelihood of occurrence) and impact received from experts into a quantitative
scale (validated by experts) as presented in Table 10.2. A five-point Likert rating scale for
impact and probability can also be used (where very high impact/probability = 5, high impact/
probability = 4, moderate impact/probability = 3, low impact/probability = 2, and very low
impact/probability = 1). This method for assessment has been frequently used by researchers
(Gondia et al., 2020; Kassem et al., 2019; Xia et al., 2017).
The risk score can then be simply calculated as probability × impact. The risk score can
be calculated for each work package and hence the work package and risk with a higher risk
score needs more attention toward designing appropriate strategies to manage it, as shown in
Figure 10.6.
Table 10.2 Sample scales for quantitative probability and impact
Scale Impact Probability of occurrence

0–20% Very low (VL) Very low (VL)
20–40% Low (L) Low (L)
40–60% Moderate (M) Moderate (M)
60–80% High (H) High (H)
80–100% Very high (VH) Very high (VH)
Impact value (Index) Description Probability value (Index) Description

0.05 Contributes to no or 0.1 Nonexistent or very rare
insignificant time overrun
0.1 Contributes to <5% time 0.3 Rare
overrun
0.2 Contributes to 5%–10% time 0.5 Moderate
overrun
0.4 Contributes to 10%–20% time 0.7 Frequent
overrun
0.8 Contributes to >20% time 0.9 Very frequent
overrun
Figure 10.6 Risk ranking using RBS-WBS
Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM): this is a hierarchical structure capturing both tangi-

ble and intangible risk factors to consider in the decision (Saaty, 2012). It is based on the idea
of pairwise comparisons to gain the relative importance of one criterion (here the risks) over
another. Researchers have attempted to prioritize risks using Analytical Hierarchy Process
(AHP) in combination with other MCDM techniques like Delphi, Analytical Network Process
(ANP), Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS), and
Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL) across different sectors: con-
struction (Dey, 2002); new product development (Chen et al., 2006); mining (Banda, 2019);
PPP projects (Zhang et al., 2019), etc. However, the traditional MCDM techniques are limited
in handling uncertain data and in scenarios where expert opinions are difficult to capture with
an exact value. To overcome this drawback, the fuzzy numbers are used to capture the features
of interval judgments and the most likely values, known as Fuzzy MCDM.
Risk Interaction Techniques
Because of the project complexity and involvement of multiple stakeholders (such as client,
consultant, contractor, subcontractor/supplier, end user, financial organization, government,
environmental organization, professional association, media, public, labor union, assessor/cer-
tifier, researcher, and others), especially in large and mega projects, not only identification of
risk but also identifying their (risks as well as stakeholder) interactions appears to be critical,
which is likely to trigger the occurrence of one or more risks. Researchers have demonstrated
different risk interactions that can occur during a project life cycle as shown in Figure 10.7
(Yuan et al., 2018; Kwan & Leung, 2011).
Figure 10.7 Risk interactions
The techniques used to study the interrelationships and dependencies among the identified risk
are as follows.
Semantic Network Analysis (SNA).

The application of SNA has been in the last few years extending into the area of project
management, although this implementation is at a very initial stage. Recently, Yang and Zou
(2014), Yuan et al. (2018), Zarei et al. (2018), and Bashir et al. (2020) applied SNA to under-
stand the main causes of delay in large and complex construction projects, as well as their
interrelationships. SNA includes: (1) the recognition of key risk factors and stakeholders; (2)
the recognition of elements determining and defining each of the risk factors; (3) analysis of
risk effects through the risk structure matrix (risk relationship is defined by the impact from
one risk to the other, and the likelihood of the interaction between the risks); and (4) visualiza-
tion of a risk network as shown in Figure 10.8. Initially, focus group or the Delphi technique is
employed to get information on risks from experts in the field. Then, each concept/occurrence
(risk factor) is considered as a node in a network and the relationship between concepts is
based on the co-occurrence of concepts. SNA software packages like SocNetV, UCINET,
NetMiner, NetDraw, and Pajek, etc. ease the plotting of the network.
Figure 10.8 Illustration of SNA for project risk
Interpretive Structural Modeling (ISM)

ISM uses experts’ practical experience and knowledge to generate a multilevel structural
model. ISM has indicated higher capability to capture dynamic complexity by imposing order
and direction on the complex relationships among risks in a project, indicating how the risk
propagates in the system, as shown in Figure 10.9. It has demonstrated its capabilities in dif-
ferent domains such as international projects of piping, steel, and construction (Dandage et al.,
2018, 2019; Gupta et al., 2021); virtual organizations (Alawamleh & Popplewell, 2011); and
renewable energy projects (Eswarlal et al., 2011).
Decision-Making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory (DEMATEL)

This reveals not only the relationship structure between the risk factors but also causality, and
identifies the critical factors through the matrix calculation (Zhang et al., 2019). The structure
of the DEMATEL network is presented in Figure 10.10.
Source: Gupta et al., 2021.
Figure 10.9 Illustration of ISM, an example of oil refinery construction
Figure 10.10 DEMATEL network for risk relationships

Bayesian network
Bayesian networks (BN) are based on graphs and probability to describe the probabilistic
relationships among the uncertain variables (here risks). BN is composed of two parts, namely
a qualitative and a quantitative part. The qualitative part of a BN is a directed acyclic graph
(DAG), in which nodes with several states represent the variables of interest with uncertainty,
expressed in probability, and the directed arcs pointing from a parent node to a child node
represent the causal and conditional dependency relationship between those two nodes. The
quantitative part, which consists of a set of conditional probability, is obtained from empirical
data or given by expert judgments (one way to identify is through pairwise comparison). The
demonstration of BN for risk in new product development project is presented in Figure 10.11
(Chin et al., 2009; Khodakarami & Abdi, 2014).
A comparison of different data-driven quantitative techniques is presented in Table 10.3.
Source: Chin et al., 2009.
Figure 10.11 Bayesian network of new product development risk

Table 10.3 Comparison of quantitative techniques for risk assessment and analysis
Features AHP ANP TOPSIS DEMATEL ISM BAYESIAN SNA

Sample size 5–10 5–10 5–10 10–15 10–15 Depends on Depends on
(experts) complexity complexity
requirement and number of
stakeholders
Purpose Prioritization Prioritization Prioritization Intensity of Risk Risk Risk and
direct and propagation; relationships: stakeholder
indirect risk multilevel ability to relationships
relationships hierarchy incorporate
conditional
monitoring and
bring dynamic
changes
Number 7–10 Many Many Many Many
of risks
consideration
(attributes)
Relationships NA YES NA YES: cause YES: YES: cause and YES
among risks and effect order and effect analysis
analysis, direction on
mutual the complex
influences relationships
Flexibility and Highly Highly Structured Structured Structured ‘What-if”’ analysis Information
effort structured structured method method method to explore the collection
method, easy method and effect of changes in process is
to implement complex some nodes on the quite
changes in other time-
nodes consuming
Large
computational
effort
Limitation Cannot Cannot Cannot Stakeholders
be used to quantify or determine impact reluctant to
determine the explicitly of risk events provide data
likelihood of demonstrate One-way causal concerning
risk events influences relationship the anonymity
among those of the data
elements collected
Software Super Super Super Online output Genie, HUGIN SocNetV,
decisions decisions decisions Netica UCINET,
NetMiner,
NetDraw,
Pajek
Monte Carlo simulation

This involves random sampling of uncertain variables based on defined probability distribu-
tion functions. Through this random sampling, a probability distribution of the output variable
can be determined, and the probability of failure calculated. The main criterion for selecting
the appropriate probability distribution for input variables is the knowledge of characteristics
of risk factors. One critical step in a Monte Carlo simulation is to develop a model of relation-
ship between dependent variable (example-objective/performance of project—in terms of cost
or budget or schedule or quality, etc.) and independent variables (risk factors). Crystal Ball
in Excel is one piece of software providing risk assessment and aiding the project manager’s
decision-making.
RISK RESPONSE STRATEGIES
Risk response planning involves development of responses to the identified risks that are
appropriate, achievable, and affordable. There are four risk response strategies as shown in
Figure 10.12. Depending upon the severity of risk, the strategy can be adopted.
Figure 10.12 Risk management strategies
● Avoid: seeking to eliminate the uncertainty by making it impossible for the risk to occur
(i.e., reduce probability to zero), or by executing the project in a different way that will
achieve the same objectives but that insulates the project from the effect of the risk (i.e.,
reduce impact to zero), such as revising the project plan to remove the risk.
● Accept: recognizing that residual risks must be taken, and responding either actively by
allocating appropriate contingency, or passively doing nothing except monitoring the
status of the risk.
● Transfer: identifying another stakeholder better able to manage the risk, to whom the
liability and responsibility for action can be passed.
● Reduce/mitigate: reducing the size of the risk in order to make it more acceptable to the
project or organization, by reducing the probability (risk prevention) and/or the impact
(risk adaptation).
Risk prevention refers to actions taken in the planning stage to reduce the probability of
occurrence of risk events by acquiring additional information, improving communication with
clients, hiring experienced project managers, and choosing more reliable contractors. In risk
adaptation, actions are implemented in the execution stage and aim at alleviating negative
impacts resulting from the occurrence of risks. The selection of strategy is based on controlla-
bility of project risk, risk-handling costs, and project characteristics (project size, technological
complexity, level of schedule slack, and external economic and political factors) (Fana et al.,
2008). When the project scale and the expected loss are large, and controllability is high, and
when the complexity of a project (defined as ease of conducting internal and external commu-
nication among parties, obtaining necessary information, keeping project specifications/scope
intact, etc.) is low, a risk-prevention strategy is suitable. Further, for projects with little slack
and high pressure for on-time completion, the unit cost of a crash is high, and a risk-prevention
strategy is preferred (Fana et al., 2008). If controllability is low and prevention cost is very
high, a risk adaptation strategy is preferred. Finally, in the situation where the controllability of
the project is not clear, a mixed strategy could be adopted as shown in Figure 10.13.
Source: Fan et al., 2008.
Figure 10.13 Risk mitigation strategy
Further, when the projects are complex and involve multiple stakeholders, as discussed earlier,
there exist interrelationships and interdependencies among risks that can either increase or
decrease the probability of occurrence of other risk(s) as well as their effects. After a risk has
considered the effect from another risk, the dependent risk is then called posterior risk (Kwan
& Leung, 2011). The effects of risk dependencies can either increase or reduce the probabil-
ities of those affected risks. A non-favorable effect will increase the probability of a risk and
a favorable effect will lower its probability. Based on the favorability of dependency effect and
the degree of dependency effect, an appropriate risk response strategy can be selected (Kwan
& Leung, 2011) as shown in Figure 10.14.
Source: Kwan and Leung, 2011.
Figure 10.14 Risk dependency response strategy
Some of the response actions recommended by researchers in their studies are presented in
Table 10.4.
Table 10.4 Risk response strategies and actions
Risk ACTIONS STRATEGY

New regulations Ensure the project is complying with local planning commission’s development plan AVOID
and laws Establish joint ventures with renowned local partners, especially the central TRANSFER
government agencies or state-owned enterprises
Obtain insurance for political risks TRANSFER
Maintain good relationship with local government and higher officials MITIGATE
Public image Comply with local and international civil laws and standards, local social and cultural AVOID
values
Maintain good reputation and image to the public MITIGATE
Give donations to renowned nongovernmental organizations, which are involved in MITIGATE
elevating the living conditions of poor
Provide residents with substantial subsidies in case of acquisition of land that involves MITIGATE
relocating residents
Market demand Employ reputable third-party consultant to forecast market demand AVOID
Look for generic application of the products MITIGATE
Competition Conduct market study and obtain exact information of competitive projects MITIGATE
Adopt as much as possible domestic product/labor to reduce cost MITIGATE
Establish agreement with local government agency to reduce/exempt from import TRANSFER
formalities
Unanticipated Undertake pre-project planning to minimize design errors MITIGATE
design changes and Inviting vendor to attend design meeting MITIGATE
errors Frequent reviews, adopting agile approach MITIGATE
Get design liability insurance TRANSFER
Adopt design and build option, which enables contractor to design in harmony with site TRANSFER
conditions thus minimizing design/drawing disputes
Unstable Developing contingency plans for labor shortage MITIGATE
organizational
environment
Management Hiring a consulting company for design phase MITIGATE
commitment and
support
Supplier related More dependence on national suppliers MITIGATE
Design incentive mechanisms for timely delivery MITIGATE
Choosing a more stable supplier (with frequent monitoring on financial and reputation) AVOID
Requirement On-site customer surveys to optimize requirement analysis MITIGATE
changes
Technology Adopting proven technology AVOID
Parallel innovation process MITIGATE
RISK MONITORING AND CONTROL
Risk monitoring and control is the final stage of the risk management process. It aims to
monitor the status of identified risks, identify new risks, ensure the proper implementation
of agreed responses, and review their effectiveness, as well as monitoring changes in overall
project risk exposure as the project progresses. For this purpose, a risk register is used, which
serves the purpose of helping the project team review project risks on a regular basis through-
out the project life cycle. Risk review meetings may be held to assess the current status of risks
to the project, and project review meetings should include status reports from the project team
Table 10.5 Sample of a risk register
Project title:
Documented by:
Revised date:
Risk identification Risk analysis Risk resolution
ID Reported Date of Description Risk Description Severity Occurrence Risk Preventive Action Risk Date of Date of Note
by report of risk type of risk rating rating rating action taken priority action action
(D/M/Y) impact by no. taken completed
on key risks and agreed responses. The risk level as well as risk dependencies may change
during the project life cycle. The residual (risk that remain after all of the response strategies
have been implemented) and secondary risks (direct result of implementing a risk response)
are looked at after implementing the risk management strategies. The risk register contains the
above information in the form of a table (as shown in Table 10.5), Excel sheet, or any form of
database (Patterson & Neailey, 2002) convenient to the organization.
(1) The area of the project in which the risk may materialize
(2) Risk identification number
(3) Brief description of the risk
(4) Probability or likelihood of the risk occurring, determined within the risk assessment
phase
(5) Impact value (impact of the risk, often in separate terms of time, cost, quality, or other
related project objectives framed)
(6) Total impact value
(7) Risk score (combination of the probability and total impact values)
(8) Ranking of the risk within the project (ranked risks are those with a high severity and are
active within the project)
(9) Tracking of the risk (i.e., has the risk increased, remained the same, or decreased in
severity since the previous month?)
(10) Risk response strategy
(11) Risk owner
(12) Whether the risk is active on the register
(13) Whether the risk has been solved.
As this stage caters for accountability of the process to ensure that an adequate level of report-
ing is present, an agile approach (iterative and incremental) to monitoring is beneficial. This
approach will enable frequent interactions across all iterations with the stakeholders. In such
approach stakeholders are aware of the process and acceptance levels of the risks are decided.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
It is imperative that project risk management is one of the most important domains enabling
project success. The high failure rates of projects across sectors with especially cost and time
overrun clearly demand organizations develop competence in risk management and its tech-
niques. Unfamiliarity with and unawareness of the emerging techniques in the field of analyt-
ics has until now restricted their use. The authors have attempted to present a snapshot of a few
relevant techniques other than the traditional ones that can be used in the VUCA environment
currently being faced by almost all organizations.
Further, it has been observed that much of the research has been directed toward study of
independent risks and their effects and response actions. In fact, the analytical approaches that
employ MCDM have recently dominated the literature. However, risk dependency is one of
the most critical aspects to be seen and requires more attention and case studies for experiential
learning. Risk response actions needs to be integrated well when dependency happens and
need further research. Further, the risk register captures the independent risk, which needs
modification to adapt risk dependency aspects and posterior risks effects. The findings indicate
that there is heavy reliance on practical experience and professional judgment when assessing
risk. Adoption of the available machine learning tools is quite limited and in an emerging
phase in the area of project risk management.
The caselet of an aviation project highlights the importance of moving toward an agile
approach to risk mitigation when dealing with complex projects with multiple stakeholders.
When teams meet on a frequent (even daily) basis, they are better prepared to react to scope
and schedule changes and adapt as necessary. Such modifications align the project continu-
ously for value delivery of the project and its success.
CASELET: MANAGING RISK IN A COMPLEX AVIATION

PROJECT
India’s development of the light combat aircraft (LCA) Tejas (a flying military machine with
supersonic speed) is a live example where proactive risk management played a big role in its
success. The triple constraints of time, cost, and scope with high-quality standards were met.
We take you back to the 1990s. One of the authors was then in a senior position in the design
team at HAL Lucknow.
The LCA is the smallest, most lightweight, multi-role fighter of its class in the world
designed to meet the stringent operational requirements of the Indian Air force. It incorporates
state-of-the-art technologies. The need for a small, lightweight fighter to replace the MiG-21
series of aircraft and to bridge the ever-widening technology gap was the objective of the LCA
project. The project was like a movement, which perhaps does not occur very often in history.
The development of the LCA is the most complex high-technology hardware and software
development program ever undertaken in India. The road for its development was rough and
the team encountered many challenges.
Novelty: The project was novel—a breakthrough in nature as it was a completely new
product, never done before, with totally new infrastructure to undertake design and devel-
opment. In other words, novelty was high. Further, the capabilities and competencies (as the
existing workforce of the organizations had very limited experience) needed to be built to meet
the user requirements. This required the development of a cohesive team.
Technology: The challenge was that the fighter should be a state-of-the-art fighter to remain
in service for more than two decades to come. Thus, the technology should be advanced; i.e.,
a quantum jump in technology was needed. The technology was very high. The critical ques-
tion was the accessibility of such technologies within the given time frame. However, access
to such technologies was difficult, especially due to sanctions imposed on India by other
countries. The technologies required for the project were not available off the shelf due to their
nature of being sensitive defense technologies that were guarded by firms and their respective
governments as their golden hens. The second technical challenge was to meet the stringent
requirements of the user who for obvious reasons wanted the contemporary performance and
technologies.
Complexity: The project had a very high level of complexity and high interdependency
of systems with weight and volume constraints. Complexity was understood not only from
technical aspects (such as avionics, fuel, engine, integrated flight control system, etc.) but also
there was high managerial complexity due to the involvement of multiple stakeholders and
distributed teams, and material flow and facilities spread all over India. One hundred major
work centers (industries, R&D labs, academic institutions) and 300 small-/medium-scale
industries participated in this breakthrough project (Harinarayana, 2004).
Pace: The then frontline fighter aircrafts (MiG-21 series) used by the Indian Air Force were
becoming outdated by the 1990s. They needed replacing to cater to the new needs of the Air
Force. Development of such a class of fighter (LCA) would need almost 15 to 20 years of
sustained effort even by developed countries. Thus, the project became time-critical and of an
urgent nature.
Thus, the NTCP framework (as shown in Figure 10.15) puts the LCA project in a very
high-risk category, suggesting that if not managed properly it will result in failure.
The risks were identified in the early phase of the project, to list a few:
(1) Availability and accessibility of latest technologies

(2) Lack of know-how and know-why of advanced technologies
(3) Limited availability of expertise
(4) Bureaucratic style of functioning
(5) Restrictions/sanctions imposed by other countries
(6) Changes in requirements from the customer
(7) Denial of foreign technical assistance
(8) Long development time and heavy cost by supplier
(9) Supplier availability.
The nature of the project demanded development and manufacturing of highly complex, tight
tolerance hardware and components for aerospace, considering the safety of aviation and
defense personnel in such mission-critical projects. Thus, it was clear that the project could not
be dealt with in a conventional way and rather an innovative approach needed to be applied by:
● looking at things differently
● doing things differently
● coordinating activities seamlessly.
Figure 10.15 LCA project: NTCP characteristics
The project team members took the challenge together with one aim and goal and used
synergies, perseverance, hard work along with technology, project management, and risk
management competencies. A proactive risk assessment approach was adopted during the
project life cycle not only from the management perspective but also to ensure certification,
to have the confidence with operating crew and designers, the key stakeholders in the project.
The risk assessment was carried out and risks were categorized as high, medium, and low. The
risks were tracked and monitored down to realization during development (Harinarayana et
al., 2003).
Risk Management Strategy
As no single organization had experience in such a project, it was decided to use existing
institutions involving distributed work centers with 148 organizations spread over 29 loca-
tions within India (Kumar, 2014, 2021), rather than using a centralized work center model.
A decentralized development and production strategy was adopted to avoid as well as mitigate
the risks.
To reduce the delays in decision-making (both financial and technical) and speed up the
technology development, infrastructure creation, and product development, a new body
(virtual organization) called the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) was created. It
created flexibility in the management structure, enabling active participation and cohesive
decision-making among industry, R&D bodies, academia, and the customer (air force, Indian
Navy). This was the first project of this nature and scale undertaken by the organizations-ADA
under Defence Research and Development (DRDO-ADA) and Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd
(HAL). The total design and development work was partitioned into various work blocks,
work block elements, and work packages, about 1,200 in total. Each work element was clearly
defined and the interfaces with other elements specified (Harinarayana, 2004).
During one of the critical phases of integration of the LCA prototype at HAL Bangalore,
one of the line replacement units (LRUs) had a procurement problem (the vendor was charging
an exorbitant price and there was a long development time), affecting the LCA development
time adversely. The design team at HAL Lucknow was given the task to take the challenge and
develop it in-house. This was a very high-risk proposal considering the fact that the LRU was
a class-1 aircraft electric system and if anything happened the electric supply system of the air-
craft would fail, leading to disruption of the electric supply to other systems and thus failure of
the systems. The team took the plunge. The team gave due focus to eliminate/reduce the effect
of risk at the earliest stage before the risk had a negative impact on the project objectives.
A proactive and agile approach was applied for dealing with risks. Various stages of the life
cycle (from concept to prototype) of the LRU were dealt with using different combinations of
risk methods and approaches as per the requirement of the unique work package. At all stages,
frequent reviews and risk reviews were conducted involving the customer, ADA, the quality
regulating agency, and other stakeholders. In some review meetings higher management was
also involved actively. The result was that the LRU was developed, tested, and fitted success-
fully in the LCA prototype before the expected date.
Further, technical risks were mitigated by making small project groups with domain experts
from different organizations. Most of the group members were stationed at the site of the
subproject.
The LCA development was a formidable task and a calculated risk, particularly against the
background in which Indian aeronautics had grown to that point. The LCA team consisting of
about 1,000 engineers, designers, and staff worked for about 72 hours/week for 11 long years
(Kumar, 2021) to deliver the project, meeting the project performance parameters of quality.
Key Takeaways
It is said that ‘there can be a slip between a cup and a lip’; i.e., even a very small project also
has a risk. In fact, some risks are always present in all projects.
The risk management methodology adopted was not to eliminate all the risks and spend
resources on removing them totally; instead, the focus was on reducing the risk to an accept-
able level. The agile approach was adopted and very frequent reviews (sometimes daily) were
done to reduce the overall project risks to a level that was acceptable to the key stakeholders
such as the project sponsor, regulatory agencies, and the vendors. The involvement of the
project team along with stakeholders in the reviews minimized the bureaucratic delay and
enabled quick decision taking. At some points changes were incorporated into the schedule,
budget, and scope to deal with certain risks. The approach adopted the changes and was very
effective in identifying and mitigating the risks beyond the visual range (unforeseen) at an
early stage. The LCA experience shows that in highly complex and risky projects, project
performance and its success depends on the selection of partners who can work cooperatively
at a higher level of operational trust.
REFERENCES
Alawamleh, M., & Popplewell, K. (2011). Interpretive structural modelling of risk sources in a virtual
organisation. International Journal of Production Research, 49 (20), 6041–6063.
Albert, M., Balve, P., & Spang, K. (2017). Evaluation of project success: A structured literature review.
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10 (4), 796–821.
Banda., W. (2019). An integrated framework comprising of AHP, expert questionnaire survey and sen-
sitivity analysis for risk assessment in mining projects. International Journal of Management Science
and Engineering Management, 14 (3), 180–192.
Bashir, H., Ojiako, U., & Mota, C. (2020). Modeling and analyzing factors affecting project delays using
an integrated social network-fuzzy MICMAC approach. Engineering Management Journal, 32 (1),
26–36.
Chapman, R. J. (1998). The effectiveness of working group risk identification and assessment tech-
niques. International Journal of Project Management, 16 (6), 333–343.
Chen, H. H., Lee, A. H. I. Y. H., & Tong. Y. (2006). New product mix selection for a high technology
company in a technology innovation network. Journal of Technology Management in China, 1 (2),
174–189.
Chin, K. S., Tang, D. W., Yang, J. B., Wang, Y., & Wang, H. (2009). Assessing new product develop-
ment project risk by Bayesian network. Expert Systems with Applications, 36 (6), 9879–9890.
Dandage, R. V., Mantha, S. S., & Rane, S. B. (2019). Strategy development using TOWS matrix for
international project risk management based on prioritization of risk categories. International Journal
of Managing Projects in Business. doi: 10.1108/IJMPB-07–2018–0128
Dandage, R. V., Mantha, S. S., Rane, S. B., & Bhoola, V. (2018). Analysis of interactions among barriers
in project risk management. Journal of Industrial Engineering International, 14 (1), 153–169.
Dey, P. K. (2002). Project risk management: A combined analytic hierarchy process and decision tree.
Cost Engineering, 44 (3).
Eswarlal, V. K., Dey, P. K., Budhwar, P., & Shankar, R. (2011). Analysis of interactions among variables
of renewable energy projects: A case study on renewable energy projects in India. Journal of Scientific
and Industrial Research, 70 (8), 713–720.
Fana, M., Linb, N. P., & Sheu. C. (2008). Choosing a project risk-handling strategy: An analytical model.
International Journal of Production Economics, 112 (2), 700–713.
Gondia, A., Siam, A. S., El-Dakhakhni, W., & Nassar, A. H. (2020). Machine learning algorithms for
construction projects delay risk prediction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
146 (1).
Gupta, R., Das, B., & Jain, K. (2021). Risk management of oil refinery construction project: An Indian
case study. International Journal of Project Organisation and Management, 13 (3).
Harinarayana, K. (2004). Developing light combat aircraft: Foresight as the guiding principle.
International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 1 (3/4).
Harinarayana, K., Shrimali, S. C., & Biswas, P. (2003). Indian light combat aircraft (LCA): Lessons
learnt in R&S during development. IEEE Proceedings Annual Reliability and Maintainability
Symposium.
Hartwig. S., & Mathews. S. (2020). Innovation project risk analytics: A preliminary finding.
Research-Technology Management, 63 (3), 19–23.
ISRO (2017). Mars Orbiter Mission Completes 1000 Days in Orbit. https://www.deccanherald.com/
content/618393/isros-mars-orbiter-mission-completes.html
Kaivo-oja, J. R. L., & Lauraeus, I. T. (2018). The VUCA approach as a solution concept to corporate
foresight challenges and global technological disruption. Foresight, 20 (1), 27–49.
Kassem, A. M., Khoiry, M. A., & Hamzah, N. (2019). Using probability impact matrix (PIM) in ana-
lyzing risk factors affecting the success of oil and gas construction projects in Yemen. International
Journal of Energy Sector Management, 14 (3), 527–546.
Khodakarami, V., & Abdi, A. (2014). Project cost risk analysis: A Bayesian networks approach for
modeling dependencies between cost items. International Journal of Project Management, 32 (7),
1233–1245.
Kumar, Y. (2014). Lead and Execute: The Art of Managing Large Scale Projects. The Society of
Aerospace Studies.
Kumar, Y. (2021). Execution Made Easy: Practical Tips for Large Scale Projects. Independently
published.
Kwan, T. W., & Leung, H. K. N. (2011). A risk management methodology for project risk dependencies.
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 37 (5), 635–647.
Patterson, F. D., & Neailey, K. (2002). A risk register database system to aid the management of project
risk. International Journal of Project Management, 20 (5), 365–374.
PMI (2021). Pulse of the Profession 2021. https://www.pmi.org/learning/thought-leadership/pulse/pulse
-of-the-profession-2021
Saaty, T. L. (2012). Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in
a Complex World. RWS Publications.
Shao, J. (2018). The moderating effect of program context on the relationship between program manag-
ers’ leadership competences and program success. International Journal of Project Management, 36
(1), 108–120.
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond Approach to
Successful Growth and Innovation. Harvard Business Review Press.
Shenhar, A. J., Holzmann, V., Melamed, B., & Zhao, Y. (2016). The challenge of innovation in highly
complex projects: What can we learn from Boeing’s Dreamliner experience? Project Management
Journal, 47 (2), 62–78.
Simon, R., Hillson, D., & Newland, K. (1997). Project Risk Analysis and Management (PRAM) Guide.
Association for Project Management.
Tepic, M., Kemp, R., Omta, O., & Fortuin, F. (2013). Complexities in innovation management in com-
panies from the European industry. European Journal of Innovation Management, 16 (4), 517–550.
Xia, N., Zhong, R., Wu, C., Wang, X., & Wang, S. (2017). Assessment of stakeholder-related risks in
construction projects: Integrated analyses of risk attributes and stakeholder influences. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management, 143 (8).
Yang, R. J., & Zou, P. X. W. (2014). Stakeholder-associated risks and their interactions in complex green
building projects: A social network model. Building and Environment, 73, 208–222.
Yuan, J., Chen, K., Li, W., Ji, C., Wang. Z., & Skibniewski, M. J. (2018). Social network analysis
for social risks of construction projects in high-density urban areas in China. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 198, 174–189.
Zarei, B., Sharifi, H., & Chaghouee, Y. (2018). Delay causes analysis in complex construction projects:
A semantic network analysis approach. Production Planning and Control, 29 (1), 29–40.
Zhang, L., Sun, X., & Xue, H. (2019). Identifying critical risks in Sponge City PPP projects using
DEMATEL method: A case study of China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 226, 949–958.
11. Building capability for project success:
examining the preparedness of emerging
professionals using a university capstone
project case study
Michelle Turner and Guinevere Gilbert
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the findings of a study that explored the perceived employability of
project management students undertaking a capstone project in the final year of their four-year
project management university degree. The study aimed to investigate how the capstone
project contributed to students’ professional preparedness from the perspectives of students
and mentors. In the beginning of the chapter we consider pathways into project management,
draw on the literature to consider the concept of employability, and identify approaches to cur-
riculum review. We then outline the method we used to collect data and present our findings.
In the discussion we explore our key findings in the context of employability and consider
how the capstone project can be revised to contribute more strongly to the preparedness of our
project management graduates. It is anticipated that the findings of the study can be used to
modify the curriculum underpinning the capstone course so that the perceived employability
of students is enhanced and contributes to professional preparedness.
THE RIGHT PERSON IN THE RIGHT JOB

Having the right person in the right job is imperative for success in business. This underscores
the significance of preparing new entrants with the requisite skills and knowledge to undertake
a project according to time, cost, quality, and stakeholder specifications. This is against a back-
drop where the failure rate of projects continues to be high and organisations find it difficult
to deliver projects that meet time, cost, and quality specifications and achieve stakeholder
satisfaction (KPMG et al., 2019). The Project Management Institute (PMI; 2017) reports that
organisations are losing an average of $97 million for every $1 billion invested due to poor
project performance. While the skills, knowledge, and experience of the project professional
alone do not contribute to project success or failure, they play an integral role.
Furthermore, empowering a new generation of talent with the necessary project manage-
ment skills and knowledge is critical in addressing the talent gap (PMI, 2021a). Organisations
are faced with a substantial talent shortage which can exacerbate the already high failure rates.
According to the PMI (2021a), there is a gap between the demand for project management
skills and the availability of talent. By 2030 it is anticipated that the global economy will
require 25 million new project professionals. To achieve this target, 2.3 million new project
158
Building capability for project success 159
professionals will be required every year. Developing competent project professionals to meet
the current and future demand is on the critical path for achieving project success.
There are various pathways through which emerging project professionals gain the requisite
skills and knowledge they require to be considered competent (KPMG et al., 2019). In this
chapter, we focus on emerging project professionals undertaking a four-year university degree
in project management. Peach and Gamble (2011) report that students expect that universities
will prepare them for professional practice. This highlights the importance of ensuring that
linkage between students’ learning and their future career aspirations is actively fostered
through teaching practice and course design (Wingrove and Turner, 2015). Universities, there-
fore, are a critical stakeholder in the development of the graduate’s employability (Bridgstock,
2009; Clarke, 2018). Our chapter explores the development of perceived employability of
final-year project management students through participation in a capstone course. The focus
of this study, the planning and execution of a project for social benefit by final-year project
management students, is a major component of a capstone course. The course is described in
more detail in a later section of the chapter.
DEVELOPING EMPLOYABILITY
There exist multiple and varied definitions of employability (Bridgstock, 2009). According to
Clarke (2018), one widely accepted definition of employability is:
the capability to move self-sufficiently within the labour market to realise potential through sustain-
able employment. For the individual, employability depends on the knowledge, skills and attitudes
they possess, the way they use those assets and present them to employers and the context (e.g.
personal circumstances and labour market environment) within which they seek work. (Hillage and
Pollard, 1998, p. 12)
In their definition of employability, Hillage and Pollard (1998) incorporate four key elements
of employability: (1) what knowledge, skills, and attitudes (“assets”) people have to offer
employers; (2) deployment in terms of the extent to which people are aware of what they have
and how they choose to use it; (3) how people present themselves to employers; and (4) the
context in which people seek employment.
In contrast to Hillage and Pollard’s (1998) definition, employability of graduates is often
framed by universities and governments using a narrow skills-based approach. This approach
fails to consider the complexity of employability and has received considerable criticism (see,
for example, Bridgstock, 2009; Holmes, 2001; Knight and Yorke, 2003; Smith et al., 2016).
An important limitation of the skills-based approach to employability is the lack of reference
to “self”. Self-efficacy, self-confidence, and self-esteem are central to employability and
are linked to the willingness to act, motivation, positive attitude towards problems, and the
development of positive relationships and lifelong learning (Römgens et al., 2020). Self-belief
is understood to underpin action and should be developed alongside and through the develop-
ment of skills within the context of the disciplinary curriculum (Turner, 2014).
The focus on “self” introduces a subjective appraisal element to employability, and this
is acknowledged by Vanhercke et al. (2014) who use the term “perceived employability” to
describe “the individual’s perception of his or her possibilities of obtaining and maintaining
employment” (p. 594). Clarke (2018) also acknowledges the critical role of perceived employ-
Table 11.1 Six dimensions of graduate employability
Employability dimension Description

Professional practice and standards Competent for autonomous, responsible, and ethical practice
Integration of theory and practice Can integrate theory and practice
Lifelong learning Willing to continue to learn to improve practice and able to identify areas for
self-development
Collaboration Can work with other people effectively, fairly, and cross-culturally
Informed decision making Uses information in judicious ways for specific work-related purposes
Commencement-readiness Has confidence and self-awareness to seek and gain employment in a job market
ability in her integrated model of graduate employability and acknowledges the importance of
subjective as well as objective measures of employability.
In recognition of the complexity of employability and the lack of consensus around what
constitutes graduate employability, Smith et al. (2016) took an approach which incorporated
domains related to employment-related skills, general knowledge and skills, and knowledge
to develop a graduate employability model. The model is multidimensional and consists of
six elements, as shown in Table 11.1. Importantly, the model moves away from a narrow
skills-based approach which has been used to signal employability, as well as incorporating a
“self” element.
EXAMINING THE CURRICULUM
Clarke (2018) contends that the employability of graduates has practical implications for
universities. At university, degree-relevant knowledge, skills, and competencies can be taught
through well-designed curricula and evaluated through scaffolded assessment tasks. This
highlights the value of critically reviewing the curriculum to examine how it is impacting
on a student’s perceived employability. Curriculum review and alignment with course and
programme learning outcomes is therefore an important practice which can occur at multiple
pedagogical levels. According to Wijngaards-de Meij and Merx (2018), one useful approach
to guide curriculum review consists of four categories:
● Focus on the content and structure of a single unit.
● Focus on the content and structure at a programme level.
● Curriculum is understood from the point of view of the student’s learning experience.
● Curriculum is approached as the co-construction of knowledge between student and
teacher.
The focus of our study is the examination of a capstone course and its capacity to contribute to
graduate employability. Using the approach of Wijngaards-de Meij and Merx (2018), we focus
on a single unit from the point of view of the student and mentor.
Capstone courses are typically undertaken in a student’s last year or semester of their pro-
gramme and provide them with an opportunity to apply the knowledge they gained throughout
their undergraduate degree (Holdsworth et al., 2009). Capstone courses service three key
functions:
● consolidate, extend, and apply previous learning
● provide a vehicle for professional socialisation and the development of professional iden-
tity to assist students’ transition to employment
● confirm that students have mastered skills relevant to their professional discipline (van
Acker and Bailey, 2011).
Very little work has been done on examining the value of a project management capstone
project and its impact on employability, with the exception of Gilbert and Wingrove (2019).
In a project management university context, Gilbert and Wingrove (2019) found that students’
employability was enhanced through participation in a live capstone project as opposed to par-
ticipation in a simulated capstone project. Communicating with business stakeholders, plan-
ning and implementing a project, and experiencing the need to vary plans and roles as tasks
change all contributed to employability. Gilbert and Wingrove’s (2019) quantitative-based
findings support the initial understanding of the relationship between the capstone project and
employability, but additional research is required to reveal factors influencing employability
associated with the curriculum.
METHOD
Research Context
A case study approach was used to explore the impact of perceived employability of students
undertaking the capstone project. A case study research approach is used to generate an
in-depth, multifaceted understanding of a complex issue in its real-life context (Crowe et
al., 2011). The capstone course is situated within the final year of a four-year Bachelor-level
degree in project management at a large urban university in Australia. The degree is accredited
by the PMI’s Global Accreditation Centre for Project Management Education Programs, and
endorsed by the Australian Institute of Project Management.
In the degree, first-year students are introduced to the basic concepts of project management.
The second year of the degree focuses on technical skills which enhance students’ employa-
bility, such as scheduling, coordinating, and contract administration. The third year develops
soft skills, and the fourth year explores contextual application of project management skills.
The capstone course is undertaken over one semester in the fourth year and has the follow-
ing learning outcomes:
● develop an evidence-based project management plan which addresses all elements of the
project development life cycle
● critically analyse and synthesise project management theory and apply this knowledge to
project management
● critically evaluate decision making and its impact on project success
● apply effective teamwork and communication skills to develop and communicate a feasi-
ble and strategic project plan
The capstone course includes three assessments: an individual academic essay, a series of
individual reflective videos, and the planning and implementation of a project which must
benefit society and be aligned with a United Nations Sustainability Goal. It is this project for
social benefit which provides the context of this research. Although students complete the
other assessments simultaneously with the project, the learning outcomes of the individual
assessments focus on critical thinking rather than on the application of project management
skills and knowledge acquired during the four-year programme.
To commence the project, students self-select into small groups ranging in size from three
to five. Groups are provided with criteria to guide the selection of the project, but these are
intentionally broad to maximise the sense of ownership and autonomy. The guidelines encour-
age students to use their personal life experiences, seek beneficiaries in their local community,
and not to focus on raising money but instead on raising awareness which initiates discussion
around appropriate performance indicators and success criteria. Projects involving alcohol
are prohibited. The student groups have 12 weeks to plan, implement, and close each project.
Beyond the completion date, no milestones are set. Groups are expected to develop and work
to their own schedule.
Each group is allocated a mentor from industry whose role is two-fold: to advise the group on
project processes and to assess the group’s project management maturity. Mentors are invited
from professional connections with the project management degree. All mentors have five
or more years of experience working as a project professional and some are alumni. Mentors
are asked to assess the group’s maturity at the start at the semester using a provided rubric,
and to subsequently discuss their assessment with the students and provide advice regarding
adopting maturity behaviours during the semester and prior to the second assessment. The
course coordinator collaborates with the mentors on group maturity to ensure consistent use
of the rubric between mentors. The mentors are advised that the minimum requirement is two
meetings over the 12 weeks of the semester which are required in order to assess any change
in group maturity. The frequency of meetings is at the discretion of the mentors and students,
and some meet on a fortnightly basis.
Mentors are initially allocated to one group, but with experience and if personal time allows,
some mentors take on two groups in subsequent years. Connecting mentors with groups is an
organic and iterative process. Once groups have identified a project, a list of projects is sent out
to mentors for them to select from. If a mentor has a known interest in a beneficiary, then the
connection is directly suggested. Projects that are not immediately selected by a mentor may
then be matched up with mentors based on the mentor’s experience with the capstone course.
Sample
Perceived employability of students was explored from two perspectives. The first perspec-
tive was from the students who had recently completed the capstone project. Students were
invited to participate in the research by the course coordinator based on the criteria that they
had completed the degree and were no longer in an academic-dependent relationship with the
course coordinator, and that they had chosen to remain in contact with the university through
the alumni LinkedIn group. An invitation to participate in the research was sent to alumni
via LinkedIn. The second perspective was project professionals who had mentored a student
group. Mentors were invited to participate in the research by the course coordinator based on
the criteria that they actively participated in the mentoring process in the semester immediately
preceding the research. Mentors were individually emailed an invitation to participate.
Table 11.2 Sample interview questions
Employability dimension Students Mentors

Professional practice and Did the group discuss expected performance Did group members take responsibility for
standards standards? their actions?
Integration of theory and practice What project management knowledge and skills Did the group apply knowledge and skills
do you think you applied to the capstone project? learned from the project management
programme to the project?
Lifelong learning Were you able to identify project management Did the group identify what skills they
skills that you did not have? might be missing and worked to fill these
gaps?
Collaboration Can you give an example of how you collaborated Did the group improve their collaboration
as a group? during the capstone project? What
examples can you give for this?
Informed decision making How did you collect and assess the quality of Did you observe the group improve their
information obtained during the capstone project? use of information to inform decisions?
Commencement-readiness How employable did you feel at the start of the Did group members develop confidence
capstone course (week 1) and at completion of the in their ability to apply for and find
capstone course (week 12)? A 5-point scale was employment during the capstone course?
used where 1=not very employable and 5=very
employable.
Instruments
Interviews were conducted with students and mentors to explore the six domains of employ-
ability outlined by Smith et al. (2016). Interviews ranged in duration from 25 to 60 minutes.
During the interview, students were asked to respond to the questions in relation to their expe-
rience of the capstone project. Mentors were asked to respond to questions in relation to their
experience of mentoring a student group. Table 11.2 provides sample questions for students
and mentors according to the employability dimensions.
All interviews were conducted online, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis
followed the three steps outlined by Creswell (2014): general interpretation of each respond-
ent’s story, qualitative data from each interview is hand coded and deconstructed, and data
is aggregated into themes which are attributed with meaning. Analysis of the data occurred
in two stages. Coding of the student’s transcripts was analysed, followed by coding of the
mentors’ transcripts. In the final stage of analysis, the codes were aggregated into themes.
Ethics approval had been received by the researchers’ university and the research was under-
taken after students’ final results had been confirmed, audited, and released.
RESULTS
Participants
Interviews were conducted with nine students. At the time of the interview, all students had
graduated from the project management programme within a year of undertaking the capstone
project. Although the students were alumni at the time of the interview, we asked them about
their experience as a student and therefore we refer to them as “students” when we report the
results. All students had completed the capstone course during the same semester, and seven
out of the 15 student groups formed that semester were represented. Three of the nine students
were from the same group, and six were from different groups. Out of the nine students inter-
viewed, six were either employed in a career role at the start of the capstone course or were
offered a career role before the end of the capstone course.
Capstone project outputs were influenced by local COVID restrictions which limited
face-to-face interaction. The students favoured online outputs such as websites, podcasts,
exercise plans, and music events. Projects focused on topics related to climate change and the
environment, homelessness, and mental well-being. The students were particularly aware of
issues related to mental well-being and this topic featured in many projects.
Interviews were undertaken with six mentors. Three had mentored capstone projects in
previous years, and three were new to the capstone project. All mentors were familiar with
the project management curriculum and areas covered during the degree. Three mentors were
alumni who had completed the project management degree in previous years.
Themes
Seven key themes emerged from the interviews: collaboration versus task allocation, working
together – the impact of familiarity, group conflict, skills gap identification, confidence, appli-
cation of course knowledge and skills, and the role of the mentor. Participant quotes are used
to illustrate and support the findings (Eldh et al., 2020). In reporting the findings, participant’s
names have been changed to protect confidentiality.
Collaboration versus Task Allocation
According to the PMI (2021b, p. 28), “creating a collaborative project team environment
involves multiple contributing factors, such as team agreements, structures, and processes.
These factors support a culture that enables individuals to work together and provide syner-
gistic effects from interactions”. Students were asked questions about collaboration and often
referred to the ability to allocate tasks to group members. For example: “Especially because
we did have [student name removed] who was an international student and he can’t actually go
and ring people or he can’t do this and do that. So then you had to prioritize something for him
to do that was both valuable to the group as well as challenging for him” (Theo), and “being
able to communicate well and being in an environment where you had to communicate those
sort of things. And it was your responsibility to do those things. It felt like each member had
a role to play” (Robert). The allocation of tasks is something that groups do throughout their
tertiary education and are encouraged to do as a way of ensuring equitable work distribution
within group assignments.
While allocation of tasks to group members is an important activity, it falls short of the
PMI definition of collaboration (PMI, 2021b). During the capstone project, once allocated
a task, some students then worked on that task without sharing the information until the end
of the project. Theo offers an explanation for this: “I like to work on my own stuff and write
little notes, and I don’t want other people seeing it or getting rid of it”. It is possible that not
sharing work with other team members until the end may be a sign of lack of confidence in
the quality of work. It may also be an individual preference in which some students prefer to
work on their own.
Only two students considered working in a group as more than simply allocating tasks to
group members. For example, one student noted that they used a file sharing platform so that
they were able to read and contribute to other components of the finished product besides their
own. Another student explained that her group members had an online meeting in which they
sat and worked on their individual documents as if they were co-located in a room on campus,
where they were able to ask each other questions if needed: “Even though we sat there quietly,
sometimes you know individually working there was still that digital, group environment”
(Elizabeth).
Working in a group was dynamic, and often driven by one or two group members. It was
observed by students that group activity occurred more frequently at the start of the project
when the scope was being established. Once the scope was agreed upon and the tasks dele-
gated, students tended to work individually. However, when project deadlines were imminent
group activity increased again as students paired up to complete tasks within the time con-
straint: “But you know we sat down and we came up with a layout that you know we both
liked” (Francine) and “after we had quite a few meetings … together we sort of collaborated,
which is good” (Francine).
For mentors, it was evident when collaboration was present or not at the start of the capstone
project and whether it developed over time. One mentor commented: “The student asked the
team a question like whether or not he should do a certain activity, like he directed it to the
group and I was really happy because I was like OK, you’re engaged with your group. You’re
not just speaking to me. Now you’re speaking amongst each other” (Sarah) and “they under-
stood each other’s work … they all had their part to talk to, and they started to overlap … if one
person was talking, someone would also join in and clarify that point … they didn’t just know
their part, they knew other people’s parts” (Brendan) and “so yes, I did see a clear increase in
collaboration over the life of the project” (Ian).
Working Together – the Impact of Familiarity
Almost all students recognised the benefit of working in a group they had not previously
worked with. For example, as a result of working with different groups throughout the degree,
one student commented: “I can work with just about anybody now” (Sarah), and another com-
mented on the value of working in an unfamiliar group at university: “You don’t get to pick
who you work with in the workplace. More often than not, there’s going to be a spread of some
people that are really great, hopeless or are not interested, or any combination in between. And
if you practice those skills in university you’re better prepared for employment” (Brendan).
Despite acknowledging that working with an unfamiliar group helped students to develop
their skills in people management, most students preferred working in a group they had previ-
ously worked with. One student said she made a conscious decision to work with people she
knew: “cause I knew what I was getting myself into” (Elizabeth). Another student inferred
that as the capstone project was such a big unknown experience, working with people he knew
reduced some of the uncertainty. There was also a strong sense of students wanting to “hit the
ground running” (Robert) which was more easily achieved when the group had prior experi-
ence of doing group work together.
One student, Theo, described how he waited until week two of the course to see if there
were any groups he could join so that he would be working with new people. However, he
was contacted by friends and he ended up working with them. Peer pressure appeared to play
a role in this decision to join a group. Theo could have said “no thanks” to his friends, but it
was easier to say yes than to explain that he wanted to work with a new group.
As a result of his cohort having completed the course in previous years, one student was
forced to find a new group to join and this presented challenges for him. Mitchell reported that
his group members did not have the same intentions or high expectation as he did: “I just think
they didn’t see any value in it. From my opinion I thought they just saw it as a degree and
capstone is just another subject and it’s just another 12 credits they needed to get”. Mitchell
worked hard to encourage the group: “Maybe they weren’t as motivated as me … if we’re only
going to put X amount of effort into this, how can I squeeze as much effort as I can get out
of them and on top of that, how could I make that effort as effective as possible?” This was
a learning curve for Mitchell and perhaps he benefited from being a mature student, having
previously worked in non-project management related roles in the USA and Japan. Although
he describes the group as in conflict because of the other members’ lack of interest in the
course, he does recognise the development of his leadership skills and his confidence and
ability to hold his group members accountable for their tasks. Eventually, he says, his motiva-
tion to achieve the best grade also slipped – partly because he was reportedly the only one who
was motivated and partly because he had other assignments due at the same time.
The mentors observed a stark difference in group development between familiar and unfa-
miliar groups. Familiar groups began the project with a reasonable to good level of perceived
collaboration, communication, organisation, and professional behaviour, but they failed to
improve. In contrast, unfamiliar groups were perceived by mentors to experience a poor start
to the capstone course but then usually a significant improvement in coordination and profes-
sional practice.
Group Conflict
Despite most groups having worked together in previous assignments, interpersonal conflict
was experienced by all students. On most occasions this was caused by a difference of opinion
relating to the scope or output of the project, or disagreement relating to what the group
members expected to personally achieve from the course – a good grade, or a quality project.
Conflict relating to allocated tasks not being completed on time was often associated with
group members who were already employed.
None of the students reported that any conflict was ongoing throughout the duration of
the project. It was always resolved quickly, either through discussion as a group, individual
contemplation of the options, or through one-to-one conversing. Several students who were
employed during the period of the project seemed to use their own experience to assist with
resolving conflict in situations when a group member had not met their peer’s expectations.
The approach taken was often a private conversation away from the group. For example, one
student commented: “I kind of understood that there was something happening in the back-
ground ‘cause I was experiencing the same thing [work/study balance]. So it was good to sit
down and just clarify” (Francine). The nature of such a conversation would have required the
negotiating parties to develop skills in communication, compromise, preparing and developing
a reasoned, logical argument, and in listening, all of which are highly desirable soft skills, if
not in the very early stages of a career, then as a career develops (Deloitte Access Economics,
2017).
In the majority of cases, the groups kept their disagreements and associated resolutions
away from mentor interactions. One mentor reported a sense that the group were “frustrated”
with each other (Karen) and another quite the opposite – that her group was complacent
(Penny). It is not known whether the students made a conscious decision or not to involve or
exclude the mentor in their within-group disagreements. During interviews, the students rarely
offered a comment on the mentor’s contribution to the project unless asked, suggesting that
students did not feel that their mentors were part of the team and thereby not part of the conflict
resolution process.
Skills Gap Identification
Part of lifelong learning and self-management of careers is the ability to identify skills that
are missing but required in order to acquire or maintain employment. Academics may take
for granted the safe context of a university assignment, where mistakes can be made without
significant hardship, but this is not normally conveyed to students at the start of the capstone
project. We asked students how they allocated roles and tasks to group members in order to
explore if students reflected on what skills they would like to develop or consolidate during the
capstone project assignment. We found that students allocated roles to group members based
on their strengths rather than their weaknesses: “I personally put my hand up to do quality
because I actually manage our quality assurance system at work … this is definitely best suited
to me” (Grace) and “I was too ignorant to even know what I was lacking” (Mitchell). Mentors
also noticed this preference: “Where someone was more comfortable doing a schedule they
got the schedule” (Brendan).
Only one student reported that as a result of the capstone project she became more aware
of her skills gap. For example, when describing her approach to using a computer program
(Excel) which is not very familiar, she explained her approach to learning: “I do just worry
mostly about computer skills. That’s one area where I get sweaty under the armpits when
I think about doing an Excel spreadsheet. I have spent a lot of time trying to learn Excel”
(Elizabeth).
Confidence
Student’s development of confidence in their ability to “seek and gain employment in a job
market” (Smith et al., 2014, p. 146) was measured quantitatively by asking about their per-
ceived employability at the start and end of the capstone project using a scale of one to five.
All students reported a higher score in their perceived employability at the end of the capstone
course.
The increase in perceived employability may be partly attributed to the offer of profes-
sional employment. In cases where the student was employed at the start of the capstone
course, the increase was minor (for example, from 4/5 to 4.5/5). For students who had gained
project-related employment during the capstone course, the increase was generally bigger (for
example, from 3.5/5 to 4.5/5). The results suggest that students’ perception of employability
may be impacted to a large extent by their current employment status rather than their experi-
ence of undertaking the capstone project.
Irrespective of employment status, mentors reported that some students seemed to grow
in confidence during the project: “He definitely gained a lot more confidence … ‘cause he
was always asking – is there anything else that we should be doing?” (Karen). In this context,
asking questions was considered to be a sign of confidence by the mentor. Ironically, confi-
dence to ask questions may have eventuated as a result of the mentor creating an environment
of psychological safety which then gave students permission to ask questions and not feel
intimidated for fear of “sounding stupid”, feeling embarrassed, or being disregarded.
Another sign of confidence perceived by some mentors was the willingness of students
to turn on their camera during an online meeting and initiate discussion. However, mentors
reported that some students did not speak unless asked a direct question, and their cameras
remained off.
Application of Course Knowledge and Skills – Connecting the Dots
Two mentors used the phrase “connecting the dots” to describe the ability to draw on project
management theory and implement it into practice. Mentors believed that part of their role was
to help students translate theory into practice. For example, one mentor commented: “They
knew there was an element of having to do it [risk management] but they couldn’t connect the
dots to being able to make it relevant to what they were actually doing” (Bryson). Similarly,
another mentor commented: “Getting them [students] to understand how we use project man-
agement, what we do and then giving them the skills to really think about it” (Karen).
According to the mentors, the adoption of tools, techniques, skills, and knowledge devel-
oped during the project management degree was inconsistent. For example, one mentor
reported that there was: “very little evidence of them [the students] stopping and thinking
OK what are the relevant skills that I’ve learnt. Let’s use those learnings to help improve the
outcome of the project. There was no project management plan, there was no WBS [work
breakdown structure]. There was no schedule. There was no risk management consideration
and I had to prompt all these things … They’ve done it because they’ve been asked to do it,
and they’ve done what they felt was necessary to answer the question. It was not the case
that they had actually stopped and thought about what the purpose of a risk assessment and
risk plan was and used it to help drive value or to their WBS that was completely lacking”
(Brendan). Similarly, other mentors reported that there was limited adoption of course-related
knowledge and skills, and there was a need to prompt students to apply these in their projects.
For example, Sarah asked her group: “Have you thought about the safety management plan?
Stuff that I bet that they would have learned through their studies. It’s just kind of bridging that
gap [between curriculum content and the capstone project]”.
Some knowledge was adopted more frequently across groups, such as stakeholder manage-
ment plans and risk management plans. In contrast, some groups did not integrate any of their
prior learnings into the capstone project. For example, one of the students commented: “To be
honest, no we haven’t looked back [at the curriculum covered in the degree]. We just honestly
worked with the flow” (Charlotte).
There was a sense from some students that experience of project-related employment may
be more influential and valued than knowledge and skills learned through the university cur-
riculum. For example, one student commented that she was undertaking quality management
in her paid employment and applied that knowledge in her project: “For me it [quality manage-
ment] was sort of like second nature. You know it’s been engraved into me” (Francine). This
student went on to comment that once employed, some students disregard knowledge gained
through the curriculum: “People, they forget things or delete all the documents and stuff, wipe
the slate clean, which I did too. You know, I actually deleted most of my [university] work”
(Francine).
Mentor’s Role
Mentors perceived their role was integral to the success of the capstone project. For example,
one mentor described how a brutally honest conversation with their group triggered a sudden
improvement in project management and professional behaviour. “Some of the feedback in
regards to prompting and leading questions like, have you checked with Council? Have you
checked with the [stakeholder]? Have you done this and that? Kind of started the trigger [per-
formance]” (Bryson).
In contrast to the perception that mentors played a key role in the group’s success, many
students did not mention the mentor at all during the interview. Furthermore, students did
not mention mentors in the context of their perceived employability. This might suggest that
students viewed the contribution of mentors differently to how mentors understood their
contribution.
Mentors perceived that their role changed during the capstone project, from giving approval
to one of guidance through asking questions designed to prompt project management practice
and behaviour. None of the mentors expected more than was reasonable for final-year students,
and all those interviewed were excited by the growth in the groups that they had mentored.
For mentors, the focus was not just on the successful achievement of the project outcome, but
also on the process: “It’s not just about having a perfectly planned and executed and delivered
project, it’s about all of the things that happen to get you there” (Brendan). Importantly, it was
considered that the learning comes from the journey of the project, not the end result. Capstone
is about “all the things that happen to get you there”.
Observing the improvement of the group was extremely satisfying for mentors, as they felt
they had contributed to the development of the group and the successful completion of the
project. Mentors didn’t always want an “easy” group – this strips away the value that they can
add to the group. Having said that, mentors didn’t want to allocate their time and energy to
a group that made little to no effort. When they encounter a group that appeared not to care
about the project (such as the group mentioned previously where the project was “just another
12 credit points”), mentors tended to reduce their effort accordingly.
DESIGNING FOR DIVERSITY OF EXPERIENCE
At the start of the project management programme, first-year students can be considered as
mostly a homogeneous group in terms of their project management related knowledge, skills,
and experience. As our students move through the four years of the degree, that homogeneity
evolves into a group of students who differ according to their knowledge, skills, and experi-
ence in project-related work. Our results highlighted the diversity of project-related experi-
ence, skills, and knowledge within the student cohort. This diversity presents as a challenge for
the design of the capstone course and associated assessments. Assessments must be designed
in such a way that enables growth and learning for a heterogeneous group of students who have
varying learning needs and priorities around project-related skills development and knowl-
edge. Course designers play an integral role in achieving this somewhat challenging task.
Our findings showed that the employability of students improved during the capstone
project, as evidenced by the increase in self-ratings between the start and end of the capstone
project. Our results also showed that self-rated employability differed according to employ-
ment status. For those already employed, the benefit of the capstone project appeared to be the
refinement of soft skills and the ability to view a project framework from a holistic perspec-
tive. In contrast, for those students who were not yet employed, the capstone project offered
the ability for skill development and to apply knowledge from the degree to a live project from
start-up to completion.
The diversity of confidence, skills, and knowledge demonstrated by students acknowledges
the importance of “self” in perceived employability. The focus on “self” introduces a subjec-
tive appraisal element to employability, and this is acknowledged by Vanhercke et al. (2014)
who use the term “perceived employability” to describe “the individual’s perception of his or
her possibilities of obtaining and maintaining employment” (p. 594). Again, this highlights
the importance of designing a capstone project which enables our students to develop a sense
of employability according to their own growth requirements while also meeting the require-
ments of the course learning outcomes. One way to achieve this is to encourage students to
identify the project management tools and knowledge areas they find more difficult or have
yet to fully grasp, and to use the capstone project as a “safe place” in which to practise and
develop.
RECALL VERSUS INTEGRATION
The project management university programme consists of eight semesters (two semesters
per year over four years), and the capstone project is implemented in semester eight of the
programme. A capstone course serves three purposes, one of which is to consolidate, extend,
and apply previous learning (van Acker and Bailey, 2011). Our findings showed that students
consistently integrated some knowledge areas into their capstone project, whereas other
knowledge areas were often overlooked. When we consider this finding from a programme
perspective, the knowledge areas which were most consistently recalled by students were those
more recently covered during the programme. For example, the Project Risk Management
course is taught in semester five, and the Project Planning and Communications is taught in
semester six of the programme.
The reluctance of students to reflect upon the earlier knowledge and skills acquired during
the project management degree, and their preference to view courses as discrete blocks of
information, suggests that more emphasis needs to be placed on scaffolding learning through-
out the programme. According to Wijngaards-de Meij and Merx (2018), curriculum review
can occur at two levels. In this study we focused on the content and structure of a single unit
and how it supported the development of student’s employability. Our findings reiterate that
the acquisition of project-related skills and knowledge must take a whole-of-programme
approach. Completion of the capstone course is very much an amalgamation of student’s
programme-wide learning across the four-year degree. Throughout the eight semesters of the
programme, the curriculum can be designed in such a way that prior skills and knowledge
learned is reinforced and applied in subsequent courses. This will assist students in gaining the
most benefit from the capstone course which seeks to consolidate, extend, and apply previous
learning, and confirm that students have mastered skills relevant to their professional disci-
pline (van Acker and Bailey, 2011).
The findings also have implications for curriculum design at the course level. To facilitate
the integration of project-related knowledge accumulated through the programme, students
will be encouraged to view the curriculum not just from a single course perspective but from
a programme perspective (Wijngaards-de Meij and Merx, 2018) and to refer to previously
acquired knowledge and skills in the development and implementation of their capstone
project.
INTEGRATING QUANTIFIABLE AND NON-QUANTIFIABLE

SKILLS
The PMI (2022) recognises the importance of a well-rounded skill set for project professionals
consisting of technical skills, people skills, and strategic and business management skills. In
the project management programme, the development of technical and soft (people) skills
occurs throughout the programme. Arguably, technical skills are easier to observe and quan-
tify than soft skills. In our research for example, students demonstrated that they integrated
technical skills and knowledge through the development and implementation of risk manage-
ment plans and communication plans. In contrast, integration of soft skills into the capstone
project was more difficult to assess, and appeared to be less of a focus for students. During the
third year of the degree, students develop knowledge of soft skills such as group development,
conflict management, individual differences, and matching people to roles. The integration of
soft skills and knowledge into the capstone project is an important element which should be
emphasised to students in the future. In relation to employability, soft skills are considered
essential for project professionals and are a critical aspect of career success (Ramazani and
Jergeas, 2015).
While our results suggest that students did not intentionally integrate soft skills and knowl-
edge learned through the programme into the capstone project, some important findings
emerged. Our results showed that soft skill development can occur during the capstone project
itself, and is influenced by factors such as group composition and whether group members had
prior experience in working together or not. Groups with prior experience of working together
plateaued in terms of soft skill development compared to groups that had not worked together
before the capstone project. Therefore, in future courses, students will be encouraged to work
in a group of unfamiliar peers to maximise their soft skill development.
Our findings suggest that student group development does tend to reflect the many
stage-theories of group development such as Tuckman’s five stages of forming, storming,
norming, performing, and adjourning (Tuckman, 1965) and more recently Karriker’s model in
which group development is cyclical (Karriker, 2005). For example, groups with prior experi-
ence of working together skipped the first and second stages of group development and com-
menced the capstone project at the performing stage. Furthermore, the observed rapid increase
in collaborative behaviour when a capstone project deadline was imminent also reflects the
punctuated equilibrium model of group behaviour (Gersick, 1988) which suggests that there is
still potential for group development to occur later in the capstone project.
An interesting finding related to group composition comes from the reasons why students
preferred to work with friends over strangers. These students chose to work with a familiar
group with the intention of being able to “hit the ground running”. Effectively, the students had
integrated risk management mitigation into their project by choosing to work with people who
they knew and trusted. Using a risk management lens to inform their decision-making process
is an important learning and one which warrants further reflection by students. The evaluation
of the risk and adoption of a mitigation strategy is a skill useful for employment (Arain, 2010).
Another soft skill which was demonstrated in all groups was conflict resolution. All groups
experienced some form of conflict, usually relating to the project scope or to the unsatis-
factory completion of tasks. Resolution was found to occur through two methods. Firstly,
group discussion, followed by individual reflection and then coming together to agree on
a scope. Secondly, individual students observed an issue and addressed it privately. Conflict is
common on projects (PMI, 2021) and the ability to manage conflict is an important component
of employability for project professionals.
Arguably the most important soft skill for project success is the ability to collaborate with
the team on project tasks (Bond-Barnard et al., 2018). Students are not a homogenous mass
and it is in the area of collaboration that the biggest individual differences were observed.
Some students preferred not to collaborate with their group whilst others enforced online
group meetings for individuals to work simultaneously but remotely. Our results also showed
that collaboration was more obvious at the start of the capstone project during establishment
of the project scope. It then decreased dramatically whilst students worked on their individual
tasks but then increased again at the end of the project when deadlines were imminent. Given
its importance in project management, knowledge and skills in collaboration is an area which
requires nurturing throughout the four-year degree. This can be achieved through carefully
designed group-based assessments which commence in year one of the degree and are scaf-
folded throughout the entire four years.
ALIGNING EXPECTATIONS OF THE MENTOR’S ROLE
Mentors were engaged to act as an advisor to students as well as to assess their work. However,
our results identified that mentors and students had different expectations of the role of
a mentor. Mentors highlighted that their advice had resulted in the addition of project-related
activities deemed critical for successful project delivery. This is consistent with the literature
which acknowledges that the role of the mentor is one of advisor who facilitates the transfer of
knowledge and skills (Bermudez et al., 2018). Mentors also perceived that their role evolved
from advisor in the beginning of the project to one of support. However, in exploring employ-
ability in the context of the capstone project, students did not often refer to the role of the
mentor. It’s possible that some students regarded the role of the mentor as superfluous.
Although some students had minimal engagement with their mentor, this did not seem to
impact on the mentor’s satisfaction with the experience. Mentor satisfaction seemed to be more
influenced by the mentor’s own desire to look for development and growth in the students.
Our results showed that students consider confidence to mean ready to find employment,
work with people, and to use their discipline-related skills. This is in contrast to how mentors
assessed student’s confidence. For some mentors, confidence was judged by whether students
asked questions of them in relation to the capstone project. Students may choose not to ask
questions of those who they perceive to be in position of power (such as experienced project
professionals) for a wide range of reasons, and this may or may not be due to confidence. For
example, one student described how her group had asked questions of their mentor but the
questions were ignored. As a result, the group “felt so uncomfortable” and didn’t approach the
mentor again. Individuals are more likely to ask questions when a psychologically safe space
has been created and they don’t feel judged. Furthermore, feeling safe can facilitate relation-
ship building with mentors (Tsuei et al., 2019). Creating a psychologically safe space in the
mentor–student relationship is one area which could potentially help to improve the student’s
engagement with mentors, and students’ willingness to ask questions.
Some mentors also judged students’ confidence according to whether they switched on their
cameras during online meetings. Switching on cameras enabled observation of body language
such as eye contact. Besides being a sign of student’s confidence, other mentors believed that
switching on cameras signposted respect and engagement. For example, a mentor commented
that one group member never turned his camera on which showed disrespect: “it is completely
disrespectful to mentors who give up their time to mentor students. Change the course so that
students who don’t turn on their camera in remote meetings actually lose marks”.
How people present themselves to employers is considered an essential element of employ-
ability (Hillage and Pollard, 1998). Mentors have the potential to coach and guide students on
work protocols and expectations, which is aligned with the purpose of a capstone course as
providing a vehicle for professional socialisation (van Acker and Bailey, 2011). In our study
it appears that students did not capitalise on their opportunity to learn from mentors about the
profession and related work protocols. This may have been the case as most students were
already in professional employment and may have received mentoring from their employer.
Aside from lack of confidence, it is worth examining alternate reasons for why students
did not switch on their cameras. Some students have advised faculty that their laptop does
not have an inbuilt camera. Other students are self-conscious about their background as they
may be participating in the online meeting from their bedroom. Some students have Internet
connections which limit their ability to switch on their camera. Research has also identified
that being on camera can have a detrimental impact on individuals by contributing to fatigue,
and in turn weakening their engagement and contributions in meetings. This effect was found
to be stronger for females (Shockley et al., 2021). For mentors of future capstone projects, it is
important for them to understand the reasons why students do what they do without judgement.
In this example, having their camera off may not automatically reflect a student’s disrespect or
lack of engagement. Again, this highlights the importance of creating a psychologically safe
space in the mentor–student relationship that facilitates open and respectful dialogue to enable
understanding, trust, and growth to support students’ employability.
CONCLUSION
This chapter described a study undertaken to explore how a capstone project impacted on
the perceived employability of final-year project management students from the perspective
of both students and mentors. Our findings are invaluable in the further development of the
capstone project. We acknowledge that our findings may not be relevant to capstone projects
in other disciplines, and this is an opportunity for future research. Furthermore, we collected
data from a limited sample of students and mentors, and therefore caution should be exercised
in generalising findings to other students undertaking project management-related capstone
projects. Future research can evaluate the implementation of interventions seeking to improve
the role of the capstone project and its relationship to employability. Notwithstanding these
limitations, one of the goals of a university is to prepare students for a successful transition
into the workplace. This is enabled by the confidence and self-belief to apply the knowledge
and skills learned at university. We believe that our study contributes to students’ professional
preparedness through the examination and refinement of our project management capstone
project.
REFERENCES
Arain, F.M. (2010) “Identifying competencies for baccalaureate level construction education: Enhancing
employability of young professionals in the construction industry”. Construction Research Congress,
pp. 194–204.
Arain, F.M. (2010) “Identifying competencies for baccalaureate level construction education: Enhancing
employability of young professionals in the construction industry”. In: Janaka Ruwanpura, Yasser
Mohamed, and SangHyun Lee (Eds), Construction Research Congress 2010: Innovation for
Reshaping Construction Practice, American Society of Civil Engineers, Canada, pp. 194–204.
Bermudez, A., Pacheco, A., Izquierdo, D., and Ugalde, F., (2018) “Capstone-based mentoring and the
acquisition of professional skills: Last TECSUP cycle”. 2018 IEEE Global Engineering Education
Conference (EDUCON), pp. 1230–1237.
Bond-Barnard, T.J., Fletcher, L., and Steyn, H. (2018) “Linking trust and collaboration in project teams
to project management success”. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 11(2),
pp. 432–457.
Bridgstock, R. (2009) “The graduate attributes we’ve overlooked: Enhancing graduate employability
through career management skills”. Higher Education Research & Development, 28(1), pp. 31–44.
Clarke, M. (2018) “Rethinking graduate employability: The role of capital, individual attributes and
context”. Studies in Higher Education, 43(11), pp. 1923–1937.
Creswell, J. (2014) Research Design. 4th edition. Sage.
Crowe, S., Cresswell, K., Robertson, A., Huby, G., Avery, A., and Sheikh, A. (2011) “The case study
approach”. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11(1), p. 100.
Deloitte Access Economics (2017) Soft Skills for Business Success. Accessed 28 March 2022. https://
www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/au/Documents/Economics/deloitte-au-economics-deakin
-soft-skills-business-success-170517.pdf
Eldh, A. C., Årestedt, L., and Berterö, C. (2020) “Quotations in qualitative studies: Reflections on con-
stituents, custom, and purpose”. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, pp. 1–6.
Gersick, C.J.G. (1988) “Time and transition in work teams toward a new model of group development”.
Academy of Management Journal, 31(1), pp. 9–42.
Gilbert, G. and Wingrove, D. (2019) “Students’ perceptions of employability following a capstone
course”. Higher Education, Skills and Work-Based Learning, 9(4), pp. 650–661.
Hillage, J. and Pollard, E. (1998) Employability: Developing a Framework for Policy Analysis.
Department for Education and Employment, London.
Holdsworth, A., Watty, K., and Davies, M. (2009) Developing Capstone Experiences. Centre for Study
of Higher Education, University of Melbourne.
Holmes, L. (2001) “Reconsidering graduate employability: The ‘graduate identity’ approach”. Quality in
Higher Education, 7(2), pp. 111–119.
Karriker, J. (2005) “Cyclical group development and interaction-based leadership emergence in auton-
omous teams: An integrated model”. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11(4),
pp. 54–64.
Knight, P.T. and Yorke, M. (2003) “Employability and good learning in higher education”. Teaching in
Higher Education, 8(1), pp. 3–16.
KPMG, AIPM, and IPMA (2019) The Future of Project Management: Global Outlook 2019. Accessed
27 March 2022. https://home.kpmg/au/en/home/insights/2019/11/future-of-project-management
-global-outlook-2019.html
Peach, D. and Gamble, N. (2011) “Scoping work-integrated learning purposes, practices and issues”.
In S. Billett and A. Henderson (Eds.), Developing Learning Professionals (pp. 169–186). Springer.
Project Management Institute (2017) PMI’s Pulse of the Profession In-Depth Report: Success Rates Rise
– Transforming the High Cost of Low Performance. Project Management Institute.
Project Management Institute (2021a) Talent Gap: Ten-Year Employment Trends, Costs, and Global
Implications. Project Management Institute.
Project Management Institute (2021b) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK
Guide) and The Standard for Project Management. 7th edition. Project Management Institute.
Project Management Institute (2022) The PMI Talent Triangle. Project Management Institute. Accessed
30 March 2022. https://www.pmi.org/learning/training-development/talent-triangle
Ramazani, J. and Jergeas, G. (2015) “Project managers and the journey from good to great: The ben-
efits of investment in project management training and education”. International Journal of Project
Management, 33(1), pp. 41–52.
Römgens, I., Scoupe, R., and Beausaert, S. (2020) “Unraveling the concept of employability, bring-
ing together research on employability in higher education and the workplace”. Studies in Higher
Education, 45(12), pp. 2588–2603.
Shockley, K.M., Gabriel, A.S., Robertson, D., Rosen, C.C., Chawla, N., Ganster, M.L., and Ezerins,
M.E. (2021) “The fatiguing effects of camera use in virtual meetings: A within-person field experi-
ment”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(8), pp. 1137–1155.
Smith, C., Ferns, S., and Russell, L. (2014) The Impact of Work Integrated Learning on Student
Work-Readiness: Final Report. Australian Government Office of Learning and Teaching. Accessed
25 March 2022. https://espace.curtin.edu.au/handle/20.500.11937/55398
Smith, C., Ferns, S., and Russell. L. (2016) “Designing work-integrated learning placements that
improve student employability: Six facets of the curriculum that matter”. Asia-Pacific Journal of
Cooperative Education, 17(2), pp. 197–211.
Tsuei, S.H.-T., Lee, D., Ho, C., Regehr, G., and Nimmon, L. (2019) “Exploring the construct of psycho-
logical safety in medical education”. Academic Medicine, 94(11S), pp. S28–S35.
Tuckman, B.W. (1965) “Developmental sequence in small groups”. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6),
pp. 384–399.
Turner, N.K. (2014) “Development of self-belief for employability in higher education: Ability, efficacy
and control in context”. Teaching in Higher Education, 19(6), pp. 592–602.
van Acker, L. and Bailey, J. (2011) “Embedding graduate skills in capstone courses”. Asian Social
Science, 7(4), pp. 69–76.
Vanhercke, D., De Cuyper, N., Peeters, E., and De Witte, H. (2014) “Defining perceived employability:
A psychological approach”. Personnel Review, 43(4), pp. 592–605.
Wijngaards-de Meij, L. and Merx, S. (2018) “Improving curriculum alignment and achieving learning
goals by making the curriculum visible”. International Journal for Academic Development, 23(3),
pp. 219–231.
Wingrove, D. and Turner, M. (2015) “Where there is a WIL there is a way: Using a critical reflec-
tive approach to enhance work readiness”. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 16(3),
pp. 211–222.
12. Role of project management maturity in
project performance
INTRODUCTION
Projects are routinely planned and executed to operationalize strategic goals and to improve
operational needs and efficiencies. Needless to say, projects contribute to the operational and
financial success of the organization (Anantatmula & Rad, 2016), and project management is
widely recognized as a critical competency for organizations to thrive in the present global
economy.
Organizations select, plan, and execute projects, which can broadly be classified as inter-
nally and externally funded projects. For externally funded projects on behalf of clients outside
of the organization, efficiency is the means by which the profit is enhanced. However, if the
organization is in the business of providing service, manufacturing, or research, the majority
of the projects are probably funded internally, and these projects aim to create increased
operational efficiency, new products, or new markets. A nonprofit organization’s approach is
different as projects in this organization are executed either internally or externally to serve
a social cause and profit is not necessarily its purpose. However, in every type of organization,
the underlying project management principles of effective and efficient use of resources are
still valid. This is where the project performance assumes great importance.
While the importance of project performance cannot be emphasized any further, it is
equally important to establish a continuous improvement plan to enhance project performance.
Learning from the past, sharing knowledge, and then improving project management practices
and processes on a regular basis are what many sophisticated organizations do to improve
their performance. This requires a broad view of completing a project on target to improving
project management performance for enhancing performance of future projects. Ultimately,
this approach should lead to managing higher profits and setting industry standards for project
performance. This is possible with maturity in managing projects. Maturity in managing pro-
jects implies established, proven, and innovative practices and procedures that lead to success
in planning and completing projects. Given organizational project management maturity leads
to better profits through efficiency in operations and effectiveness in using resources, organ-
izations are encouraged to promote, measure, and improve project management performance
(Anantatmula & Rad, 2016).
The success of an individual project is observed through measuring the performance in
achieving the desired task-related values for the project such as scope, cost, and duration, and
quality, which is integral to scope specifications. However, matured organizations, in addition
to attending to the task aspects of the project, focus on the foundation for this success, which
is provided by project teams and to the organizational issues of the project. In a nutshell,
successful project results were the manifestation of productive project teams, supporting
organizational functions, and processes during the execution of the project.
176
Role of project management maturity in project performance 177
With advances in information and communication technologies and consequent support

from technological applications, and the growth of the project management profession due
to efforts led by professional associations such as Association for Advancement of Cost
Engineering International (AACEI), Project Management Institute (PMI), and International
Project Management Association (IPMA), we expect better project performance and maturity
in managing projects. But it is not the case and research suggest that many projects fail.
A comprehensive literature review in the next section presents sets of project success
factors, project management performance factors, and project management maturity factors.
Two research methodologies are designed to explore relationships among these factors. The
first study uses a survey questionnaire targeting project managers and project management
professionals. The second research study focuses on in-depth objective analysis and under-
standing of project management-related practices, processes, and procedures implemented
in selected organizations that have been historically successful in managing projects. A dis-
cussion section presents analysis of the survey results and the concluding section presents
summary findings, recommendations, and future research efforts.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A project manager has control over internal factors that include time, cost, and scope. External
client factors largely depend on the articulation of clients’ requirements and needs. Eventually,
these requirements translate into external factors such as usefulness, satisfaction, and effec-
tiveness of the project deliverable. However, these measures of external success occur only
after completion of the project and the release of the project deliverables. Both the internal and
external factors contribute to project performance.
The aim of this literature review is to identify key factors on project success, project man-
agement success, project performance factors, project management maturity, and the PMO
(project management office). This extensive literature review serves to design a comprehen-
sive list of questions for the survey.
Project Success and Project Management Success
Project success and project management success are different from normal definitions that
we use to define critical success factors. The project success is often defined in terms of
achieving project goals and project management success uses the conventional performance
measures that include completing project within time, cost, and meeting scope and quality
(Cooke-Davies 2002). Project performance is assessed in terms of successfully completing
the project (Cheng, Ryan, & Kelly, 2012). Often, project success is defined in terms of cost,
time, and scope. Managing cost and schedule within set goals reflects efficiency (Razmdoost
& Mills, 2016) of a project and together, cost and schedule lead to efficient management (Mir
& Pinnington, 2014), while the measures of project performance include schedule, budget,
quality, and customer satisfaction (Berssaneti & Carvalho, 2015).
The definition of project success has evolved from a traditional definition of completing the
project within time, cost, and scope to a broadened focus of meeting stakeholder requirements
and to achieving customer satisfaction (Jugdev & Müller 2005). Project success is defined by
Table 12.1 Project success measures
Traditional measures of New measures of project Evolved measure of project success

project success success
Management On the project On the product A comprehensive measure of project
emphasis success that combines the project
Focus Project management and Economic, financial, and use management measures of time, cost, and
implementation of product or service scope, resulting in measures of client
Success perspective On the process On the deliverable satisfaction, utilization, and benefit to
Perspective of PM and project team Client/end user the organization. The time frame for this
Measured by Internal factors External factors under client’s project success measure is both short-term
control (taken during the project life cycle and
Type of factors Tactical factors Strategic factors at the completion of the project) and
Measurements Time, cost, scope Client satisfaction, long-term (assessed at some point in the
organization benefit future when organizational benefits from
Assessed At project completion At some time in the future the project deliverable can be measured).
Time frame Short-term Long-term
Adapted from Dyett (2011).
providing value to all key stakeholders, namely the project team, the project sponsor and the
sponsoring organization, clients, and end users.
Baker, Murphy, and Fisher (1988) also highlighted the importance of customer satisfaction
as a measure of project success. A decade later, another study identified project success dimen-
sions that include project design goals, impact on customer, benefits to the executing organiza-
tion, and preparing for the future (Shenhar, Levy, & Dvir, 1997). Of these, project design goals
and impact on the customer are short-term. The remaining two success dimensions – benefit
to organization and preparing for the future – have a long-term impact. However, complete
assessment of project performance cannot be completed before the delivery of project out-
comes and use by the customer or end user (Razmdoost & Mills, 2016).
Project success is a complex, ambiguous concept that changes during the project life cycle.
Project cost, time, and scope are important project success factors during project execution
phase; however, after project completion and delivery of the product to the customer, these
success factors lose their importance; satisfaction of the customer and other key stakeholders
assumes greater importance as the project success factor (Özdemir Güngör & Gözlü, 2016).
Nevertheless, cost and schedule are very important for project management performance.
Jugdev and Müller (2005) suggest that projects are about managing expectations, which
often are subjective perceptions of success. If a project is highly complex and uncertain (Yu &
Kwon, 2011), it is better to define project success factors clearly and beyond the basic under-
standing of success. Furthermore, project success criteria may differ from project to project,
and they can be categorized as project progress benefits and project performance benefits
(Ojiako, Johansen, & Greenwood, 2007).
In general, project success should be measured by taking various aspects into consideration
such as project cost and time targets, the deliverable that accomplishes enterprise strategic
objectives, and the enterprise financial objectives (Rad & Anantatmula, 2010). Success factors
can also be classified into four groups: factors related to projects, the project managers and
team members, the external environment, and organizational factors (Belassi & Tukel, 1996).
Dyett (2011) classified project success measures into traditional measures, new measures, and
evolving categories (Table 12.1).
In summary, project success can be measured with three different sets of attributes: the
client view (scope, quality, and client satisfaction), the team view (scope, cost, and time), and
the enterprise perspective (financial and commercial aspects). Further, the contention is that
unspoken and personal indices influence the perception of failure and success.
Project Performance Factors
A structured project management promotes discipline-specific knowledge and training of

project personnel, establishes project management policies and procedures, priorities for pro-
jects, and consistent project management processes. Such a work environment makes it easier
to deploy promising project management practices that lead to predictable project outcomes,
improve management performance, and enable knowledge management (Özdemir Güngör
& Gözlü, 2016). People-related factors contribute to project team performance and, in turn,
project teams are directly responsible for project performance. The literature review in this
section focuses on people-related project performance factors and organization factors that
contribute to project success.
Effective communication also plays a critical role in project team development, conflict
management, negotiations, decision-making, and project performance (Anantatmula, 2016).
Clearly defined goals, top management support, project plan and implementation processes,
efforts to identify expectations of clients and stakeholders, project monitoring and feedback,
sufficient communication with key stakeholders, and ability to handle unexpected problems
are some of the factors in improving project performance and project success (Schultz et al.,
1987; Pinto & Slevin, 1987). A few other studies considered factors such as clearly defined
project mission, detailed plans, communication, and top management support as predictors of
project success (Larson & Gobeli, 1989; Hartman & Ashrafi, 2002). Top management support
was an important contributor of project success (Fedor et al., 2003). Another study (Özdemir
Güngör & Gözlü, 2016) found that strategic top management support enables more effective
operational support that, in turn, increases project performance.
Project Management Maturity
As projects focus on managing limited resources efficiently and effectively, portfolio man-
agement plays an important role in selecting projects that align with organizational and
strategic goals. Portfolio management promotes execution of projects that are beneficial to the
organization, as resources are not invested in projects that do not support strategic goals of the
organization. Well-designed, effective project portfolio management improves project man-
agement maturity (Voss, 2012). Portfolio management promotes execution of projects that
are beneficial to the organization, as resources are not invested in projects that do not support
strategic goals of the organization.
Project management maturity, although not directly related to project performance, is
considered to be significantly related to business performance; obviously, it is important to
have an organizational culture in place that supports knowledge sharing, collaboration, and
empowerment to deal with issues related to project time, budget, and expectations (Yazici,
2009). However, contrary to these findings, maturity in project management processes demon-
strated a strong association with a high project success rate for innovation projects (Besner
& Hobbs, 2008). It is interesting to note that Zqikael et al. (2008) proposed a maturity model
for improving project performance based on several top management support factors such as
communication, quality management, advanced project management techniques, selection of
project manager, measuring project success, and knowledge management system.
Project management maturity models can also benchmark project management perfor-
mance. Some of these models present a framework to improve project management capa-
bilities and develop promising practices that will result in executing projects successfully
(Pennypacker & Grant, 2003). However, the tendency to focus on project management and
ignore other intangible strategic assets limits the competitive advantage offered by maturity
models (Jugdev & Thomas, 2002). Organizational factors that contribute to project success,
such as organizational culture, style, size, structure, the level of project management maturity
also influence project success (Dyett, 2011). Organization culture and the context assume
significance in forming project-friendly organizations (Rad & Anantatmula, 2010).
These literature findings on project success factors, project performance factors, project
management maturity, and PMO were used to develop a survey questionnaire and a structured
interview case study questionnaire. These two instruments were used to explore relationships
among all these factors and are discussed in the next section.
Research Method
Two independent studies collected data using the foundational literature review findings.
The first study used a survey questionnaire designed to target project managers and project
management professionals as participants of the study. This study used data from the per-
spective of project management professionals and project managers. The second research
study was a case study designed for in-depth objective analysis and understanding of project
management-related practices, processes, and procedures implemented in organizations that
have been historically successful in managing projects. The first study focused on what is
considered important for project success from people’s perspective; whereas, the second study
focused on organizations’ project systems and practices that contribute to project success.
Survey Questionnaire
The survey questionnaire is based on factors shown in Table 12.2. It presents a literature
review summary of the factors representing project success, project performance, and project
management maturity.
The survey was distributed among project managers and project management professionals.
The survey respondents (106 responses) identified communication, top management support,
and clearly defined project mission as the top three project performance factors followed
by changes in project goals and collaborative culture. Of these, one can see a direct relation
between changes in the project goals and project performance.
Likewise, the study identified that customer satisfaction, meeting customer needs, accom-
plishing project scope and quality specifications, and fulfilling project objectives in terms
of deliverables are considered as the top five project success factors. Our results suggest
that a satisfied customer is considered more important than meeting customer needs, which
underscores the importance of communication with the client and other key stakeholders.
Research results of both project performance factors and project success factors underline the
importance of communication as a key factor of project performance.
Table 12.2 Factors identified from the literature review
Project performance factors Project success factors Organization PM maturity indicators

Project size Completing within cost Formalized and established project
Project policies and procedures Completing within time management procedures
Communication Meeting project scope Project portfolio management
Clearly defined project mission Meeting project objectives Project management office (PMO)
Changes in project goals Meeting quality expectations Project manager is a qualified PMP
Priority of the project Meeting customer satisfaction (Project Management Professional)
Top management support Meeting customer needs
Project planning tools and techniques Senior management expectations
Collaborative culture Financial success
Commercial success
Sources: Anantatmula (2010), Anantatmula and Rad (2013), Anantatmula and Rad (2016), Berssaneti and Carvalho
(2015), Cooke-Davies (2002), Dell (2013), Hartman and Ashrafi (2002), Jugdev and Müller (2005), Kendall and
Rollins (2003), Larson and Gobeli (1989), Park (2009), Pinto and Slevin (1987), Rad (2003), Razmdoost and Mills
(2016), Shenhar, Levy, and Dvir (1997), Turner (1999), Voss (2012).
Research results on project management factors suggest that project portfolio management
function within the organization improves the likelihood of three project performance factors:
assigning priority for projects, meeting quality expectations, and meeting project objectives,
whereas the presence of project portfolio management yields only one project success factor:
customer satisfaction. The results also suggest that PMO may not have a direct influence on
project performance or success factors. In summary, these results suggest the presence of
project management maturity – consisting of portfolio management and formalized project
management processes – improves project success and project performance.
Case Study Method
The case study used a set of questions for a structured, in-depth interview of senior-level man-
agers. No specific project management maturity model was used in designing the question-
naire. The questionnaire was developed based on collective experience in managing projects,
teaching, and conducting research on project management for several decades. The structured
interview consisted of 469 questions addressing practices and processes related to projects,
proposals, portfolio management, project teams, and enterprise sophistication factors such
as the PMO, knowledge management, portfolio management, and organizational maturity
factors. Key elements of the interview questionnaire are captured in Table 12.3.
Table 12.3 Key elements of the structured interview questionnaire
Questionnaire Selected key issues addressed

topic
Projects Stakeholder analysis, guidelines for clearly defined client requirements and project deliverables, and norms
(106 questions) for developing deliverable WBS.
Initiation: strategic and financial objectives, availability of sufficient resources and funds, definitive plans,
and detailed estimate.
Plan: clear definition of objectives, well-defined deliverables, assumptions and constraints of plans and
resources, and expected accuracy of plans and thresholds.
Monitor: WBS level at which project is monitored, frequency of progress data collection and responsible
party for data collection, earned value and level at which it is determined, and thresholds for variations in cost
and schedule.
Closeout: comparison of planned vs. actual project plan data, frequency of fine-tuning project constraints,
changes to enterprise objectives, harmony level of the project team, frequency and magnitude of conflicts,
project performance analysis and responsible party, and lessons for future projects.
Proposals Models for planning, crafting, and allocation of resources for developing proposals.
(64 questions) Identification of prospect: new market, new technical specialty, financial constraints such as cash flow,
profit targets, desired accuracy level for estimates, financial health of the client, and types of contracts
expected.
Draft proposal: cost for preparing the proposal draft, responsiveness to technical and administrative issues,
meeting or exceeding the expectations of the client, and success ratio of the proposals.
Portfolio Portfolio data: measurable indices of cost, scope, quality, strategic and financial goals, and models for
management managing these indices, periodic validation, and revision of formal and sophisticated prioritization model to
(111 questions) align with changing enterprise objectives.
Portfolio management: periodic review of the models and systems for prioritization, resource allocation,
fully commissioned portfolio management team, and infrastructure for project management.
Project portfolio prioritization data: information on scope, quality, cost, schedule, information on
alignment of internal projects with enterprise strategic and financial objectives, and balanced portfolio of all
project groups.
Proposal portfolio prioritization: information collection on wide range of issues with the proposal and the
performing organization.
Proposal portfolio sophistication: fully quantified and quantifiable model with distinct attributes,
formalized scoring of proposals that include project, team, and organization issues, and supporting
organization structure.
Proposal portfolio pipeline statistics: information on various important indices such as average profit,
likelihood of winning the contract, statistics about proposals (size and range), winning proposal ratio, and
return on investment for proposal development process.
Questionnaire Selected key issues addressed

topic
Teams ● Use of various performance attributes of individuals to assign members for project teams.
(39 questions) ● Application of checklists (of indications) about how organization specifies personal interactions among
team members
● Assess how individuals relate with each other using the checklist of personal interactions.
● Detailed list of team dysfunction symptoms and monitoring team’s performance, harmony, and
productivity.
Enterprise Checklists to determine sophistication of processes and practices in managing projects:
(149 questions) Project management:
● Planning of project that includes WBS, risk, cost, schedule, and contracts, stakeholder management, inte-
gration during planning, resource allocation model.
● Portfolio management team that effectively manages multiple critical issues about projects, teams, organi-
zational factors.
● Team development and management issues that include tools for planning, progress reporting, and change
management, training, authority, responsibility, and accountability.
Sophistication attributes: Monitoring and measuring various attributes related to competency of people,
cohesiveness of the team, organization-wide support to projects (project-friendly organization).
Sophistication in evaluating projects: Monitoring and measuring success in meeting project objectives,
success during all phases of a project (initiation, plan, execution, monitoring, and closeout).
Sophistication in managing portfolios and programs:
● Prioritization models to address strategic and financial goals, and funding imperatives.
● Processes for midstream review (preference to high-priority projects and programs).
● Formalized procedures for managing multiple projects and managing resources for high-priority projects
and programs.
Sophistication in creating a project-friendly organization:
● Level of comprehensiveness of PMO and its functions in measuring and monitoring to:
● Strengthen long-term enterprise-oriented functions of PMO.
● Strengthen and celebrate short-term team-focused supporting functions.
Managing knowledge areas: Encourage continuous improvement of skills of individuals in managing
projects and develop processes to strengthen planning efforts in cost, scope, schedule, quality, risk, contracts,
communication among team members, and managing stakeholders.
Checklist to measure and monitor project-friendly attributes
Checklist to measure and monitor project success indicators
Checklist to measure and monitor project management success indicators
Components of maturity model:
● People issues
● Project facets issues
● Enterprise issues
● Existence of processes for projects, proposals, and portfolios
● Compliance of processes for projects, proposals, and portfolios
Achieving success using these processes for projects, proposals, and portfolios
The comprehensiveness with which the study addressed all areas of project management
through interview questions and the anticipated time required to participate in this study
prevented some organizations from participating in the study. Three organizations known to
have good project management practices and sustained success in managing projects, one each
from the US, Japan, and India, agreed to participate in the study. All the three organizations
have a long history of managing projects successfully, manage global projects with revenues
ranging from $1 billion to $13 billion and employed more than 2,500 people in project-related
activities.
Existence and efficacy of processes in all five sections of the questionnaire and assessing
the overall percentage of affirmative responses (presence of a practice or process) was used to
determine an overall maturity level for each organization. If an organization responded affirm-
atively in the range of 80 to 89% for a set of items and it implemented them with efficacy,
a maturity level of four was assigned for that section. All five sections of the questionnaire
were evaluated independently, and a total percentage score determined the maturity level
assigned to each organization. Interview responses from these case studies and results analysis
suggested that project management maturity factors are likely to have contributed to sustained
success in managing projects. Further, analysis of the responses from all three organizations
suggests that the presence of project management maturity factors coincides with the presence
of project performance factors, although direct relation between these two sets of factors could
not be ascertained.
CONCLUSION
The research results suggest that communication and top management support are important
for improving project performance and project success. Further, the results show that customer
satisfaction and meeting customer needs are considered more important success indicators.
Organizations with formal project management processes are likely to use project performance
planning tools and complete projects within cost and time. All three case studies suggest that
the presence of portfolio management may likely promote formal project management prac-
tices and policies. Further, all three companies that participated in the study suggested that
the presence of portfolio management and project management maturity factors increases the
project performance and incidence of project success.
NOTE
This chapter is a brief version of an original research paper and a full version is
available: Anantatmula V. S. and Rad, P. F. (2018). Role of organizational maturity
factors on project success. Engineering Management Journal, 30(3), 165–178. DOI:
0.1080/10429247.2018.1458208.
REFERENCES
Anantatmula, V. (2010) Project manager leadership role in improving project performance. Engineering
Management Journal, 22 (1), 13–22.
Anantatmula, V. (2016) Project teams: A structured development approach. Business Expert Press: New
York.
Anantatmula, V. and Rad, P. F. (2013) Linkages among project management maturity, PMO, and
project success. In Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE) & IEEE International Technology
Management Conference, 2013 (pp. 1–12). IEEE.
Anantatmula, V. and Rad, P. F. (2016) Attributes of project-friendly enterprises. Business Expert Press:
New York.
Baker, B. N., Murphy, D. C., and Fisher, D. (1988) Factors affecting project success. In Cleland, D. I. and
King, W. R. (eds.). Project Management Handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold: New York.
Belassi, W. and Tukel, O. L. (1996) A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in
projects. International Journal of Project Management, 14 (3), 141–151.
Berssaneti, F. T. and Carvalho, M. M. (2015) Identification of variables that impact project success in
Brazilian companies. International Journal of Project Management, 33 (3), 638–649.
Besner, C. and Hobbs, B. (2008) Discriminating contexts and project management best practices on
innovative and noninnovative projects. Project Management Journal, 39, S123–S134.
Cheng, E. W., Ryan, N., and Kelly, S. (2012) Exploring the perceived influence of safety management
practices on project performance in the construction industry. Safety Science, 50 (2), 363–369.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002) The “real” success factors in projects. International Journal of Project
Management, 20 (3), 185–190.
Dell, D. (2013) From the ground up. PM Network (October 2013), 27.
Dyett, V. (2011) Roles and characteristics of the project manager in achieving success across the project
life cycle. Proquest Dissertations and Theses 2011. Section 1381, Part 0454 135 pages (Ph.D. disser-
tation). Florida: Lynn University.
Fedor, D. B., Ghosh, S., Caldwell, S. D., Maurer T. J., and Singhal, V. R. (2003) The effects of knowl-
edge management on team members’ ratings of project success and impact. Decision Sciences, 34 (3),
513–539.
Hartman F. and Ashrafi R. (2002) Project management in the information systems and information
technologies industries. Project Management Journal, 33 (3), 5–15.
Jugdev, K. and Thomas, J. (2002) Project management maturity models: The silver bullets of competitive
advantage? Project Management Journal, 33 (4), 4–14.
Jugdev, K. and Müller, R. (2005) A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success.
Project Management Journal, 36 (4), 19–31.
Kendall, G. I. and Rollins, S. C. (2003) Advanced Project Portfolio Management and the PMO:
Multiplying ROI at Warp Speed (pp. 23–54). J. Ross Publishing: Boca Raton, FL.
Larson, E. W. and Gobeli, D. H. (1989) Significance of project management structure on development
success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 36 (2), 119–125.
Mir, F. A. and Pinnington, A. H. (2014) Exploring the value of project management: Linking project
management performance and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 32 (2),
202–217.
Ojiako, U., Johansen, E., and Greenwood, D. (2007) A qualitative re-construction of project measure-
ment criteria. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 108 (3), 405–417.
Özdemir Güngör, D. and Gözlü, S. (2016) An analysis of the links between project success factors and
project performance. Sigma: Journal of Engineering and Natural Sciences, 34 (2), 223–239.
Park, S. H. (2009) Whole life performance assessment: Critical success factors. Journal of Construction
and Engineering Management, 135 (11), 1146–1161.
Pennypacker, J. S. and Grant, K. P. (2003) Project management maturity: An industry benchmark.
Project Management Journal, 34(1), 4–11.
Pinto J. K. and Slevin, D. P. (1987) Critical factors in successful project implementation. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 34 (1), 22–27.
Rad, P. F. (2003) Project success attributes. Cost Engineering, 45 (4), 23–29.
Rad, P. F. and Anantatmula, V. (2010) Successful Project Management practices. Emerald Group
Publishing: Bingley, UK.
Razmdoost, K. and Mills, G. (2016) Towards a service-led relationship in project-based firms.
Construction Management and Economics, 34 (4–5), 317–334.
Shenhar, A., Levy, O., and Dvir, D. (1997) Mapping the dimensions of project success. Project
Management Journal, 28 (2), 5–13.
Schultz, R. L., Slevin, D. P., and Pinto, J. K. (1987) Strategy and tactics in a process model of project
implementation. Interfaces: Institute of Management Sciences, 17 (3), 34–46.
Turner, J. (1999) The handbook of project-based management: Improving the processes for achieving
strategic objectives. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Voss, M. (2012) Impact of customer integration on project portfolio management and its success:
Developing a conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management, 30 (5), 567–581.
Yazici, H. J. (2009) The role of project management maturity and organizational culture in perceived
performance. Project Management Journal, 40 (3), 14–33.
Yu, J. H. and Kwon, H. R. (2011) Critical success factors for urban regeneration projects in Korea.
International Journal of Project Management, 29 (7), 889–899.
Zqikael, O., Levin, C., and Rad, P. (2008) Top management support: The project friendly organization.
Cost Engineering, 50 (9), 22–30.
PART III
NEXT PRACTICES
13. Addressing the performance gap with lean-led
design
Hafsa Chbaly and Maude Brunet
INTRODUCTION
Project definition represents the first phase of a project life cycle, during which client needs
are defined and translated by the architects into design solutions (Forgues et al., 2018). In fact,
about 80% of professionals’ decisions that will determine the outcome of the project and the
work environment are made during this phase (Whelton et al., 2003). If the client needs are
poorly defined, this may lead to considerable changes such as exceeding the initial budget,
delays in project delivery, and client dissatisfaction (Safapour & Kermanshachi, 2019).
In hospital projects, an “ill”-performed project definition might have a significant impact on
nurses’ performance. A study realized in 36 hospitals in USA showed that the inappropriate
design of work environment has consequences for nurses walking distance, which is about 5
km by dayshift. These long distances reduced their time spent on patient care activities to only
19.3% (Hendrich et al., 2008). Further, an unsuitable work environment might cause not only
long walking distances for nurses but also healthcare service disruptions or hospital-acquired
infections, which represent the main cause of injuries or patients’ deaths in the USA (Becker
& Parsons, 2007; Hamilton, 2020).
An unsuitable working environment in a hospital is illustrated with the example of burned
patients. As these patients were usually hospitalized in intensive care units, doctors noticed
that their death rate was high. This was due not only to their burns, but also to a nosocomial
infection – that is to say, germs resistant to antibiotics – which was present in the intensive care
units (Santucci et al., 2003). The solution was therefore to create new independent services
for these burned patients, in order to offer them more suitable and safer care spaces to avoid
infections or any other complications.
Defining and formalizing client needs during the project definition phase is therefore impor-
tant to create more suitable working environments and thus improve patient safety. However,
this phase is usually neglected. Further, conventional non-participative practices seems inad-
equate so far, leading to a “design performance gap” (Forgues et al., 2018; Tzortzopoulos et
al., 2009).
One of the solutions suggested to address this design performance gap is to apply a partici-
patory approach, namely lean-led design (Grunden & Hagood, 2012).
This chapter aims to explore why conventional practices lead to a “design performance gap”
in healthcare projects and how a lean-led design approach could address this issue. The first
section presents the complexity of defining needs in healthcare projects. The second section
looks at how the “design performance gap” is defined and why conventional practices lead to
that. The third section explores how a lean-led design approach could enhance practices based
on a mega-hospital case study. Finally, implications and concluding remarks are presented.
188
Addressing the performance gap with lean-led design 189
THE COMPLEXITIES OF DEFINING NEEDS IN HEALTHCARE

FACILITIES
Defining client needs in hospital projects is a complex task, due to two main reasons. The first
one is about the definition of who is the client. In fact, in such projects, a client is represented
by many entities and individuals. A “client” is at the same time the funders (usually the govern-
ment), project managers (representant of the client), and users (doctors, nurses, patients, staff,
etc.). Each client has their own needs, perceptions, and interests that could be in contradiction
with others (Apaolaza & Lizarralde, 2020). To take a concrete example: administrative and
maintenance staff seek to reduce operating costs, nurses need quick access to all the equipment
necessary to provide care, and doctors focus on improving the functioning of their services to
provide better care for their patients. Supposedly, every doctor wants the same thing: to help
their patients get and stay healthy. The problem is that every doctor can have a different view
of the meaning of getting and staying healthy and how to achieve that in practice.
The second reason for defining client needs complexity is about the nature of the needs. In
fact, in hospital projects, the needs that should be defined are uncertain. They are evolving in
time due to the demographic changes and the rapid advances in medical technologies, among
other things.
According to the World Health Organization, about 80% of the entire population could
develop cancer within the next 20 years (WHO, 2020). The increase in certain diseases or
in the overall population means that certain medical departments need to enlarge their work
areas, which implies a reorganization of space. Further, the constant evolution of technologies
requires not only adjustments in clinical practices, but also reconfigurations of the workspaces.
As an example of that, robotic systems are increasingly used for some surgeries, so the archi-
tectural design of operation departments should change accordingly and reflect the latest tech-
nology advancements as well as patients’ care requirements. To do so appropriately, architects
must be aware of new trends, and take into account the new needs of users.
Given these two main challenges in defining clients’ needs for hospital projects, the tradi-
tional project definition practices do not seem appropriate, as they cannot address this level of
complexity.
DESIGN “PERFORMANCE GAP” WHEN USING TRADITIONAL

PRACTICES
In the conventional practices, client needs are established without the participation of
clients-users (Blyth & Worthington, 2010). What typically happens is that just the funders
(client sponsor) or their representants are involved in the project definition phase. Users are
neglected or rarely consulted (Blyth & Worthington, 2010; Forgues et al., 2018). However, if
architects do not involve users in the process, how could they properly understand how they
perform medical operations and thus propose an efficient design solution?
In conventional practices, needs are defined based on past statistical data, and future activi-
ties are projected by taking into account demographic trends, new practices, and technologies.
Based on that, designers deduce with mathematical calculation rules, some of which are recog-
nized or elaborated, the square meters required, and the number of rooms, stretchers, beds, etc.
Further, in hospital projects, different aspects should be considered simultaneously: techni-

cal, functional, and social (Hicks et al., 2015). However, with conventional practices, the focus
during the project definition process is more on technical aspects (e.g., structural and mechani-
cal), leaving out other ones (Serugga et al., 2020). Client needs are mainly defined by external
architects and clinical managers that do not have enough resources or information to take
into account the abovementioned issues. Architects usually make assumptions on the basis
of their understanding of user needs, which is influenced and affected by their own cultural
and personal background (Whelton, 2004). Kamara et al. (2002) argue that architects tend to
concentrate on design sooner than on capturing client needs and defining clear requirements.
They also argue that very often the client does not have control over the definition process
and the architect plays the central role, likely holding the belief that the “Expert knows best”.
Thus, many project definition inefficiencies can be attributed to the lack of client involve-
ment (Barrett & Stanley, 1999; Kamara & Anumba, 2001) which gives the project suppliers
(i.e., architects and engineers) the predominant perspective in the process.
Because of that, apparent deficiencies in design quality and performance of healthcare
buildings have been noted when using conventional practices. It was reported that these
practices have failed in fulfilling client needs (Serugga et al., 2020; Tzortzopoulos et al.,
2009). More specifically, it results in three misalignments: (1) between the real client needs
and what architects perceive of them, (2) between what architects perceive of client needs and
how architects translate them into specific requirements using an architectural and technical
vocabulary, and (3) between the specific requirements and the actual design solution proposed
by the architects. These three misalignments constitute the “design performance gap”.
To address this gap, participative approaches like lean-led design have been recommended
(Caixeta et al., 2019; Grunden & Hagood, 2012).
BRIDGING THE “PERFORMANCE GAP” WITH LEAN-LED

DESIGN
Lean-led design is defined as a “systematic approach to healthcare architectural design that

focuses on developing, and integrating safe, efficient, waste-free operational processes in
order to create the most supportive, patient-focused physical environment possible” (Grunden
& Hagood, 2012, p. 18). This approach is seen as the most appropriated one to deal with the
“performance gap” during healthcare project definition as it allows the client (user) participa-
tion (Chbaly et al., 2021; Schouten et al., 2020).
For the purpose of better understanding the differences between the traditional and par-
ticipative approaches, we undertook a case study of the New Complexe Hospital (NCH),
located in Quebec, Canada (Chbaly, 2021). The project, estimated at 1,97 G$, is a merger of
two hospitals in Quebec. The purpose of this consolidation was to simplify access to the care
management systems and to reduce the distance between different hospital services, thereby
improving the quality of patient care. The complexity of this project is not only due to the
need for construction of new buildings but also because of maintaining the regular operation
of the two functioning hospitals. To deal with this complexity, the clinical management team
members of NCH adopted a lean-led design approach during the project definition stages.
This approach consisted of the implementation of five lean workshops between 2014 and
2015. Each workshop was held to cover different topics:
● Workshop 1 (building a patient-centered hospital):
The objective was to define common principles along with a common vision of the future
hospital.
● Workshop 2 (building a patient-centered hospital):
The objective was to comprehend the reality and workflow of the two hospitals merged and
identify existing problems.
● Workshop 3 (combining our strengths):
The objective was to define the location of the hospital sectors while thinking about work-
flow effectiveness.
● Workshop 4 (imagining the future hospital together):
The objective was to illustrate the different possibilities of positioning hospital sectors on
the site and to keep the best implementation hypothesis.
● Workshop 5 (defining and validating our operating modes):
The objective was to transform practices while thinking about this new organization and
to prepare for the transition.
Those workshops were designed to allow communication and collaboration between the
different sectors with specific consultation periods, and involving the main clients including
the users in the process. More than 300 people including external observers from the Ministry
of Health, architects, project managers, clinicians, and patients participated in these events.
Patients who participated during those workshops were selected from a database of volun-
teers. Most of them suffered from chronic illness (e.g., kidney disease, reduced mobility).
However, due to the difficulty of recruiting them, these patients did not represent all hospital
departments.
Thus, unlike in the conventional approach, where users are rarely involved and consulted
during the process of project definition, in this context users (clinicians and patients) were
involved throughout the process. These users were not passive as with conventional practices;
they had more power in the process with a more proactive position since their level of involve-
ment was high. This involvement permitted considering the many different points of views
of clients as well as functional and technical requirements. It also helped designers to better
understand needs and thus align them with the building design (Caixeta & Fabricio, 2021).
User involvement in the project definition process is, itself, indicative of user power and
influence over the decision-making process. In the NCH project, the users participated in the
process of selecting the best hypothesis of the implementation of the different sectors of the
hospital. In fact, designers had proposed five hypotheses and all of them were rejected by the
users. Based on this initial evaluation, designers reviewed the implementation hypotheses and
after some days of work proposed two more, of which one was accepted by the users.
Nevertheless, involving a large number of client (users) in the project definition requires
more work for the architects than with conventional practices. Implementing a lean-led design
approach requires that architects bring decision-making closer to users and to open up the
discussion. To do so, not only are designing skills necessary, but also knowledge in other
disciplines such as sociology and marketing, among others, in order to turn ideas into viable
practice (Caixeta et al., 2019). Also, implementing participatory approaches, such as lean-led
design, is challenging especially when setting priorities, as they are subjective and related to
users’ perceptions. As an example, during lean-led workshops, all doctors wanted to have
a proper office; however, it was not possible due to the limited budget. Thus, designers took
the decision to design shared offices because having individual offices was not as important as
having individual patient rooms. Deciding on what needs are more important than others is not
an easy task and can complexify the decision-making process.
Moreover, designers and users (clinicians and patients) speak two different languages, and
have different vocabularies and referents. One is architectural, the other medical. So when they
have to work collectively during the workshops to define needs and the hospital space design,
a lot can be lost in the process. Before the workshops were organized in the NCH project,
six training sessions of about one hour were organized by the internal team of the clinical
management. The objective was to introduce or refresh some lean concepts and architectural
vocabulary regarding scale (area, square meters, etc.) and thus facilitate a mutual understand-
ing and perception of user spaces by using a common vocabulary. To this end, the organizers
of these sessions used reference points such as a football field, an ice rink, etc. Thanks to
a better comprehension of the dimensions of each area, participants were able to quickly see
the need to reduce patient movements and organize the essential activities and services in
a more efficient manner.
Further, to maximize the common alignment between designers and users, different visual-
ization tools and techniques were used during the workshops. For instance, during Workshop
5, as the objective was to test or validate operating modes, the participants used small and
full-size mock-ups. The idea was to reproduce standardized rooms in an environment mock-up
on a small scale to facilitate the understanding of spaces for participants, using removable
walls. The rooms presented in the full-scale mock-up were often “standard rooms” or particu-
lar rooms, as, for example, rooms in a care unit, intensive care units, examination rooms, etc.
By using visualization tools and techniques, participants could better understand the solution.
They also give a clear idea about information discussed which makes it easier for users to
comprehend and therefore identify problems or areas that need to be improved.
Hence, contrarily to traditional project definition practices where the visualization tools and
techniques are usually neglected, in a lean-led design approach they are usually used at the
start of the process.
Furthermore, standardization of the designed spaces represents one of the principles used
in the NCH project during the project definition. The objective is to deal with the uncertainty
of needs by making the space much easier and more flexible for architects to design (Grunden
& Hagood, 2012). Doing things the same way every time should facilitate the development of
safer spaces for patients, for instance by providing efficient and comfortable rooms in terms of
size and configuration. An example of that is to always locate the space for family members
to the left of the patient (Grunden & Hagood, 2012). The reliability that results from a stand-
ardized space may sometimes make a life-or-death difference for patients. However, unifying
rooms is not easy to achieve in mega hospitals because several spaces and rooms are unique
and could not be standardized, for instance in the case of emergency stretcher space (Chbaly,
2021).
Another particularity of lean-led design is that it includes an analysis of the seven trajecto-
ries in hospitals: (1) patients, (2) staff, (3) visitors, (4) supplies, (5) equipment, (6) medication,
and (7) information (Hicks et al., 2015). In the NCH project, this analysis was realized during
Workshop 2. To take the example of patients’ trajectories, participants in the workshop illus-
trated current care trajectories of five fictitious patients, representative of about 80% of the
sectors including one exclusive to each hospital. Based on that, the participants identified simi-
larities and differences between both hospitals, as well as different problems. The purpose was
to minimize the waiting time, optimize and create secure trajectories, and promote information
and care continuity to facilitate patients trajectories (Smith et al., 2020).
Unlike with conventional practices, in a lean-led context all participants work together to
think about the best way to create unified trajectories and efficiently organize the care sectors
before calculating the square meters or proposing a conceptual design. The participants
analyze the current processes and assess how they could be optimized in order to generate an
understanding of all the activities of the organization toward a systemic generalization. The
workshops included real patients who were encouraged to participate and give testimonies
to all participants; it was even acknowledged that they helped raise awareness about various
issues that were not clear and evident at first to clinical staff and designers.
Having said that, involving users in the project definition process can facilitate not only
a mutual understanding, but also a mutual learning. Contrarily to the traditional unidirectional
mode, a participatory approach enables designers to learn new medical practices, and for users
(doctors and nurses) to learn and discover the different limits of the building (Chbaly, 2021).
Another point to note is that in the NCH project, the balance of power between users and
designers changed since users had acquired an understanding of the working scenario and they
were seen as co-designers during the project definition. This does not appear to be a common
practice. In the usual process of management, the predominant perspective is of the architects
and not of the user (Caixeta et al., 2019; Grunden & Hagood, 2012; Smith et al., 2020).
Thus, the lean-led design approach presents by itself a structured innovation encouraging
participants to resolve problems through a shared understanding and exploration of possible
solutions (Grunden & Hagood, 2012). Lean-led design as a managerial innovation enables the
development of a shared understanding among stakeholders, which could lead to better project
and organizational performance (Damanpour & Aravind, 2012). It promotes new methods of
working, helping to designing care services around the patient. However, the time and invest-
ments required for undertaking such an approach are not to be minimized, be it the structure to
put in place, a dedicated team, or physical and material resources (such as full-size mock-ups),
along with other compensatory measures for having the participants in each of the workshops.
To conclude, a lean-led design approach was applied in the NCH project in order to firstly
reduce the complexity of merging two hospitals, since each had its own culture, and oper-
ational methods to provide healthcare services. Secondly, it was implemented in order to
address the “design performance gap” by involving different clients.
Based on the presented example, we have identified different benefits of using such a par-
ticipatory approach (e.g., creating a shared understanding). The case study reviewed helps to
identify and highlight the main differences between the conventional and the lean-led design
approach, which we summarize in Table 13.1.
The first difference is about the involvement of users in the project definition phase. In the
traditional mindset, they are usually neglected.
The second difference is about the starting point of each approach. While traditional prac-
tices start with defining the functional and space program (for instance, calculating the number
of offices and beds), a lean-led design approach starts by analyzing and optimizing the current
situation of the hospital processes. This helps to improve the operations of the future hospital
by removing waste (e.g., the patient’s waiting time) before defining the number of offices
required or the square meters.
Table 13.1 Conventional versus lean-led design approaches
Conventional approach Lean-led design approach

1 Participants Clinical managers of the hospital Clinical managers of the hospital
Project managers Project managers
Funders Funders
Users (clinicians, patients, etc.)
2 Starting point Starts with a space program (number of rooms, Starts with an analysis and optimization of the
stretchers, beds, etc.) current processes
3 Methods/tools Documentation Documentation
Interviews Workshops
Small and full-size mock-up
4 Focus Design solution User (patient) needs
5 Decision-making Experience-based Consensus
The third difference is that in the participatory approach, architects use methods/tools such as
workshops and mock-ups in order to define client needs. This is not a common practice in the
traditional mindset.
Another difference is about the project definition focus. While the focus of conventional
practices is on providing a design solution on time and on budget, a lean-led design focus is on
patients to get more effective care. A leading principle to this end was to provide for versatile,
agile, and accessible care and services.
The last difference identified is about decision-making. In fact, with traditional practices
decisions about the client needs are made by the architects based on their experience. This
means that these decisions are not taking into account people who will use the facility, unlike
with the lean-led design approach, where decisions are made collectively involving all client
stakeholders.
CONCLUSION
The “design performance gap” is frequently associated with conventional practices especially
in hospital projects, where clients are multiple and needs are changing over time. Apparent
deficiencies in the design quality of hospitals raise an important necessity for enhancing the
traditional ways of working.
This chapter illustrates through the case of a Canadian hospital megaproject how a lean-led
design approach aimed at bridging the performance gap by involving clients (users) during the
project definition.
The lean-led design approach implemented by the clinical management of this hospital
enables commitment as well as communication between architects and users (doctors, patients,
etc.). Further, unlike with conventional practices, it begins with an in-depth questioning of
current ways of doing things before moving on to architectural concerns, placing the patients
at the center of the reflection. The aim is to create spatial configurations that facilitate the
operations of healthcare services, making them safer and more efficient.
The results and discussion of this chapter have brought forward important considerations
regarding the role of early client stakeholders’ involvement by illustrating how a lean-led
approach contributed to project definition. The main differences between this approach and
the conventional one are also highlighted, and could also be applicable to similar large-scale
projects, where many functions and different users interact (for instance, cultural buildings or
airports).
REFERENCES
Apaolaza, U., & Lizarralde, A. (2020). Managing multiple projects in uncertain contexts: A case study
on the application of a new approach based on the critical chain method. Sustainability, 12(15), 5999.
Barrett, P., & Stanley, C. A. (1999). Better construction briefing. John Wiley & Sons.
Becker, F., & Parsons, K. S. (2007). Hospital facilities and the role of evidence‐based design. Journal of
Facilities Management, 5(4), 263–274.
Blyth, A., & Worthington, J. (2010). Managing the brief for better design. Taylor & Francis.
Caixeta, M. C. B. F., & Fabricio, M. M. (2021). Physical-digital model for co-design in healthcare build-
ings. Journal of Building Engineering, 34, 101900.
Caixeta, M. C. B. F., Tzortzopoulos, P., & Fabricio, M. M. (2019). User involvement in building design:
A state-of-the-art review. Pós. Revista do Programa de Pós-Graduação em Arquitetura e Urbanismo
da FAUUSP, 26(48), e151752–e151752.
Chbaly, H. (2021). Alignment factors between client needs and design solutions during the project
definition: Case study of a Canadian mega-hospital using lean-led design. [Unpublished doctoral
dissertation]. Ecole de technology superieure and Université Libre de Bruxelles.
Chbaly, H., Forgues, D., & Ben Rajeb, S. (2021). Towards a framework for promoting communication
during project definition. Sustainability, 13(17), 9861.
Damanpour, F., & Aravind, D. (2012). Managerial innovation: Conceptions, processes and antecedents.
Management and Organization Review, 8(2), 423–454.
Forgues, D., Brunet, M., & Chbaly, H. (2018). Lean-led, evidence-based and integrated design: Toward
a collaborative briefing process. International Conference on Cooperative Design, Visualization and
Engineering,
Grunden, N., & Hagood, C. (2012). Lean-led hospital design: Creating the efficient hospital of the
future. CRC Press.
Hamilton, D. K. (2020). Design for critical care. In Design for health (pp. 129–145). Elsevier.
Hendrich, A., Chow, M. P., Skierczynski, B. A., & Lu, Z. (2008). A 36-hospital time and motion study:
How do medical-surgical nurses spend their time? The Permanente Journal, 12(3), 25.
Hicks, C., McGovern, T., Prior, G., & Smith, I. (2015). Applying lean principles to the design of health-
care facilities. International Journal of Production Economics, 170, 677–686.
Kamara, J., & Anumba, C. J. (2001). A critical appraisal of the briefing process in construction. Journal
of Construction Research, 2, 13–24.
Kamara, J., Augenbroe, G., Anumba, C. J., & Carrillo, P. M. (2002). Knowledge management in the
architecture, engineering and construction industry. Construction Innovation, 2(1), 53–67.
Safapour, E., & Kermanshachi, S. (2019). Identifying early indicators of manageable rework causes and
selecting mitigating best practices for construction. Journal of Management in Engineering, 35(2),
04018060.
Santucci, S., Gobara, S., Santos, C., Fontana, C., & Levin, A. (2003). Infections in a burn intensive care
unit: Experience of seven years. Journal of Hospital Infection, 53(1), 6–13.
Schouten, H., Heusinkveld, S., van der Kam, W., & Benders, J. (2020). Implementing lean-led hospital
design: Lessons gained at a pioneer. Journal of Health Organization and Management, 35(1), 1–16.
Serugga, J., Kagioglou, M., & Tzortzopoulos, P. (2020). Front end projects benefits realisation from
a requirements management perspective: A systematic literature review. Buildings, 10(5), 83.
Smith, I., Hicks, C., & McGovern, T. (2020). Adapting lean methods to facilitate stakeholder engage-
ment and co-design in healthcare. BMJ, 368.
Tzortzopoulos, P., Codinhoto, R., Kagioglou, M., Rooke, J., & Koskela, L. (2009). The gaps between
healthcare service and building design: A state of the art review. Ambiente construido, 9(2), 47–55.
Whelton, M. (2004). The development of purpose in the project definition phase of construction projects.
Civil & Environmental Engineering, 313.
Whelton, M., Ballard, G., & Tommelein, I. D. (2003). A knowledge management framework for project
definition. Journal of Information Technology in Construction (ITcon), 7(13), 197–212.
World Health Organization (WHO) (Organisation mondiale de la Santé). (2020). L’OMS présente
des mesures de lutte contre le cancer qui pourraient sauver 7 millions de vies. https://www.who.int/
fr/news-room/detail/04–02–2020-who-outlines-steps-to-save-7-million-lives-from-cancer?fbclid=
IwAR3V2MiJMno9ZoL05nEAZF0OSTciSpK8RLVd8Ci9UXWA2nvVJSbFcB_oNIo.
14. Fixed capacity and beyond budgeting:
a symbiotic relationship within a scaled agile
environment
Yvan Petit and Carl Marnewick
INTRODUCTION
With the advent of agile approaches to managing software development projects, large
organizations have begun to implement agile at scale; i.e., on many projects and on large
projects in their organization. Scaling agile has an impact on various other aspects of the
organization, such as human resources, finance and the way scheduling and planning are done.
Organizations that were used to authorize new projects with stage gates to confirm the project
scope, budget and schedule are now faced with a new environment where the development is
more continuous and closer to a manufacturing flow. Planning in a scaled agile environment is
done based on a fixed capacity basis and not on a project-driven basis. This has implications
for how performance gets planned and measured and it implies that the way costing, budgeting
and resource planning are done is also affected.
Project teams are accustomed to the traditional way of planning for projects based on the
project life cycle and financial evaluation (Project Management Institute, 2017). Resource
allocation and the costing of the project are traditionally based on the schedule and scope.
A department or division, such as the IT department, has multiple projects within their port-
folio and the cost of these projects is then offset to the customers or sponsors of the product.
The demand is high on the project team to deliver more within less time, which might lead to
increased cost due to overtime. The result is that the costing of the project becomes problem-
atic when the overall budget of the department or division is exceeded. The rationale of fixed
capacity is that a resource has a limited capability of work that can be done within a certain
period. The delivery of the final product thus depends on the capacity of the team members
and nothing else. The cost of the team is static, as total cost to company (CTC) for each team
member does not change. The only variable is the time that it will take to deliver the product.
A team will work at their fixed capacity and will deliver features at a regular time.
There is little research on the impact of fixed capacity on the costing and budgeting within
a department. While current research is focused on flow within a lean production environment
and the concept of beyond budgeting is researched from an accounting perspective, this
chapter attempts to highlight the symbiotic relationship between fixed capacity and beyond
budgeting. This symbiotic relationship has an impact on how teams are being accounted
for, how budgeting is done and how product development is monitored and controlled. This
chapter contributes to the current but limited body of knowledge regarding fixed capacity and
beyond budgeting within a scaled environment.
The first part of the chapter deals with the relationship between fixed capacity and beyond
budgeting. The research methodology entailed a single case. The single case provides in-depth
197
knowledge and analysis of how an organization employed the concepts of fixed capacity and
beyond budgeting. The chapter concludes with analysis and discussion sections.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Fixed Capacity
In a scaled agile environment, organizations focus on maximizing the delivery of applications

and services (Laanti, 2014; Turetken et al., 2017). Product development flow is crucial. To
achieve this, organizations establish a fixed capacity model and then prioritize features accord-
ingly, so that they address a rate that matches the fixed capacity. With fixed capacity, the aim
is to visualize the workflow within a project and to prioritize the work-in-progress (WIP) in
accordance with the capacity of the team. The objective is to maintain a constant flow of work
and product output rather than requesting additional resources when demand exceeds supply.
Fixed capacity offers transparency and flexibility to the team and the organization at large
(Hür Bersam & Gül Tekin, 2019). The fixed capacity model allows organizational strategies
to drive the overall pattern of activity (Johnston & Gill, 2017; Marnewick & Marnewick,
2019). One advantage of the fixed capacity model is that it tends to achieve release of products
at a more predictable rate than the project-driven approach (Johnston & Gill, 2017). This
improves the performance of the team and the project itself. With the introduction of flow and
fixed capacity, the funding and administration around projects must change. Business units buy
fixed capacity at a certain price and then work is prioritized for implementation (Marnewick
& Langerman, 2018). The budget allocation must therefore move from a project-driven allo-
cation to a fixed capacity allocation. The implication is that traditional budgeting of projects
changes and, in a projectized environment, opens the door for the introduction of the concept
of beyond budgeting (Hope & Fraser, 2003a, 2003c).
The prerequisite for fixed capacity is the notion of flow. Flow is achieved through the reduc-
tion of waste in the process. This is a direct result of the introduction of lean software devel-
opment that is used to optimize development processes (Kišš & Rossi, 2018). Lean software
development is built on seven principles, i.e. (i) eliminate waste, (ii) decide as late as possible,
(iii) amplify learning, (iv) deliver as fast as possible, (v) empower the team, (vi) build integrity
in and (vii) see the whole (Kišš & Rossi, 2018). To achieve flow, the team needs to control the
amount of work that they perform or the current WIP items or features.
The introduction of flow impacts the way projects are estimated. The focus is on what can
be delivered (scope or features) within the fixed capacity of the team (time). Cost is a constant.
Figure 14.1 is a graphical depiction of how fixed capacity has changed the way constraints are
managed. In the more traditional way of doing projects, the features (scope) are predetermined
as part of the project scope management process. The scope determines the schedule and
cost. The complexity and urgency of the project determine the schedule and costing. More
money is poured into the project to deliver more features (scope creep) within the fixed time
frame. When an organization follows an agile approach, cost, time and quality are fixed; e.g.,
resources work eight hours a day at a fixed hourly rate (salary). The variable is how many
features they can deliver within a 40-hour work week and by extension within a sprint of three
to four weeks. Estimation at the beginning of an initiative is used to predict how much the team
can get done in a given time frame or sprint (fixed) and at a given cost (fixed). Estimation is
Fixed capacity and beyond budgeting 199
not used as a target that should be achieved as closely as possible to measure performance, as
is the case with the scheduling of projects using a Waterfall approach (Engwall & Jerbrant,
2003; Kupiainen et al., 2015; Zika-Viktorsson et al., 2006).
Source: Casanova (2013).
Figure 14.1 Impact of flow on project constraints
A good illustration of flow control is Kanban where work is pulled only when there is capac-
ity. Flow is maintained in a such a way that it enables continuous value creation to customers
through the constant delivery of products or services (Mandić et al., 2010). The emphasis is
on creating value for the customer by reducing waste (e.g., time and staffing) (Poppendieck
& Cusumano, 2012; Swaminathan & Jain, 2012), in comparison to a project-driven approach
where work is pushed (Kupiainen et al., 2015).
Figure 14.2 illustrates the linkage between flow and fixed capacity and eventually beyond
budgeting. Fixed capacity results in a constant flow. A new budgeting process must be imple-
mented based on this new way of utilizing resources.
Figure 14.2 Relationship between flow, fixed capacity and beyond budgeting
Traditional budgeting depends on an up-front estimation of cost and scope. In an agile envi-
ronment, this is not the case and budgeting cannot be based on cost and scope as they are not
fixed (Cao et al., 2013). The use of traditional budgeting conflicts with some of the principles
of a scaled agile environment.
Traditional Budgeting
Bhimani et al. (2008) (cited in Goode & Malik, 2011) define a budget as a quantitative future
plan created by managers to assist the implementation of this plan. A more recent definition
by Vierlboeck et al. (2019) links the definition of budgeting to performance: ‘Budgeting is the
process of operational allocation for financial resources to an organization’s units, as well as
the analysis and selection of investment opportunities/possibilities in order to create value and
a record for subsequent measurement.’
Budgeting plays an important part in most organizations, as it steers the organization (Réka
et al., 2014) and represents an important control system for the majority of organizations
(Becker, 2014; Lohan, 2013). It involves many management processes such as strategy
formation and implementation, evaluation of performance as well as motivating employees
(Hänninen, 2013). It has become so institutionalized that most of the accounting literature just
assumes that firms carry out an annual budgeting exercise (Henttu-Aho & Järvinen, 2013).
However, traditional budgeting has been criticized for some time now (Heupel & Schmitz,
2015; Hope & Fraser, 2003b; Lohan, 2013; Nguyen et al., 2018). Neely et al. (2003), Bogsnes
et al. (2016) and Ekholm and Wallin (2011) identify a long list of disadvantages of annual
budgeting:
● a very time-consuming process

● weak links to strategy
● stimulates unethical behaviors
● assumptions quickly outdated
● provides illusions of control
● decisions are made too early
● decisions are made too high up
● often prevents the right things from getting done
● often leads to the wrong things being done
● a language ill-suited for performance evaluation.
Goode and Malik (2011) cite research showing that the budget creation uses up to 20% of man-
agement time and that even the leanest and most efficient companies take 79 days to organize
their budgets, while 210 days are spent in the worst-practice companies. This is a considerable
amount of time for a firm to spend on an activity that arguably adds no value to the business.
However, numerous organizations continue to use it (Libby & Lindsay, 2010; Lorain, 2010;
Réka et al., 2014). The reason for this, according to Bourmistrov and Kaarbøe (2013), is the
variety of purposes it serves but also the comfort zone that it provides to management. Budgets
have been ingrained in the culture of business and managers find it extremely difficult to shift
to a system without budgets (Goode & Malik, 2011).
Because of the criticisms of traditional budgeting, researchers and practitioners have stated
that there is a need for a new and improved system that will be a better fit in today’s agile
business environments (Goode & Malik, 2011; Lohan, 2013; Réka et al., 2014). Some authors
suggest improvements to the budgeting process (Hansen et al., 2003; Libby & Lindsay,
2010) or other forms of budgeting such as bottom-up budgeting, top-down budgeting, hybrid
approaches, incremental-based budgeting, zero-based budgeting, activity-based budgeting and
beyond budgeting (Vierlboeck et al., 2019). However, a solution proposed by several studies
to solve the problems caused by traditional budgeting is the abandonment altogether of the
fixed annual performance contract supported by the principles of ‘beyond budgeting’ (Daum
et al., 2005; Hansen et al., 2003; Hope & Fraser, 2003a, 2003d; Réka et al., 2014).
Beyond Budgeting
Beyond budgeting is a management control system that seeks to improve performance using
flexible sense-and-respond mechanisms (Hope & Fraser, 2003a; Lohan, 2013) as opposed to
a yearly corporate budget. The groundwork of beyond budgeting commenced in the mid-1990s
(Hope & Fraser, 2003a, 2003c; Nguyen et al., 2018) following the first initiatives in Sweden in
the 1980s (Wallander, 1999). Daum et al. (2005) states that the journey of beyond budgeting
began because of the growing dissatisfaction with the traditional management approach based
on traditional budgeting.
Beyond budgeting is defined as an alternative performance management model that
enhances organizational adaptability and responsiveness by incorporating changes in the
business culture and entire management control system (Nguyen et al., 2018; O’Grady et al.,
2017; Sandalgaard, 2012). The focus of beyond budgeting is a management model that is more
empowered and adaptive and that is beyond the traditional command-and-control. Beyond
budgeting is a holistic management approach that is based on relative performance evaluation,
subjectivity, rolling forecasts and nonfinancial performance measures (Sandalgaard, 2012).
Beyond budgeting is based on 12 principles that form the basis of an adaptive performance
management approach (Hope et al., 2011; Nguyen et al., 2018). It supports organizations to
achieve alignment between the leadership principles and the management processes. The
alignment provides the foundation of how organizations ensure that there is no disconnect
between what is said and what is done (Bogsnes et al., 2016). Table 14.1 presents the 12
principles of beyond budgeting. These principles are divided into two groups. The first six
principles are known as leadership principles and the second six are known as process princi-
ples. The leadership principles are concerned with creating a flexible organizational structure
and the process principles deal with designing an adaptive management process that allows
performance management to adapt quickly and effectively to the complex and competitive
environments.
It should be noted that one of the principles of the management processes is to make
resources available as needed and not through annual budget allocations. It is the investigation
of the implementation of this principle (or not) that triggered this research in a large financial
organization.
Table 14.1 Principles of beyond budgeting (Bogsnes et al., 2016)
Leadership principles Management processes

DO DO NOT DO DO NOT
Purpose Engage and inspire Not around Rhythm Organize Not around
people around bold and short-term management calendar year only
noble causes financial targets processes
dynamically around
business rhythms and
events
Values Govern through shared Not through Targets Set directional, Avoid fixed targets
values and sound detailed rules and ambitious relative
judgment regulations goals
Transparency Promote open Do not restrict it Plans and Make planning Not a top-down
information for forecasts a continuous and annual event
self-management, inclusive process
innovation and learning
Organization Cultivate a strong Not around Resource Make resources Not through annual
sense of belonging centralized allocation available as needed budget allocations
and organize around functions. Avoid
accountable teams hierarchical
control and
bureaucracy
Autonomy Give teams the freedom Do not Performance Evaluate Not for rewards
and capability to act micromanage evaluation performance only and not based
them holistically and on measurements
with peer feedback
for learning and
development
Customers Focus on connecting Avoid conflicts of Rewards Reward shared Not on meeting
everyone’s work with interest success against fixed performance
customers’ needs competition targets
Advantages of Beyond Budgeting
In the area of performance management, beyond budgeting provides many benefits (Nguyen et
al., 2018). When adaptive performance management principles are applied – e.g., in the case of
agile – it creates more ambitious strategies and fast response, less waste, improved customer
service and a greater focus on learning and ethical behavior. Beyond budgeting ensures that
managers create an open and challenging working environment to attract and keep employees
(Nguyen et al., 2018). Employees will deliver continuous performance improvement using
their knowledge and judgment to adapt to changing environments. Beyond budgeting enables
an organization to manage its performance and to decentralize its decision-making process
without the need for traditional budgeting (Hope & Fraser, 2003a). Decentralization involves
converting centralized, hierarchical structures used in traditional budgeting into networks
of small, self-managing teams, resulting in radical changes to organizational structures. The
structural changes will reduce the complexity of environments and increase the adaptability of
the organization overall (Hope & Fraser, 2003d). Valuckas (2019) found that due to globali-
zation and technology advancements, organizations are forced to adapt, become more agile
and support employee-empowered initiatives. Beyond budgeting provides the organizational

guidance needed to create an environment where organizations can thrive (Sahota et al., 2014).
It has been implemented in a multitude of organizations and various industries (Matějka et al.,
2021; Tian et al., 2015) including the agri-food industry (Sandalgaard & Nikolaj Bukh, 2014),
oil and energy (Østergren & Stensaker, 2011) and financial institutions (Mitchell, 2005). Some
researchers have also begun to research beyond budgeting in relation with agile implementa-
tion (Honkonen, 2020; Sirkiä & Laanti, 2015; Vierlboeck et al., 2019).
Challenges of Beyond Budgeting
Adopting beyond budgeting does not come without challenges. Valuckas (2019) found that
the implementation of beyond budgeting has many pitfalls. Shifting from traditional budgeting
to beyond budgeting requires a change in the whole culture of the organization (Nguyen et
al., 2018). This is in line with the culture change associated with the adoption of agile and
scaling agile (da Silva et al., 2015). The mindsets of the employees need to change com-
pletely. Achieving this is difficult because employees tend to fall back into old habits (Heupel
& Schmitz, 2015). Matějka et al. (2021) compared 80 organizations that have implemented
beyond budgeting to a group of 121 organizations that have not. They found evidence that
two well-established management control practices seem difficult to abandon: reliance on
the annual budget for decision-making and reliance on financial measures for performance
evaluation.
Extra time will be required so that employees familiarize themselves with the new imple-
mented system and its tools used to manage the organization (Tian et al., 2015). According to
Rickards (2006), organizations operating without budgets increase their liquidity risks because
financial institutions are not able to evaluate the risk of beyond budgeting organizations.
Summary and Research Question
Summarizing some of the findings presented in this literature review, agile at scale introduces
new forms of organization based on a continuous flow of product development. This can be
supported by planning a fixed capacity and letting the exact development scope being planned
on a continuous basis. This can be achieved by putting an organization in place with a fixed
capacity. Although some argue that beyond budgeting models are conceptually similar and
appear to align well with agile methods (Lohan et al., 2010), this approach appears to be
somewhat contradictory to one of the principles of beyond budgeting suggesting more flexible
resource allocation. Some organizations have been trying to implement both agile at scale and
beyond budgeting. This has been the basis of some initial reflections and research by practi-
tioners and academics (Honkonen, 2020).
The research question was therefore as follows: How are the principles of fixed capacity and
beyond budgeting used to manage performance in a scaled agile environment?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research was done in two phases. The first phase was of a qualitative nature and focused
on fixed capacity and beyond budgeting. The aim of this phase was to determine how fixed
capacity and beyond budgeting influences the performance of the agile teams. The second
phase was of a quantitative nature and was targeting the financial department of the case and
their perceptions around beyond budgeting.
A single case was investigated in detail and the rationale for a single case is that the insti-
tution under investigation implemented both fixed capacity and beyond budgeting in their
deployment of a scaled agile framework. This approach seemed more appropriate as the
research was exploratory (Yin, 2017). A semi-structured interview guide consisted of 11 ques-
tions focusing on portfolio management and on how initiatives are derived and linked back
to the organizational strategies. Some questions focused on fixed capacity and the budgeting
process. Cunningham (2008) and Kwok and Ku (2008) suggest semi-structured interviews as
an excellent way to gather detailed information. Interviewees are then given the opportunity to
elaborate in a way that is not possible with other methods, but they are able to share informa-
tion in their own words and from their own perspectives.
Case Description
The implementation of SAFe was studied at the Bank,1 one of the largest African banking
groups by assets with a long history in Africa. It is listed on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange
(JSE). The financial institution is currently among the largest organizations in South Africa by
market capitalization. It offers a wide range of banking and financial services in 20 countries
in Africa. The company employs over 6,000 people in its IT department. It serves millions of
personal customers with thousands of ATMs. The company embarked on the agile journey in
2015 to accomplish the following:
(1) Be closer to the business. This is achieved by shaping solutions with the business as well
as co-creating software, and replacing business specifications and feasibility assess-
ments with prototypes.
(2) Deliver products in weeks rather than years. Software should be developed faster and
deliver a minimum viable product. Teams should experiment and fail often.
(3) Build more usable/simple software. This is achieved through obsessively focusing on
customer experience and reducing hurdles.
(4) Adopt new technologies faster. The company should take full advantage of new technol-
ogies, e.g. A/B testing to optimize designs, click-flow analyses to optimize the process
and analytics to predict customer behavior.
At the time of the research, the agile transition was 70% within the Bank’s Group IT division
and the adoption of beyond budgeting was 100% across the entire company.
Phase 1 – Interviews
Nineteen interviews were scheduled with various individuals within the Bank’s Group IT
division. Saturation was reached well before the conclusion of the 19 interviews, but it was
decided to conduct all the interviews because they had already been scheduled. The interview-
ees were selected based on their involvement with the Bank’s SAFe journey. The interviews
were conducted by the researchers themselves. The 19 interviewees comprised four people
from the business itself who were direct customers of IT and ultimately the agile process, two
people from the agile portfolio office, four portfolio project managers, the CFO of Group IT,
Table 14.2 Summary of interviews
Role Identifier Division Duration Pages

Agile project officer Apo-1 Group it 00:58:44 35
Agile project officer Apo-2 Group it 00:58:38 32
Business manager Bm-1 Pbb 00:45:51 21
Business manager Bm-3 Cards, payments, gss, vaf 00:31:54 23
Chief information officer Cio-1 Cards, payments, gss, vaf 00:59:58 31
Chief information officer Cio-2 Pbb 00:52:31 16
Coach Coach-1 Group it 00:36:02 24
Coach Coach-2 Cib 00:46:59 33
Chief operating officer Coo Group it 00:40:46 16
Finance Cfo Group it 00:36:13 27
Project portfolio manager Ppm-1 Cards, payments, gss, vaf 00:51:11 33
Project portfolio manager Ppm-2 Pbb 00:48:38 30
Project portfolio manager Ppm-3 Cib 00:55:26 32
Project portfolio manager Ppm-4 African regions 00:51:58 39
Release train engineer Rte-1 Cards, payments, gss, vaf 00:30:01 31
Release train engineer Rte-2 Cards, payments, gss, vaf 00:36:37 28
Release train engineer Rte-3 Pbb 00:34:52 14
Total 14:16:05 512
two CIOs within Group IT, three release train engineers, one COO and two agile coaches.
Table 14.2 provides a summary of the 19 interviews.
RESULTS
The transcriptions went through an iterative process of open coding that summarized the data
into smaller meaningful units called codes and themes (Bryman & Bell, 2017; Saunders et
al., 2016). The coding process was facilitated using ATLAS.ti. Codes were chosen as derived
from the researchers or in vivo codes. A continual refinement process was used to merge
similar codes as well as discard those deemed to lack sufficient data to support themselves.
ATLAS.ti’s coding and co-occurrence matrices were used to identify relationships between
codes and themes as well as possible new themes within the data (Bryman & Bell, 2017).
A further refinement process was followed to remove codes that could not be accurately linked
to existing themes.
Fixed Capacity
Three themes emerged from the interviews. The first theme is the benefits, although the Bank
is still in the early stages of moving to a fixed capacity approach. The second theme is the
challenges of moving from a project-driven approach to a fixed capacity approach. The third
theme is the maturity path.
Benefits of fixed capacity

Respondent APO-1 clarified the reason why the Bank introduced fixed capacity:
That is why we were very expensive as well because frankly in certain instances we were willing to
throw money at a problem versus obviously moving to this new ways of working we actually fixed the
money which then by default fixed the capacity and what then needed to give is the scope is variable
because you prioritize things based on the capacity that you have … in the past we had an ethos that
was certain things we were able and willing to throw money at problems as opposed to trade it off
against other reporting things in order to fit into a fixed capacity.
One of the benefits was that the various team members can see how much an initiative will cost
given the limited resources allocated to the initiative.
So I have got a fixed capacity, effectively it will cost me X many millions for this team, they are
there for the year. My job is therefore to help the guys optimize that capacity [BM-1]. So now what
we are getting is better sizing of what can be done in 12 weeks and that is being improved upon. So,
commitments are being realistic now and therefore delivery is actually getting improved and more
flow [APO-2].
PPM-4 compared fixed capacity to a runway: where a lot of airplanes need to land.
They have only got X amount of capacity to do business readiness, to do testing, etcetera so they need
to make sure when they prioritize work some work will come here that we will deploy then during
the PI there, but they are also busy with some of their own things. So there are a lot of trade-offs that
needs to happen. How much can we actually do so things do not sit on the shelf?
The responsibility of fixed capacity lies with the product owners and ‘with the PI session they
will then say okay we know this is your fixed capacity so let us look at what is the features that
we can deliver in the next PI to talk to’ [PPM-1]. PPM-2 summarized it as ‘so what I have in
terms of the resource construct would equate to their budget.’
Apart from the micro-level view of fixed capacity, there is also a macro view covering
countries and divisions:
So we know that fixed capacity is based, per country they have got a fixed headcount and staff as well
as budgets [PPM-4]; whilst at a macro level this program is relatively flat from a fixed capacity point
of view, you see individual portfolios with massive spikes and drops [CFO].
The benefits that the Bank reaped from the fixed capacity approach relate back to the benefits
mentioned in the literature review section. The Bank achieved a more predictable rate of deliv-
ering features and this was achieved through the transparency and flexibility of the PI sessions.
Challenges of fixed capacity

The introduction of fixed capacity is not easy as people are ‘conditioned’ to operate in
a project-driven environment. APO-1 stated the following: ‘So yes, the fixed capacity is a con-
stant struggle and there are multiple dimensions to it, but you know, always also something
that I guess we hope to try to get better at on a regular basis.’
Another challenge that the teams faced was that team members were still allocated to more
than one feature team, which had a negative impact on the fixed capacity: ‘So we have got
more than 80% of the people that book to more than one feature team code … we actually find
that that person is splitting the time across multiple feature teams’ [CFO].
Maturity path
The Bank realized that the introduction of fixed capacity was a long-term process and that
there was no magic wand. The CFO summarized the journey as follows: ‘as an organization
we are talking fixed capacity we still have a way to go to get to the point where we are fully
mature to make sure that you have the philosophy of dedicated teams, dedicated capacity.’
This statement was echoed by one of the agile project officers [APO-1] from an operational
perspective: ‘I need more capacity, I guess we are grappling with how do we maturely,
semi-independently evaluate.’
The entire journey was summarized by APO-1, stating that:
you are now funding fixed capacity and you must come and prioritize what that fixed capacity
delivers and does not deliver. But we have not pushed in far enough yet to get to the point where the
old way of thinking about how finances should be done, how budgeting should be done to answer
your question versus how we think Group IT’s finance and the Group IT Organization thinks budgets
should be done, there are still lots of friction and things there.
The next section provides insight into the impact of fixed capacity on the budgeting process.
There was a move away in the organization from demand-driven budgeting to a budget based
on fixed capacity.
Beyond Budgeting
No specific themes were identified from the coding exercise and the results are discussed in
general.
The challenge for the Bank was to move from a demand-based budget to a fixed capacity
budget. The CFO summarized the journey as follows:
In the old world, you had very demand-based project budgeting. So, your old project-based budgeting
was very demand-based and you ended up with a number in the system with absolutely no regard to
the capability to deliver. From a budget and a forecasting point of view is we have effectively taken
out SAFe design and we cost based on the bodies involved. The challenging thing for us is shifting
an organization where things were on demand versus managing resources. But it has made from an
organization point of view our ability to cost fixed capacity, you often talk about feature teams and
SAFe models being fixed capacity, so we cost fixed capacity.
The CFO confirmed the theory that demand-based budgeting no longer worked for them in
this new environment and that they had to adjust their budgeting process. They introduced
beyond budgeting as a new management style to align with the notion of fixed capacity. This
shift introduced some benefits.
The benefit of moving to fixed capacity and beyond budgeting was that ‘you are not fighting
for money anymore. You are not fighting for prioritization’ [CFO]. The benefit was not per-
ceived only by the finance department. The various departments within Group IT also realized
the benefits of beyond budgeting. ‘It is a matter of showing so what if we say to business
I am charging you R10 million, all they would want to know is what the hell did I get for that
okay’ [PPM-1]. The allocation of resources and the subsequent budget were done during the
quarterly PIs. ‘If there is a need for allocation then what we do is I facilitate a stand-up meeting
where I have finance on their budget and their resource plan’ [APO-2]. An additional benefit
was that everyone was involved in this process and supported the new way of budgeting and
Table 14.3 Ranking of leadership principles and management processes
Leadership principles Ranking Process principles Ranking

Transparency 1 Resource allocation 1
Value 2 Targets 2
Organization 3 Plans and forecasts 3
Customers 4 Rhythm 4
Purpose 5 Performance evaluation 5
Autonomy 6 Rewards 6
cost allocation. APO-2 continued and stated that ‘if there is any change, HR gets aligned, the
budget gets aligned as well as the resource models, we are all in one.’
The billing or charge of resources was also easier as the charge-out model relied on the
number of resources required to deliver a certain capability. PPM-1 reiterated that ‘we have
actually now got your resource plan per resource to a feature team on your costs and that is
what gets on charged to business, to those guys.’
The journey from traditional budgeting to beyond budgeting was not easy and challenges
were part of the journey. The biggest challenge related to the culture of the bank. The CFO for
Group IT mentioned that
there are massive challenges round that for an organization that has not been strong at resource man-
agement as a capability, it has been quite a challenge. We cost at that level … What beyond budgeting
talks about is a very different organizational thinking where you have got such a good understanding
of the organization that traditional budget processes do not work the way it should be.
Phase 2 – Quantitative Analysis
A quantitative follow-up was done focusing on the finance department of Group IT.2 This
follow-up involved the people within the finance department that were directly affected by the
introduction of beyond budgeting. The purpose was to understand how they perceived beyond
budgeting in relation to the principles (leadership and processes) as well as the benefits and
challenges. Table 14.3 provides insight into the perceived importance of the various leadership
principles as well as the management processes. The ranking was determined using weighted
average scores (Yang et al., 2017). The top-ranking principle was transparency, which entails
the promotion of information for self-management. This is in line with the results of the
interviews where Coach-1 described this ‘in terms of process and transparency and making
the projects visible.’ This was echoed by PPM-1 who was responsible for the implementation
of JIRA. She stated that ‘my focus, mine was also to get easy reporting out of things, that is
visibility, transparency. So that was for me to get that into place.’
The lowest-ranking leadership principle was autonomy, which gave the team freedom and
the capability to act.
The top-ranking process principle was resource allocation where resources were made
available as needed. The lowest-ranking process principle was rewards, which were shared
based on success. The perception was that rewards were still based on fixed performance
targets.
Figure 14.3 provides insight into why the finance department opted for beyond budgeting.
The top reason was flexibility, followed by value creation.
Table 14.4 Benefits of beyond budgeting
Benefits Ranking
Faster response 1
Less manipulative behavior among managers 2
Open and challenging working environment 3
Optimize customer value 4
Innovative strategies 5
Lower costs 6
Figure 14.3 Reasons for beyond budgeting
Table 14.4 provides the ranking of the benefits as experienced by the finance department. It
must be noted that the follow-up study was done in year two of implementing beyond budget-
ing. The top-ranking benefit was faster response. This can be attributed to the fact that budgets
were created based on the fixed capacity and as the capacity changed, so did the budget. This
happened almost in real time. The finance department had not yet seen a tremendous reduction
in costs and overheads and that was the reason for ranking lower costs in the last position.
When it comes to the challenges (Table 14.5) that the department faced in implementing
beyond budgeting, the notion of falling back into old habits was ranked the highest. This is
easy to understand as the team’s average experience in traditional budgeting was 13 years
versus a one-year average experience in beyond budgeting.
Table 14.5 Challenges of implementing beyond budgeting
Challenges Ranking
Employees tend to fall back into old habits 1
Managers are not capable of making the transition successfully 2
Change within the whole culture of the organization 3
DISCUSSION
The introduction of flow and fixed capacity is not an easy process, and this was acknowledged
by the various interviewees. What is evident from the interviews is that this is a process and
that the maturity around flow and fixed capacity needs to improve. Improved maturity will
maximize the benefits already being felt. These benefits were the reduction in costs and a new
way of prioritizing the delivery of products and services. The reduction of costs was attributed
to the fact they did not throw more money at a problem, but that the team itself needed to
resolve the issue within the constraints of their capacity. The prioritization was a direct influ-
ence of fixed capacity as fixed capacity focused on frequent releases of the product or service.
In the more traditional way of prioritizing, projects were prioritized based on the allocated
budget and who shouted the loudest. No emphasis was placed on the needs of the customer as
a basis of prioritization.
A challenge of introducing flow and fixed capacity was found to be the culture of the organ-
ization. In the case of the Bank’s Group IT, they realized that they had to move away from
a culture of being project-driven to a culture of flow and fixed capacity. This was a challenge
as team members were still allocated to more than one team, resulting in less flow and there-
fore less fixed capacity.
The move to beyond budgeting also had its challenges. These challenges manifested in
the move from a demand-based budget to a fixed capacity budget. The results in Table 14.3
highlight that although the agile teams experienced autonomy, the finance department still did
not perceive the same level of autonomy. This is supported by the ranking of the challenges
in Table 14.5. The results underline the notion of a change in culture. They further highlight
that, although the Bank was only one year into the beyond budgeting adoption, they were
already seeing flexibility and the creation of value. The top benefit was faster response in the
allocation and alteration of the budgets.
It is evident from the interviews as well as the follow-up questionnaire that there is a sym-
biotic relationship between fixed capacity and beyond budgeting. One concept cannot be
optimally introduced and performed without the other being also optimally introduced and
performing. Fixed capacity forces the introduction of beyond budgeting as the demand-based
budgeting process is not conducive for allocating resources in a scaled agile environment. The
opposite is also true. Beyond budgeting introduces a focus on capacity and moves away from
demand. This almost forces the organization and teams to introduce fixed capacity if this has
not already been done.
It can be stated that the introduction and scaling of agile have resulted in new ways of
working. These new ways of working include the introduction of flow and fixed capacity. This
in turn has resulted in a different way of budgeting. Budgeting is based on fixed capacity and
is no longer demand-based. This answers the research question that there is indeed a symbiotic
relationship between fixed capacity and beyond budgeting. Which one comes first is still open
to debate but once one of the concepts is introduced, the introduction of the other concept is
a natural outcome.
Performance can be managed using beyond budgeting and fixed capacity. The leadership
principles of beyond budgeting create an environment where performance is encouraged.
Employees are empowered by these principles to perform without supervision and create
self-motivation and fulfillment. The process principles are very much focused on performance
with resource allocation identified as the top principle. The optimal allocation of resources
links directly with fixed capacity where resources are optimally utilized. The guessing of
estimates is to a certain extent eliminated providing the organization with a realistic measure
of what can be delivered at what cost.
CONCLUSIONS
The focus of this chapter is on the symbiotic relationship between fixed capacity and beyond
budgeting. The introduction of scaled agile implies a different way of working and this new
way of working has a ripple effect on the entire organization, including the finance department.
The literature suggests that to improve customer satisfaction, organizations should focus on
flow and fixed capacity. The introduction of fixed capacity implies that demand-driven plan-
ning can no longer take place. Demand-driven planning is the root of traditional budgeting and
the demise of this type of planning manifests in the new phenomenon of beyond budgeting.
The results indicate that in the instance of this case study, the organization is reaping the
benefits of fixed capacity as well as of beyond budgeting. The organization is experiencing
teething problems, but the hope is that these will minimize as the organization matures in this
regard.
NOTES
1. Fictitious name to preserve anonymity.
2. The authors would like to acknowledge the contribution of Nadia Jordaan to the data collection and
analysis of the quantitative data of this research project.
REFERENCES
Becker, S. D. (2014). When Organisations Deinstitutionalise Control Practices: A Multiple-Case Study
of Budget Abandonment. European Accounting Review, 23(4), 593–623.
Bogsnes, B., Larsson, D., Olesen, A., Player, S., & Röösli, F. (2016). Update of Beyond Budgeting
Principles. https://bbrt.org/white-paper-update-of-beyond-budgeting-principles
Bourmistrov, A., & Kaarbøe, K. (2013). From Comfort to Stretch Zones: A Field Study of Two
Multinational Companies Applying ‘Beyond Budgeting’ Ideas. Management Accounting Research,
24(3), 196–211.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2017). Business Research Methods. Oxford University Press.
Cao, L., Mohan, K., Ramesh, B., & Sarkar, S. (2013). Adapting Funding Processes for Agile IT Projects:
An Empirical Investigation. European Journal of Information Systems, 22(2), 191–205.
Casanova, P. (2013). Agile Projects as Micro-Organisms: A Unifying Approach it. AIS Conference
2013, Milan, Italy.
Cunningham, W. S. (2008). Voices from the Field: Practitioner Reactions to Collaborative Research
Initiatives. Action Research, 6(4), 373–390.
da Silva, G. C. J., Amaral, J. P., Matsubara, P. G. F., & Graciano, V. V. N. (2015). Influences of
Organizational Culture in the Adoption of Agile Methodologies in Information Systems Development:
A Systematic Mapping Proceedings of the XI Brazilian Symposium on Information Systems (SBSI
2015), Goiânia, Goiás: Brazil.
Daum, J. H., Gunz, R., Jean-Daniel, L., & Morlidge, S. (2005). Beyond Budgeting: Breaking Free from
the Annual Fixed Budget: A Discussion between Experts from Borealis, Nestlé, Unilever and SAP.
Measuring Business Excellence, 9(1), 64–70.
Ekholm, B.-G., & Wallin, J. (2011). The Impact of Uncertainty and Strategy on the Perceived Usefulness
of Fixed and Flexible Budgets. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 38(1–2), 145–164.
Engwall, M., & Jerbrant, A. (2003). The Resource Allocation Syndrome: The Prime Challenge of
Multi-Project Management? International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 403–409.
Goode, M., & Malik, A. (2011). Beyond Budgeting: The Way Forward? Pakistan Journal of Social
Sciences (PJSS), 31(2), 207–2014.
Hänninen, V. (2013). Budgeting at a Crossroads: The Viability of Traditional Budgeting – A Case Study
(Aalto University).
Hansen, S. C., Otley, D. T., & Van der Stede, W. A. (2003). Practice Developments in Budgeting: An
Overview and Research Perspective. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 15, 95–116.
Henttu-Aho, T., & Järvinen, J. (2013). A Field Study of the Emerging Practice of Beyond Budgeting in
Industrial Companies: An Institutional Perspective. European Accounting Review, 22(4), 765–785.
Heupel, T., & Schmitz, S. (2015). Beyond Budgeting: A High-Hanging Fruit – The Impact of Managers’
Mindset on the Advantages of Beyond Budgeting. Procedia Economics and Finance, 26, 729–736.
Honkonen, T. (2020). SAFe Beyond Budgeting: A Reflective Practitioner Viewpoint. https://jyx.jyu.fi/
bitstream/handle/123456789/70912/1/URN%3ANBN%3Afi%3Ajyu-202006255102.pdf
Hope, J., & Fraser, R. (2003a). Beyond Budgeting: How Managers Can Break Free from the Annual
Performance Trap. Harvard Business School Press.
Hope, J., & Fraser, R. (2003b). Budgets? Harvard Business Review, 81(2), 108–115.
Hope, J., & Fraser, R. (2003c). New Ways of Setting Rewards: The Beyond Budgeting Model. California
Management Review, 45(4), 104–119.
Hope, J., & Fraser, R. (2003d). Who Needs Budgets? Harvard Business Review, 81(2), 108–115.
Hope, J., Bunce, P., & Röösli, F. (2011). The Leader’s Dilemma: How to Build an Empowered and
Adaptive Organization Without Losing Control. John Wiley & Sons.
Hür Bersam, B., & Gül Tekin, T. (Eds). (2019). Agile Approaches for Successfully Managing and
Executing Projects in the Fourth Industrial Revolution. IGI Global.
Johnston, K., & Gill, G. (2017). Standard Bank: The Agile Transformation. MUMA Case Review, 2(7),
1–31.
Kišš, F., & Rossi, B. (2018). Agile to Lean Software Development Transformation: A Systematic
Literature Review. 2018 Federated Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems,
Poznań, Poland.
Kupiainen, E., Mäntylä, M. V., & Itkonen, J. (2015). Using Metrics in Agile and Lean Software
Development: A Systematic Literature Review of Industrial Studies. Information and Software
Technology, 62, 143–163.
Kwok, J. Y.-c., & Ku, H.-B. (2008). Making Habitable Space Together with Female Chinese Immigrants
to Hong Kong: An Interdisciplinary Participatory Action Research Project. Action Research, 6(3),
261–283.
Laanti, M. (2014). Characteristics and Principles of Scaled Agile. In T. Dingsøyr, N. B. Moe, R. Tonelli,
S. Counsell, C. Gencel, & K. Petersen (Eds), Agile Methods: Large-Scale Development, Refactoring,
Testing, and Estimation (pp. 9–20). Springer.
Libby, T., & Lindsay, R. M. (2010). Beyond Budgeting or Budgeting Reconsidered? A Survey of
North-American Budgeting Practice. Management Accounting Research, 21(1), 56–75.
Lohan, G. (2013). A Brief History of Budgeting: Reflections on Beyond Budgeting, Its Link to
Performance Management and Its Appropriateness for Software Development. In B. Fitzgerald, K.
Conboy, K. Power, R. Valerdi, L. Morgan, & K.-J. Stol (Eds.), Lean Enterprise Software and Systems.
Springer.
Lohan, G., Conboy, K., & Lang, M. (2010). Beyond Budgeting and Agile Software Development:
A Conceptual Framework for the Performance Management of Agile Software Development Teams.
International Conference on Information Systems (ICIS).
Lorain, M.-A. (2010). Should Rolling Forecasts Replace Budgets in Uncertain Environments? In M.J.
Epstein, J.-F. Manzoni and A. Davila (Eds), Performance Measurement and Management Control:
Innovative Concepts and Practices (Vol. 20, pp. 177–208). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Mandić, V., Oivo, M., Rodríguez, P., Kuvaja, P., Kaikkonen, H., & Turhan, B. (2010). What Is Flowing
in Lean Software Development? Lean Enterprise Software and Systems (pp. 81–105). Springer.
Marnewick, C., & Langerman, J. (2018). Agile Maturity: The First Step to Information Technology
Project Success. In G. Silvius & G. Karayaz (Eds), Developing Organizational Maturity for Effective
Project Management (pp. 233–252). IGI Global.
Marnewick, C., & Marnewick, A. L. (2019). Insights into Managing Project Teams for Industry 4.0.
In H. B. Bolat & G. T. Temur (Eds), Agile Approaches for Successfully Managing and Executing
Projects in the Fourth Industrial Revolution (pp. 99–118). IGI Global.
Matějka, M., Merchant, K. A., & O’Grady, W. (2021). An Empirical Investigation of Beyond Budgeting
Practices. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 33(2), 167–189.
Mitchell, M. (2005). Beyond Budgeting: Case Studies in North American Financial Services. Journal of
Performance Management, 18(1), 3–15.
Neely, A., Bourne, M., & Adams, C. (2003). Better Budgeting or Beyond Budgeting? Measuring
Business Excellence, 7(3), 22–28.
Nguyen, D. H., Weigel, C., & Hiebl, M. R. W. (2018). Beyond Budgeting: Review and Research
Agenda. Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change, 14(3), 314–337.
O’Grady, W., Akroyd, C., & Scott, I. (2017). Beyond Budgeting: Distinguishing Modes of Adaptive
Performance Management. In Advances in Management Accounting (Vol. 29, pp. 33–53). Emerald
Group Publishing Limited.
Østergren, K., & Stensaker, I. (2011). Management Control without Budgets: A Field Study of ‘Beyond
Budgeting’ in Practice. European Accounting Review, 20(1), 149–181.
Poppendieck, M., & Cusumano, M. A. (2012). Lean Software Development: A Tutorial. IEEE Software,
29(5), 26–32.
Project Management Institute. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK® Guide) (6th ed.). Project Management Institute.
Réka, C. I., Ştefan, P., & Daniel, C. V. (2014). Traditional Budgeting versus Beyond Budgeting:
A Literature Review. Annals of the University of Oradea, Economic Science Series, 23(1), 573–581.
Rickards, R. C. (2006). Beyond Budgeting: Boon or Boondoggle. Investment Management and Financial
Innovations, 3(2), 62–76.
Sahota, M., Bogsnes, B., Nyfjord, J., Hesselberg, J., & Drugovic, A. (2014). Beyond Budgeting:
A Proven Governance System Compatible with Agile Culture. https://www.agilealliance.org/wp
-content/uploads/2016/02/BeyondBudgetingAgileWhitePaper_2014.pdf
Sandalgaard, N. (2012). Uncertainty and Budgets: An Empirical Investigation. Baltic Journal of
Management, 7(4), 397–415.
Sandalgaard, N., & Nikolaj Bukh, P. (2014). Beyond Budgeting and Change: A Case Study. Journal of
Accounting & Organizational Change, 10(3), 409–423.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research Methods for Business Students (7th ed.).
Pearson Education.
Sirkiä, R., & Laanti, M. (2015). Adaptive Finance and Control: Combining Lean, Agile, and Beyond
Budgeting for Financial and Organizational Flexibility. 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference
on System Sciences.
Swaminathan, B., & Jain, K. (2012). Implementing the Lean Concepts of Continuous Improvement and
Flow on an Agile Software Development Project: An Industrial Case Study. Agile India.
Tian, J., Ni, Q. L., Hao, Q., & Wu, D. (2015). The Application of the Beyond Budgeting to Organisations:
An Example of Application of Borealis Company. Modern Management Science & Engineering, 3(1),
65–75.
Turetken, O., Stojanov, I., & Trienekens, J. J. M. (2017). Assessing the Adoption Level of Scaled Agile
Development: A Maturity Model for Scaled Agile Framework. Journal of Software: Evolution and
Process, 29(6), 1–18.
Valuckas, D. (2019). Budgeting Reconsidered: Exploring Change Initiative in a Bank. Journal of
Accounting & Organizational Change, 15(1), 100–126.
Vierlboeck, M., Gövert, K., Trauer, J., & Lindemann, U. (2019). Budgeting for Agile Product
Development. Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design,
1(1), 2169–2178.
Wallander, J. (1999). Budgeting: An Unnecessary Evil. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 15(4),
405–421.
Yang, F., Li, X., Zhu, Y., Li, Y., & Wu, C. (2017). Job Burnout of Construction Project Managers in
China: A Cross-Sectional Analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 35(7), 1272–1287.
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (6th ed.). Sage.
Zika-Viktorsson, A., Sundström, P., & Engwall, M. (2006). Project Overload: An Exploratory Study
of Work and Management in Multi-Project Settings. International Journal of Project Management,
24(5), 385–394.
15. Cross-cultural integration in the next practices
of project management: a qualitative study
Dhruv Pratap Singh and Mahesh S. Raisinghani
INTRODUCTION
Global projects and teams that cut across different cultures are being increasingly adopted by
MNCs (multinational companies) to succeed in today’s competitive economy (Neeley, 2015).
Concurrently, the component of culture for a global workforce has not been studied much in
the management and project management literature (Connaughton & Shuffler, 2007; Cramton
& Hinds, 2014; Gibson, Huang, Kirkman, & Shapiro, 2014; Hinds, Liu, & Lyon, 2011). This
shortcoming is conspicuous given that “projects are entering an era of increased international-
ization” (Konanahalli et al., 2014) in which one of the key challenges to the success of global
projects and teams concerns the cultural differences that exist among members (Lee-Kelley
& Sankey, 2008). Dinsmore argued in 1998 that to be triumphant, organizations will have
to alter their industry methods from being hierarchical-operative groups to becoming agile,
entrepreneurial-enterprises comprising multiple projects portfolios that are steady and resil-
ient. This requires an agile, more economical, more reliable mode of performing business
consolidated in a project management culture. Judgev (2010) asserted that there is a prominent
link between the project management structure, the culture of the organization, and the success
of the project. The main objective of our study is to identify how best practices and cultural
variables moderate or directly relate to the project outcomes. These variables will be iterated
and augmented throughout the research to finally propose a theory that will help answer the
burning arguments related to culture’s importance, relevance, and impact on project success.
KEY TERMINOLOGIES
The sixth edition of the PMBoK Guide explains the project as a temporary endeavor (that
means it has a definite beginning and an end), to create a unique product, or unique service, or
some unique results (PMBOK, 2017). The sixth edition of the PMBoK Guide further explains
project management as follows: “Project management is the application of 5 project manage-
ment process groups (initiation, planning, execution, monitoring and controlling, and closing),
10 areas of knowledge (integration, scope, schedule, cost, quality, resources, communications,
risks, procurement, and stakeholder), 49 processes, and 1000+ITTOs (inputs, tools and tech-
niques, outputs), plus the ability to tailor and implement these knowledge, skills, tools, and
techniques to meet the requirements of the project.” (PMBOK, 2017).
214
Cross-cultural integration in the next practices of project management 215
A project is a complex, nonroutine, onetime effort limited by time, budget, resource, and
specifications (Gray & Larson, 2008). The differentiating characteristics of projects from
routine, repetitive daily work/operations are:
● A defined life span
● A well-defined objective
● Typically involves people from several disciplines
● A project life cycle
● Specific time, costs, and performance requirements.
The field of project management is both an art and a science. One can teach anyone a lot of
the science, but the art of project management takes interest, motivation, and experience to
master. Another definition of project management comes from the Association for Project
Management (APM), which is an equivalent organization to PMI based in the United
Kingdom. According to APM, project management is the application of processes, methods,
skills, knowledge, and experience to achieve specific project objectives according to the
project acceptance criteria within agreed parameters. Project management has final deliv-
erables that are constrained to a finite timescale and budget. (See https://www.apm.org.uk/
resources/what-is-project-management.)
Both PMI and APM describe project management as a field, with reference to a set of
skills. Those skills often come from other fields, often referred to as reference disciplines. For
example, strategic management is a field of knowledge that is a sub-domain of management in
general (not necessarily limited to project management). Leadership is another discipline that
is not uniquely used in project management. Project management methodology, as described
by Ward (2000), is a highly detailed description of the procedures to be followed in a project
life cycle. This methodology often includes forms, charts, checklists, and templates to ensure
structure and consistency.
However, in general, project managers use a set of tools and techniques that are commonly
associated with project management such as WBS, Gantt charts, schedule network diagrams,
earned value analysis, and so forth. Project management courses often focus on teaching
project managers how to master creating and using these tools and techniques. In general,
project management is not geared toward optimizing a single person’s goals ahead of the
project’s goals. Instead, project management focuses on allies working together to complete
a project. For this alliance to work there has to be a degree of trust, cooperation, and honesty.
Project outcomes: In this study, by project outcomes we refer to project success or project
failure.
Project success: A project is considered to be a success if the project management ensures
the completion of the project within agreed-upon time, within the provided resources and
budget, and most importantly should meet the requirements of the customer (Bodicha, 2015).
The sixth edition of PMBoK regularly mentions project success in its chapters. However, it
doesn’t define project success; rather, it asserts that the project charter should outline the crite-
ria of success and goals of the project. Setting up the criteria of success (critical success factors,
CSFs) during the planning procedure, and accordingly, failure if not achieved, is extensively
supported in the literature. In their research, Lim and Mohamed (1999) proposed that project
success needs to be viewed from the prospects of different types of stakeholders (such as the
manager of the project, members of the team, senior management, functional teams, CEO,
directors, suppliers, vendors, customers, and other third parties). They identified two aspects:
a macro aspect, which sums up all stakeholders and a micro aspect, which reflects only those
stakeholders who have direct involvement with the completion of the project. Ramos and
Mota (2015) also proposed that these different stakeholders have a different attitude and
viewpoint on the success of the project. For better understanding, let us take the example from
Thomsett’s findings (Thomsett, 2002). The Sydney Opera House costed 16 times more than its
original planned cost and took four times more time than originally planned. The same opera
house is now regarded as a success for the country, and concurrently a failure from the per-
spective of project management. Another example from a 2001 study by Cooke-Davies is the
project of the Millennium Dome located in London, which was delivered within the planned
time and budget. However, many people in Britain viewed it as a failure as it did not produce
the wonder and allurement it was expected to (Cooke-Davies, 2002).
Project failure: According to Pinto and Mantel’s study of 1990, the notion of failure in
the project is vague. However, they also intimated there are a few shared perspectives that
indicate some features are heavily linked to anticipated failure in the project (Pinto & Mantel,
1990). These shared perspectives were categorized as internal and external processes. The
internal processes are composed of the completion of the project within agreed-upon scope,
cost, and time; moreover, the external processes are effective measures of the project’s client
and/or eclectic external pressures. Premature closure or termination of the project can also be
regarded as a project that failed.
Pinto and Kharbanda’s study in 1996 mentions common constituents that are linked with
project failure such as the deficiency of studies to check the feasibility of the project, neglect-
ing the environment of the project, higher supervision of project managers and project teams,
the absence of post-project evaluations to document lessons learned, placing political desires
over the goals of the project, and much more (Pinto & Kharbanda, 1996). As of 2010, Judgev
also states one of the prime reasons for the failure of the project. It is that the culture of the
organization may not support the project (Judgev, 2010).
“Culture in information systems” has at least four meanings: national cultures, corporate
and organizational culture, Internet culture, and cultural industries (Koster et al., 2022).
National culture refers to the effect that national, regional, or ethnic cultures may have on
the use of information systems, especially online behavior on social media or buying behavior
on e-commerce sites. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) have provided the
infrastructure for multinational businesses, created new cultural connections irrespective of
geographic boundaries and distances, and allowed an increasingly mobile global population to
be connected and interconnected.
“Corporate or organizational culture” refers to the values and beliefs within organizations
and how they impact adoption and use of information systems. Turning this around, studies
in this area could explore how the adoption of new enterprise systems changes organizational
culture. In a less normative meaning, it may also refer to the social capital or the symbolic
human capital issues that impact use and investments on technology within companies.
Organizational culture is described as the collection of morals, ethics, faiths, and behavioral
patterns that supervise how the organization’s members complete the work. Several organiza-
tional determinants were associated with the effectiveness of the team. Previous research by
Kotter and Heskett (1992) and Wagner and Spencer (1996) found that businesses that stress
fundamental managerial segments, such as clients, stakeholders, workers, and leadership,
exceed in performance compared with those that don’t consider cultural characteristics. As per
the studies by Asbury (1989) and Schein (2004), any organization’s culture in its fundamental
state relates to an arrangement of shared morals, ethics, faiths, and behavioral patterns that
unite everyone in the frame together.
Internet culture is both represented and embodied by the millennial and digital native
generations and how they leverage and interact with Internet and mobile resources differently
from other generations, and what impacts this may bring to organizations that wish to attract
the digital workforce.
Finally, “cultural industries” refers to the study of new industries that are enabled by
information systems and technology to promote the diffusion of cultural artifacts and digital
products worldwide, pop culture musing being an example. In the context of this study that is
in the domain of project management, we focus on national culture and organization culture.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND SYNTHESIS
According to a study in 2005 by Willard, the determinants for the success of the project
management are schedule compliance, budget compliance, the accuracy of the project (spec-
ifications and quality requirements are met), changing requests, and, if applicable, safety as
well. Moreover, these determinants incorporate benefit realization to the organization and
the client, satisfaction and engagement of stakeholders, fulfillment of the requirements for
the user, answering the puzzles related to the project, improvement, methods, and systems
(Willard, 2005).
There is an indication through the literature of project management by Leintz and Rea and
Cleland, which indicates that project culture is important to project success (Leintz & Rea,
1999; Cleland, 1999). In 1993, Hobbs and Ménard defined project management as a way of
practicing beliefs and behavior patterns that can be related to as a project culture.
A study conducted by Judgev (2010) explained the connection among organization’s culture
and success of the project utilizing a metaphor of a riverboat in which culture is perceived
as the river; the project is imagined as the boat. A conductive organizational culture to com-
plete the project is considered as rowing downstream. These kinds of organization have an
environment where collaboration and different functional expertise work together normally,
there might be some conflicts but they are acknowledged and taken care of, and perfection is
the operator. Meanwhile, the environment where project management is not effective is like
rowing upstream. Almost all the things demand added labor, an extended time period, and
extra vigilance. Within this kind of organization collaboration would be dissuaded, conflict
would be prevailing or neglected, uncertainty is bypassed, and projects would encounter
numerous obstructions.
Rees-Caldwell and Pinnington (2013) surveyed the influence of the culture of a nation on
project management among Arab and British cultures and discovered notable distinctions in
scheduling, modification, assimilation, and interaction variables. They inferred that the culture
of a nation shaped how a project manager performs the planning of the project (Wang, Jiang,
& Pretorius, 2016). Research by Power et al. in 2010, between Asia and Western nations,
illustrated the influence of the culture of the nation and recommended the consequence of the
cultural component of individualism in ascertaining plant-level speculation and outcomes in
Asian markets (Power, Schoenherr, & Samson, 2010). In 2014, Mueller reviewed the cultural
precursors of sharing knowledge among several teams in projects and observed augmented
effects of schedule, project structure, adjustment, and openness relating to the process con-
cerning sharing of knowledge (Mueller, 2014).
In 1993 Triandis and Hofstede presented the fundamental grounds of knowledge based on
their research regarding usual cultural distinctions that concentrated on the values related to
work (Triandis & Hofstede, 1993).
Hofstede’s most popular model was in 2010, which is reaped from variations
in cultures of different nations, incorporates dimensions of power-distance (PDI),
individualism-collectivism (INV), masculinity-femininity (MAS), uncertainty-avoidance
(UAI), short-long-term-orientation (LTO), and indulgence-restraint (IND) (Hofstede,
Hofstede, & Minkov, 2010).
In a thorough investigation of the literature by Henrie and Sousa-Poza in 2005 we can
argue that culture does influence the project outcome. In their investigation, they proposed
that culture might be a vital contributor to the failure of the project. Moreover, they argued
that culture is significantly not broadly summarized in the literature; moreover, there were not
many efforts to scale it (Henrie & Sousa-Poza, 2005).
In 2008, Ajmal and Koskinen additionally reasoned that the culture of the organization can
be associated with the failure of several projects and that a notable responsibility of the project
manager is to consolidate the culture of the organization and cultures of the profession into one
project culture (Ajmal & Koskinen, 2008).
In spite of the fact that culture has been investigated at various levels concerning the culture
of the nation, culture of the business, and culture of the organization, which is investigated
extensively, there is nevertheless not any understanding of an authentic description of the
term. Most of the descriptions of culture of the organization include components concerning
fundamental opinions (Schein, 1992). In a study by Smircich (2017), the deviation of defini-
tions was indicated. Smircich showed that the concept of the culture of the organization has
certainly originated from anthropology. Consequently, there is no uniformity concerning the
definition of culture in terms of anthropology; it is also expected that there may be numerous
descriptions and purposes in the area of studies related to the organization. According to the
findings of Hofstede et al. in 2010, values are described as the individual’s choices in issues
related to their job and life (Hofstede et al., 2010). However, practices are described as detailed
opinions by the representative of perspectives of the professional atmosphere or real work
scenarios. This information makes culture more easily understandable. This is advantageous
to progress culture from the aspect of practices of the organization because practices are easily
noticeable and assessable and can thus be linked with organizations and related directly to the
person and the performance of the organization (Christensen & Gordon, 1999).
The 2005 study by Ives from a sequence of conversations attended with managers reasoned
that sufficient sponsoring and governance, defined scope and CSFs, project structure and
authorization, resource availability and availability of funding, and the context of the organi-
zation were significant constituents for the success of the project (Ives, 2005).
In 2007, Suda recommended that leaders or managers of the project have numerous pos-
sibilities to build and develop a project culture in useful forms, barring that the designed
culture needs to be in alliance with the principal culture that is the organization’s culture
(Suda, 2007). This is an essential component of the development of the team for any projects
and a wholesome environment for the team and setting the staging processes to assure the
success of the project. The study explains that teams of the project and companies have unique
characters, value regularities, and a particular way that they will work things up in order to
achieve success. The better a leader or manager of the project knows the notion of culture, the
extra efficient she or he will become in winning support from the project team and other stake-
holders and supervising the project through the countless puzzles of the organization. Leaders
or managers of the project regularly deal with numerous distinct cultures concurrently. They
usually operate inside the central culture of the company, including the subcultures of distinct
divisions or operating with external clients who have their own kernel culture. Knowing and
addressing the semantics of culture is important for the success of the project. Efficiently
interacting with the enclosing culture can better evolve layouts, policies that are more suitable
and acknowledged and noble, by neglecting practices that meddle with the beliefs and values
of the client’s organization.
Based on BMG Research’s (2014) findings, determinants concerning the success of the
project incorporate communication, collaboration, coordination, coherence, conflicts, climate,
abundancy, and performance of the team. These determinants influence the project’s success-
ful completion in multiple areas. The skills and competence of the project team furthermore
contribute to the success of the project.
Fellows and Liu (2016) maintain that culture provides a context and set of cues within
which project members make sense of one another and their mutual endeavors. From the
perspective of global teams, Messner in 2015 developed a measure of intercultural com-
munication effectiveness in which he explored how effective individuals are applying their
intercultural competencies in actual intercultural interactions. The results showed promise for
identifying shortcomings in relevant skills; e.g., the communication needed for international
teamwork (Messner, 2015).
In 1993, Hofstede asserted with his research that the culture of the nation can be described
as the values and faith practices supported by a community of people, which are acquired at
the very beginning of one’s life, and are very challenging to alter (Triandis & Hofstede, 1993).
Shore asserted with his research in 2008 that the culture of the organization evolves inside
the circumstances of the culture of the nation and executive leadership (Shore, 2008). In 1993,
Hofstede mentioned that it can be described as the disseminated perspicacity of professional
practices of the organization inside units of the organization (Triandis & Hofstede, 1993).
The 2006 study by Turner proposed that as the executive leadership molds the organiza-
tion’s culture, leadership in the project molds the culture of the project (Turner, 2006).
Finally, in the 2008 study, Shore added that the culture of the project is the disseminated
perspicacity of the work practices of the project, guided by both the project leader/manager
and the culture of the organization (Shore, 2008). It is described as how project planning,
execution, and control are applied.
This research project adopted a qualitative approach to answer the research question: Should
we include culture integration in the best practices of project management? For this purpose,
a protocol for semi-structured interviews was drafted (see Appendix 15A.1). Cooper and
Schindler (2011) asserted that the interviews render invaluable data gathering, conceding for
explanation and extension of follow-ups, inquests, and responses throughout the interview,
consequently enhancing the intrinsic quality of the data/information collected.
In the initial phase of the project, LinkedIn messages, phone calls, WhatsApp messages,
e-meets at virtual career fairs, virtual parks, and email contact with potential interviewees
validated their interest to participate in the research.
The interview protocol was framed and termed as a “virtual coffee chat session” to enable
more interactive participation. Calendly was used as an automated meeting scheduling tool
and for collecting demographic information. Calendly eased the meeting scheduling process,
and this way the participants could focus more on the rich conversations and discussions.
Appendix 15A.2 explains the step-by-step guide to scheduling a virtual coffee chat.
As per the interview protocol annexed in Appendix 15A.1, the participants were asked
for their consent to record the conversation and use it for research purposes. After seeking
their consent, the semi-structured questionnaire was discussed. Around 30 potential partici-
pants were contacted, out of which 18 were able to schedule a meeting, and two participants
responded in .docx format due to their busy schedule and time restraints. So, in total, the
sample size is 20. While 20 may seem like a diminutive sample, according to Mason (2010),
in qualitative research, the size of the sample is irrelevant because the interpretation of the
research is based on the quality of data (Mason, 2010). The interview lasted from around 20
minutes to 155 minutes, making an average of one hour. Participant demographics are dis-
played in Tables 15.1 and 15.2.
Table 15.1 Summary of participant demographics
Count of subject
Age, work location, origin, education level Female Male Grand Total
18–24 years old 3 3 6
Colombia 1 1
Colombia 1 1
Bachelor’s degree (BA, BS, BEng, etc.) 1 1
Italy 1 1
Romania 1 1
High school 1 1
Mexico 1 1
Mexico 1 1
High school 1 1
UK 1 1
United Kingdom 1 1
A level (college/6th form) 1 1
USA 1 1
United States 1 1
Virtual offices 1 1
United States 1 1
25–34 years old 4 2 6
Belgium 1 1
France 1 1
Master’s degree (MA, MS, MEng, etc.) 1 1
Germany 1 1
India 1 1
Count of subject
Portugal 1 1
Brazil 1 1
UK 1 1
United Kingdom 1 1
Virtual offices 1 1 2
Botswana 1 1
Ghana 1 1
35–44 years old 1 2 3
France 1 1
Italy 1 1
India 1 1
India 1 1
Latvia 1 1
Latvia 1 1
45–54 years old 1 2 3
Canada 1 1
Canada 1 1
High school 1 1
UK 1 1
South Africa 1 1
USA 1 1
United Kingdom 1 1
Over 55 1 1 2
France 1 1
France 1 1
India 1 1
India 1 1
PhD 1 1
Grand total 10 10 20
Table 15.2 Details of participant demographics
Count of subject Company size

Work experience 0–500 500–5k 5k–10k Over 10k Grand total
0–2 yrs 5 1 1 1 8
Capital markets 1 1
Coaching 5 5
Management consulting 1 1
Marketing 1 1
Count of subject Company size

3–5 yrs 1 1
Fintech 1 1
6–10 yrs 2 2
Engineering and research 1 1
Talent acquisition officer 1 1
11–15 yrs 1 2 1 4
Aerospace industry 1 1
Agile coach 1 1
Project management 1 1 2
26–30 yrs 2 2
Capital markets 1 1
Financial services 1 1
31–40 yrs 1 1
Capital markets 1 1
41–50 yrs 1 1 2
Academician 1 1
Program management 1 1
Grand total 8 4 1 7 20
Data Analysis and Visualization
After collecting the data, computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software called ATLAS.
ti 9 was used to analyze the data. The recorded videos were directly coded using the software.
However, in 4 out of 18 recordings, the transcribed document was used to generate codes.
A total of 383 quotations and 93 codes were recorded. These codes and quotations were then
visualized using linkage-network diagrams.
Multicultural delights
See Figure 15.1 on the companion website.
Multicultural challenges
In order to understand the pain points of the participants, things they are struggling with, or
what they like the least about working in projects involving multicultural environment, link-
ages were established among the following codes:
● Cultural influence on level of informality
● Cultural influence on perceived deadlines
● Cultural influence on perceived productivity
● Cultural influence on perceived work ethics
● Cultural prejudice
● Don’t fit in any culture
● Language and accent barriers
● Communication challenges

Influence of project culture

Influence of leadership
Influence of project management best practices

Proven and recommended practices of participants

Notable Anecdotes
There were a dozen notable anecdotes. One example may help the reader ascertain the gravity
of the issue. It pertained to a company culture where the person conveying the bad news is the
one perceived as the antagonist. This could lead to a corporate culture where nobody wants to
be the harbinger of bad news.
IMPLICATIONS FOR THEORY AND PRACTICE
This chapter stands at the intersection of research and practice, and presents a structured,
logical, and systematic organization of ideas on the various facets of national and organization
culture in project management, and their impact on project performance.
Project performance aims to improve project management success (faster, better, cheaper),
which consequently results in project success (deliverables meeting client goals such as cost,
time, quality, and value). Two main PM standards (PMI and IPMA) assign importance to
processes and procedures to manage and improve project performance. For our chapter, we
have considered the impact of cultural integration in the project management knowledge areas,
project phases and processes, project teams, resources, scope, cost, time, quality assurance,
conflicts, changes, and risk, as they all impact project performance.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
As we adjust to the new normal and make a business model shift during the Covid-19 pan-
demic, it is important to reflect on where is value now and next for creating the right ecosystem.
In learning from the past and charting the future of project management from a cross-cultural
context, the key question is: What are the best and/or next practices in building a collaborative
enterprise using the project management principles, technologies, tools, and techniques in the
age of digital convergence?
Cultural aspects have been identified as a key determinant for project success, yet more
research is needed to understand the complexities underlying cultural and value-related
aspects. The Covid-19 pandemic has furthermore pushed this topic to the forefront of scholarly
interest, showcasing how culture may impede or support rapid digital innovation efforts (e.g.,
remote work, digital business models, etc.). For example, organizations with different cul-
tural bases have shown markedly different implementations of remote work, from extending
a culture of trust and self-governance to using remote-work equipment in order to oversee their
employees in their home-office environment (Limaj & Obwegeser, 2022).
Digital technologies are changing the scale, scope, and speed at which changes occur in the
workplace. These technologies enable new opportunities for connectivity and collaboration,
but also alter value creation paths and pose project management challenges such as how to
implement new technologies to change or extend traditional business practices, logics, and
models. Emerging technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT) and artificial intelligence/
machine learning yield a wide range of new applications and project management research
issues from a cross-cultural perspective. Some of these challenges pertaining to organiza-
tion and/or project culture can severely undermine the various resources of organizations.
Understanding the full potential of these technological innovations and trends requires that
we produce technical solutions and address corresponding changes in how we manage them.
The rapid normalization of digital technologies in some industries has even threatened the
survival of long-standing organizations that were unable to manage the changes required
to compete. Thus, cross-cultural project management from various theoretical perspectives
and methodological approaches becomes more crucial for organizational success in this new
hyper-competitive marketplace than ever.
Figure 15.11 illustrates some future research directions. In addition, the impact of culture
in project management within online communities can be explored. Online communities
group people who are distributed across the globe but share interests, professional or personal
goals, rituals, and tacit or explicit policies, and interact primarily through computer-mediated
communication tools. While cross-cultural studies may shed some light on the behavior of
these distributed communities, geographical boundaries tend to fade in online communities,
even when the communities start within a specific location. While studying behaviors across
national boundaries or groupings is a good starting point, more in-depth analyses of self,
groups, social, and professional identity can supplement the development of a unique “culture”
of an online community. Regardless of the unit of analysis, researchers are increasingly aware
that users’ identities – and their internalization of cultural meaning – affect both their adoption
and use of technology (Osatuyi & Passerini, 2022).
CONCLUSION
A thorough analysis of all the 93 codes and 383 quotations answers the research question. The
straightforward answer is yes, culture management should be included in the best practices
of project management (according to 90% of participants). However, while extinguishing the

burning question, this research has also ignited some more research questions, for instance:
● Should cultural management be integrated as a separate knowledge area in the PMBoK? Or
as an add-on topic under the qualities of a project manager?
● Is cultural integration hitting the root cause? Or is there more to it? Like diversity and
inclusion?
As far as the research objectives are concerned, they have been met, but thanks to the explora-
tory nature of this research, there is scope for more exploration. The study identified and con-
firmed the gap in the best practices project management and ignited a basis to introduce either
a new chapter or topic in the PMBoK Guide next edition as Project Culture Management. It
has always been debatable whether cultural integration is a necessity to project management
or just another nuisance. This research answers such questions.
This will help:
● Practitioners augment the project performance and decrease the risk of project failure due
to negligence of cultural intelligence, management, and integration.
● Academicians see a new dimension and work on solutions to better integrate cultural
management.
● Organizations achieve better project performance through effective cultural integration.
NOTE
Companion website material is available at https://www.e-elgar.com/resourcefiles/anantatmula
REFERENCES
Ajmal, M. M., & Koskinen, K. U. (2008). Knowledge transfer in project-based organizations: An organ-
izational culture perspective. Project Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20031
Asbury, S. (1989). The winning way. J. Ball Publishers.
BMG Research. (2014). Factors in project success. The Association for Project Management (APM).
https://www.apm.org.uk/media/1264/factors-in-project-success.pdf
Bodicha, H. H. (2015). How to measure the effect of project risk management process on the success
of construction projects: A critical literature review. The International Journal of Business &
Management, 3(12), 99–112.
Christensen, E. W., & Gordon, G. G. (1999). An exploration of industry, culture and revenue growth.
Organization Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840699203002
Cleland, D. I. (1999). Project management: Strategic design and implementation. McGraw-Hill.
Connaughton, S. L., & Shuffler, M. (2007). Multinational and multicultural distributed teams: A review
and future agenda. Small Group Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/1046496407301970
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The “real” success factors on projects. International Journal of Project
Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263–7863(01)00067–9
Cooper, D. R., & Schindler, P. S. (2011). Business research methods. McGraw Hill.
Cramton, C. D., & Hinds, P. J. (2014). An embedded model of cultural adaptation in global teams.
Organization Science. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2013.0885
Dinsmore, P. C. (1998). Book review: Winning in business with enterprise project management.
Amacom Books, 31(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280003100208
Fellows, R., & Liu, A. M. M. (2002). Impact of behavioural compatibility on project procurement. In
Perspectives on culture in construction, CIB Report No., 275. CIB Publications.
Fellows, R., & Liu, A. M. M. (2016). Sensemaking in the cross-cultural contexts of projects. International
Gibson, C. B., Huang, L., Kirkman, B. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2014). Where global and virtual meet: The
value of examining the intersection of these elements in twenty-first-century teams. Annual Review of
Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych
-031413–091240
Gray, C. F., & Larson, E. W. (2008). Project management: The managerial process, 4th edition.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Henrie, M., & Sousa-Poza, A. (2005). Project management: A cultural literary review. Project
Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/875697280503600202
Hinds, P. J., Liu, L., & Lyon, J. (2011). Putting the global in global work: An intercultural lens on the
practice of cross-national collaboration. Academy of Management Annals. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19416520.2011.586108
Hobbs, B., & Ménard, P. M. (1993). Organizational choices for project management: The AMA hand-
book of project management. The AMA Handbook of Project Management. AMACOM Division of
American Management Association International.
Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind.
In Cultures and Organizations. McGraw Hill.
Ives, M. (2005). Identifying the contextual elements of project management within organizations
and their impact on project success. Project Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1177/
875697280503600105
Judgev, K. (2010). Project management: The managerial process. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371011076145
Konanahalli, A., O. Oyedele, L., Spillane, J., Coates, R., von Meding, J., & Ebohon, J. (2014). Cross-
cultural intelligence (CQ): Its impact on British expatriate adjustment on international construction
projects. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB
-10–2012–0062
Koster, A., Monod, E., & Passerini, K. (2022). Culture in information systems. Track Description for
SIG Culture, AMCIS.
Kotter, J. P., & Heskett, J. L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. Free Press.
Lee-Kelley, L., & Sankey, T. (2008). Global virtual teams for value creation and project success: A case
study. International Journal of Project Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.08.010
Leintz, B. P., & Rea K. P. (1999). Breakthrough technology management. Academic Press.
Lim, C. S., & Mohamed, M. Z. (1999). Criteria of project success: An exploratory re-examination.
International Journal of Project Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263–7863(98)00040–4
Limaj, E., & Obwegeser, N. (2022). Cultural and value related aspects in information systems. Mini-track
description for SIG CCRIS-Global, International, and Cross-Cultural Research in Information
Systems, AMCIS.
Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. Forum
Qualitative Sozialforschung. https://doi.org/10.17169/fqs-11.3.1428
Messner, W. (2015). Measuring existent intercultural effectiveness in global teams. International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-05–2014–0044
Mueller, J. (2014). A specific knowledge culture: Cultural antecedents for knowledge sharing between
project teams. European Management Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2013.05.006
Neeley, T. (2015). Global teams that work. Harvard Business Review (October).
Osatuyi, B., & Passerini, K. (2022). Culture in online communities. Mini-track description for SIG
Culture, AMCIS.
Pinto, J. K., & Kharbanda, O. P. (1996). How to fail in project management (without really trying).
Business Horizons. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0007–6813(96)90051–8
Pinto, J. K., & Mantel, S. J. (1990). The causes of project failure. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management. https://doi.org/10.1109/17.62322
PMBOK. (2017). PMBOK guide, 6th edition. Project Management Institute.
Power, D., Schoenherr, T., & Samson, D. (2010). The cultural characteristic of individualism/collectiv-
ism: A comparative study of implications for investment in operations between emerging Asian and
industrialized Western countries. Journal of Operations Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom
.2009.11.002
Ramos, P. A., & de Miranda Mota, C. M. (2015). Exploratory study regarding how cultural perspectives
can influence the perceptions of project success in Brazilian companies. Producao. https://doi.org/10
.1590/0103–6513.173114
Rees-Caldwell, K., & Pinnington, A. H. (2013). National culture differences in project management:
Comparing British and Arab project managers’ perceptions of different planning areas. International
Journal of Project Management. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.04.003
Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass.
Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational culture and leadership. Jossey-Bass. 18th BledCom International
Public Relations Research Symposium.
Shore, B. (2008). Systematic biases and culture in project failures. Project Management Journal. https://
doi.org/10.1002/pmj.20082
Smircich, L. (2017). Concepts of culture and organizational analysis. In The Anthropology of
Organisations. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315241371–20
Suda, L. (2007). Linking strategy, leadership and organization culture for project success. PM World
Today, IX(ix), 1–11.
Thomsett, R. (2002). Radical project management. Prentice Hall Professional.
Triandis, H. C., & Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. Administrative
Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393257
Turner, J. R. (2006). Choosing appropriate project managers: Matching their leadership style to the type
of project. Project Management Journal. https://www.pmi.org/learning/academic-research/choosing
-appropriate-project-managers-matching-their-leadership-style-to-the-type-of-project
Wagner, D. B., & Spencer, J. (1996). The role of surveys in transforming culture: Data, knowledge, and
action. In Organizational Surveys: Tools for Assessment and Change. Wiley.
Wang, N., Jiang, D., & Pretorius, L. (2016). Conflict-resolving behavior of project managers in interna-
tional projects: A culture-based comparative study. Technology in Society. https://doi.org/10.1016/j
.techsoc.2016.07.004
Ward, L. R. (2000). Project management terms: A working glossary (PMBOK Guide), 2nd edition.
Project Management Institute.
Willard, B. K. (2005). Project success: Looking outside traditional project metrics. Project Management
Wisdom. Retrieved from http://www.pmforum.org/library/papers/2006/Proj_Mgmt_Metrics.pdf
APPENDIX 15A.1 CODES
Table 15A.1 Codes
Code Grounded Density Code groups

Acquiring vs. applying knowledge 10 0 Contradictory
Adaptable to change 21 1 Proven and recommended practices
Advanced planning 2 0
Age diversity 4 1 Diversity
Agile mindset builds culture 1 0 Add-on exploration
Agile mindset builds people skills 1 0 Add-on exploration
Agile vs. classical project management 1 0 Contradictory
Agreed-upon communication channel 9 0 Communication
Bias for same culture teams 2 0 Team building
Contradictory
Build trust by giving autonomy 13 0 Team building
Build trust by giving credit 3 0 Team building
Build trust to get the job done 27 0 Team building
Building personal connection 38 0 Team building
Charismatic leadership 7 0 Leadership
Clarifying and confirming 11 1 Proven and recommended practices
Collaborating with different cultures 26 1 Cultural delights
Communication challenge 17 1 Communication
Confronting failures/issues 29 1 Proven and recommended practices
Counseling and helping colleagues 8 1 Proven and recommended practices
Cultural diversity 12 2 Diversity
Cultural delights
Cultural influence on level of 11 1 Multicultural challenges
informality
Cultural influence on perceived 8 1 Multicultural challenges
deadlines
Cultural influence on perceived 1 1 Multicultural challenges
productivity
Cultural influence on perceived work ethics 13 1 Multicultural challenges
Cultural integration in best practices 1 0 Contradictory
Cultural intelligence 28 1 Cultural delights
Cultural prejudice 5 1 Multicultural challenges
Culture vs. people skills 21 0 Contradictory
Culture-based preference 1 1 Cultural delights
Defining national culture 6 0 National culture
Developing consensus 36 1 Proven and recommended practices
Different perspectives 18 1 Cultural delights
Diversity and inclusion 16 3 Diversity
Don’t fit in any culture 4 1 Contradictory
Multicultural challenges
Don’t micromanage the team 4 0 Team building
Don’t want to rock the apple cart 1 0 Add-on exploration
Education and training 21 1 Proven and recommended practices
Establishing common language 4 0 Communication
Extrinsic organizational culture 11 0 Organizational culture

Facilitating and moderating the 11 1 Proven and recommended practices
discussions
Further research possibilities 9 0
Gender discrimination 3 0 Multicultural challenges
Discrimination
Gender diversity 4 1 Diversity
Hofstede’s dimensions criticized 1 0 Add-on exploration
Hofstede’s dimensions recommended 1 0 Add-on exploration
Insignificance of project culture 3 0 Project culture
Insignificant influence of national culture 4 0 National culture
Interesting stories 11 0
Intrinsic organizational culture 13 0 Organizational culture
Language and accent barrier 10 2 Multicultural challenges
Leadership role 21 0 Leadership
Leading by example 6 0 Leadership
Learning from different cultures 25 1 Cultural delights
Linguistic discrimination 3 0 Multicultural challenges
Discrimination
Making tough decisions 6 1 Proven and recommended practices
Micromanage the team 2 0 Team building
Multicultural experience 4 1 Cultural delights
Multicultural challenges 27 7 Multicultural challenges
Multicultural delights 22 7 Cultural delights
National culture influence on 6 0 National culture
organizational culture Organizational culture
National labor regulations 12 0 National culture
Nation’s influence on best practices 1 0 National culture
Organizational hierarchy 9 0 Organizational culture
Organization’s influence on best 6 0 Organizational culture
practices
Overcoming storming stage 6 0 Add-on exploration
Pay or compensation discrimination 3 0 Multicultural challenges
Discrimination
Perceived impact by each individual 5 0
Personality influence on level of 1 0 Contradictory
informality
Personality-based preference 2 0 Contradictory
Project culture dependence on 4 0 Project culture
national culture National culture
Project culture dependence on 8 0 Project culture
organizational culture Organizational culture
Project culture dependence on project duration 4 0 Project culture
Project culture dependence on project manager 5 0 Project culture
Project management best practices 26 0
Proven and recommended practices of 19 12 Proven and recommended practices
participants
Racial discrimination 5 0 Multicultural challenges
Discrimination
Recognition by leaders 4 0 Leadership

Recommendation for working against time 5 0 Add-on exploration
zone
Respecting everyone and every culture 33 1 Proven and recommended practices
Retrospection and lessons learned 18 1 Proven and recommended practices
Self-organized teams 4 0 Organizational culture
Team building
Senior leadership influence on 20 0 Organizational culture
organizational culture Leadership
Shared leadership 3 0 Leadership
Sharing commonalities 10 1 Proven and recommended practices
Sharing the vision 9 1 Proven and recommended practices
Significance of culture 27 0
Significance of organizational culture 22 0 Organizational culture
Significance of project culture 22 0 Project culture
Significant influence of national 18 0 National culture
culture
Similar cultures influencing common language 2 0
Strong communication plan 15 0 Communication
Time zone difference 5 0 Add-on exploration
Tuckman’s stages of group 3 0 Add-on exploration
development
APPENDIX 15A.2 QUOTATIONS
An additional 383 quotations from the subjects of this study are available at: https://drive
.google.com/file/d/1vrTl12cEtLsFKTrSsd7hLdK8mTEALlzL/view?usp=sharing
16. Project management lessons learned: essential
safety features
Kam Jugdev
Based on personal experiences and candid conversations with practitioners, the conundrums
of why we fail to learn from our mistakes are both frustrating and intriguing. There are dif-
ferences between what is formally conveyed in a lessons-learned report versus what can be
shared in small group and one-to-one conversations. In this chapter, I am interested in exam-
ining how lessons learned are addressed in the Project Management Institute’s (PMI’s) 2021
standard – the Project Management Body of Knowledge Guide (PMBOK® Guide) – compared
to the more recent literature on lessons learned.
To begin, a road trip analogy is used in this introduction to frame the topic of project man-
agement lessons learned. The section that follows outlines the research question and explains
the first methodology used to conduct a content analysis of lessons-learned terms used in the
PMBOK® Guide. Thereafter, the second methodology is presented. This methodology was
based on Google Scholar searches using a set of key terms to assess how journal abstracts
addressed project management lessons learned. Then, the chapter presents a discussion lever-
aging the data-information-knowledge-wisdom pyramid (Rowley, 2007), and is followed by
a conclusion.
Do you recall your last road trip? Picture the passengers in the backseat as project team
members, clients, and other stakeholders. As the project manager, picture yourself driving
with the project sponsor directing/navigating the trip from the front passenger seat. Notice how
your perspective from the driver’s seat allowed you to use the rearview mirror and dashboard
features to safely see the road behind you. Recall that your passengers were able to look out
the windows and helped with directions. Remember that you had one windshield and multiple
rearview mirrors. Convex rearview mirrors are affixed with the warning that “objects in (the)
mirror are closer than they appear”. This safety feature is a good warning about how close
potential dangers may be.
Given the price of gas, some of you may have wanted to get from point A to point B inex-
pensively (cost). Or maybe you wanted to get somewhere faster (time). Perhaps you went on
this trip for a better experience (scope/quality) in terms of enjoying the excursion and roadside
stops you made in contrast to the last road trip which was the road trip from hell because…
[insert an explanation here]. Regardless of which criterion was most important to each pas-
senger (stakeholder), individuals will describe the success of the road trip project in various
subjective and objective ways.
Now think about what you would learn about the project by reading individual reports or
a group report on the trip. Compare this with what you would learn about the experience by
having a candid and objective discussion with everyone involved as they discuss what went
well, what did not go well, and what could be improved. In doing so, you will be able to appre-
ciate how reading a document (explicit knowledge, also known as know-what) conveys one
type of knowledge whereas the discussed learnings are more nuanced and insightful (involving
231
tacit knowledge, also known as know-how). When discussions involve experiential learnings
with probes and with everyone contributing to a topic, this is knowledge building.
The criteria of time, cost, and scope pertain to project performance success; project perfor-
mance relates to improving project management success. Success extends beyond the project
life cycle criteria of time, cost, and scope. Success depends on stakeholder perspectives and
efficiency and effectiveness metrics. Success has also been studied in the context of strategic
levels of the firm; i.e., program, portfolio, and firm levels. Success, then, is multidimensional
and contingency driven. Project management academics, practitioners, and professional
associations have underscored the importance of project and project management success for
decades.
The safety reminder on rearview mirrors is a good warning about how important it is to
learn from prior project experiences to avoid dangers on subsequent projects. These types
of look-backs are typically called lessons learned. Lessons learned are a process and not an
activity. Lessons learned involve sharing knowledge about “the good, the bad, and the ugly”
at regular project intervals. Preferably, the intent is to share experiential learnings to avoid
repeating costly mistakes. In practice, lessons learned tend to be rushed onetime activities,
completed as a requirement, and conducted superficially. The term “lessons learned” may
involve negative connotations due to prior experiences involving emotionally charged meet-
ings, raised voices, blame games, and shouting matches. The next section examines how
lessons learned are addressed in the PMBOK® Guide.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY PART 1: A CONTENT ANALYSIS

OF LESSONS-LEARNED TERMS IN THE GUIDE TO THE PROJECT
MANAGEMENT BODY OF KNOWLEDGE
As this research handbook is on project performance, the question explored is as follows:
Using content analysis (words and phrases), how does the 2021 PMBOK® Guide’s approach
to project lessons learned compare with a Google Scholar assessment of journal abstracts
from 2000 to 2021?
Since PMI is the premier global professional association offering standards and other publi-
cations, I began by reviewing the definitions in the 2021 PMBOK® Guide. Then, using the
term “lessons learned” and related synonyms along with words and phrases identified from the
definitions in the guide, I did a content analysis of the PMBOK® Guide. Unlike a systematic
content analysis methodology (either theoretically based, used to build a model, or describe
the phenomenon) (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005), the intent was to look for initial patterns and
relate them to the abstracts on lessons learned. As such, abridged integrated reviews are pre-
sented (Snyder, 2019).
Within the literature and in practice, other terms for lessons learned include after action
reports, audits, debriefings, postmortems, project reviews, and post-implementation evalua-
tions (Disterer, 2002). Often, the terms used in the lessons-learned context are industry spe-
cific. The section within the PMBOK® Guide (2021) that is most relevant to lessons learned
is on Models, Methods, and Artifacts. Frequently used terms relevant to lessons learned are
presented in Table 16.1.
Project management lessons learned 233
Table 16.1 Terms related to lessons learned as defined in the PMBOK® Guide
Key term Definition

Artifact A template, document, output, or project deliverable (p. 235)
Benefits management plan The documented explanation defining the processes for creating, maximizing, and sustaining the
benefits provided by a project or program (p. 236)
Business value The next quantifiable benefits derived from a business endeavor that may be tangible, intangible, or
both (p. 236)
Explicit knowledge Knowledge that can be codified using symbols such as words, numbers, and pictures (p. 240)
Knowledge A mixture of experience, values and beliefs, contextual information, intuition, and insight that people
use to make sense of new experiences and information (p. 242)
Lessons learned The knowledge gained during a project, which shows how project events were addressed or should
be addressed in the future, for the purpose of improving future performance (p. 242)
Lessons learned register A project document used to record knowledge gained during a project, phase, or iteration so that it
can be used to improve future performance for the team and the organization (p. 242)
Log A document used to record and describe or denote selected items identified during execution of
a process or activity. Usually used for the modifier, such as issue, change, or assumption (p. 242)
Register A written record of regular entries for evolving aspects of a project, such as risks, stakeholders, or
defects (p. 246)
Report A formal record or summary of information (p. 247)
Retrospective A regular occurring workshop in which participants explore their work and results in order to
improve both the process and product (p. 247)
Tacit knowledge Personal knowledge that can be difficult to articulate and share such as beliefs, experiences, and
insights (p. 251)
Phrases from the literature such as after action reports, debriefs, post-implementation evalua-
tions, and postmortem were not used in the guide. Throughout, the PMBOK® Guide used the
term “lessons learned” (as defined in Table 16.1) 23 times. The other references to lessons
learned mentioned knowledge from prior projects (p. 16); i.e., historical information (p. 149).
Lessons learned were described as positive outcomes of process adaptations (p. 46) or periodic
meetings used to identify and share knowledge (p. 180) and improve processes and efficiency
(p. 71); i.e., update project plans (p. 114), or help to improve team performance (p. 180).
Lessons learned helped with the risk review process, for example to identify threats (p. 127).
Although the guide referred to appreciative inquiry methods for lessons-learned meetings
(p. 135), appreciative inquiry was undefined. Appreciative inquiry is based on a four-stage
process of discovery, dream, design, and destiny and unlike traditional problem-solving,
which can involve negativity and criticism, appreciative inquiry involves asking questions to
bring out the best potential in people (Cooperrider & Whitney, 2000).
The term “register” (a documented record) was used 30 times and grouped with logs. The
term was used to describe the lessons learned, risk, and stakeholder registers (p. 185). For
example, the lessons-learned register recorded knowledge for future improvements (p. 185).
The term “register” was also used in the context of explicit and tacit knowledge (p. 77).
Although the terms “audit”, “database”, and “repository” were not defined in the guide, they
were discussed therein and referred to as either formal or informal (p. 148). The word “audit”
was used in 13 instances and discussed in terms of reviews (p. 48), quality assurance activ-
ities (p. 72), and types of audit, such as process, procurement (p. 79), and contracting audits
(p. 148). Databases (noted six times) were categorized under data assets, which spanned data-
bases, document libraries, metrics, data, and related prior project artifacts (p. 17). Reference
was also made to commercial databases; i.e., for estimating (p. 18). The term “repository”
(noted four times) was worded as a question: “Does the organization have a formal knowledge
management repository that a project team is required to use, and is it readily accessible?”
(p. 149). This was the only reference made to a requirement. The repository was also discussed
in the context of a risk register to record related outputs (p. 185).
Given that PMI has a vast reach, there is room for improvement. In assessing the PMBOK®
Guide, although the definition for lessons learned referred to knowledge gained during
a project, the guide only referred to lessons learned or retrospectives in discussing the last
stage of the six-stage life cycle labeled close (p. 47), even though the lifecycle stages were
startup, plan, development, test, deploy, and close. The word “register” was used the most (30
times) and it is a documented record or artifact. Although it was good to see that audits were
referred to in the context of a process, this was not consistent as the term was also used for
various activities. Readers may easily miss the point that the repository must be used, and this
begs the question of how important the requirement aspect is from PMI’s perspective. Related
to language, some terms in the guide were not defined and reflected unusual terminology,
such as appreciative inquiry, artifacts, database assets, evolving aspects, methods, models,
modifier, and symbols. As the guide is presented in a structured, systematic, and, dare I say,
dry manner, it was further unusual to read vocabulary from appreciative inquiry because
appreciative inquiry uses phrases such as positive potential, looking for the best in people,
lived values, stories, and expressions of wisdom.
Next, I used Google Scholar searches to assess how the academic literature addressed
project management lessons learned.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY PART 2: JOURNAL ABSTRACTS

REVIEWED ON PROJECT MANAGEMENT LESSONS LEARNED
(2000–2001)
As snapshots in time, citation indices reflect academic impact. Indices have different advan-
tages and disadvantages. For example, although the Web of Science focuses on high-impact
journals, Google Scholar searches the entire web. Library databases offer keywords to identify
sources, but consumers searching for articles and authors developing keywords and their man-
uscripts may not necessarily use the database terms. Although a constraint of Google Scholar
is that the advanced search features are limited to words and phrases either anywhere in the
article or the title of the article, it is easier and more convenient to use.
I entered the following terms in Google Scholar and narrowed the search to the 2000–2021
timeframe. Based on the terminology used in the PMBOK® Guide, I also used the words
“repository” and “retrospective”. Using the “Advanced Search” feature, I limited the search to
“articles published in” the terms journal or project management. A list of the words used for
the options “words in the title or text” follows – after action, evaluation, knowledge, learning,
lessons, lessons learned, post project, review, project management, retrospective, repository,
and retrospective. I identified 24 articles for the following review but there are more references
at the end of the chapter and in-text because additional sources were used to explain concepts.
Beginning with an explanation on knowledge and learning to frame lessons learned, work-
place learning extends beyond cognitive and educational (formal) learning that perceives of
knowledge as static (unchanging) content passed like a ball from person to person. Readers
are urged to think about knowledge as relational, social, dynamic, and a process involving
different ways of practice-based knowing (Fenwick, 2008). This is because knowledge

changes with active involvement. Learning includes self-directed, collective, informal, and
tacit learning (Bratton et al., 2004), including situated learning theory (a workplace learning
theory) whereby skills are developed by participating in a community of practice (COP)
(Roberts, 2006).
Turning to the abstracts reviewed, Kotnour (2000) examined organizational learning in
project management environments using the quality management plan-do-study-act cycle.
Quality improvement relates to organizational processes and practices. Drawing from the
literature on single- and double-loop learning, McClory et al. (2017) proposed a “triple loop
of learning” to address lessons-learned challenges affecting success. However, this term lacks
a theoretical basis.
From a process management and perspective systems thinking perspective (wherein the
elements of the entire system are interrelated), Chronéer and Backlund (2015) presented
a conceptual model on how project-based organizations can support organization-wide project
learning process to improve project learnings. Schindler and Eppler (2003) made the distinc-
tion that process-based lessons learned were procedural and focused on learnings whereas
documentation-based lessons learned were representations (artifacts). Julian (2008) found that
project management office leaders embedded prior project knowledge into routines for project
management teams to use. Koskinen (2012a) examined the dynamic interactions and changes
between processes specific to organizational learning. Chronéer and Backlund (2015) dis-
cussed intra- and inter-project learning in project-based organizations. Kotnour (2000) related
project knowledge to project performance and emphasized that learning takes place within and
between projects. Related to intra- and inter-project learning, Julian (2008) explored the role
of project management office leaders as learning facilitators.
Social capital refers to one’s network of relationships whereby individuals have a common
sense of identity and shared norms, values, trust, cooperation, and reciprocity (Adler & Kwon,
1999; Coleman, 1988). Social capital helps organizations develop higher-order forms of social
capital, which in turn help create more intellectual capital (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Julian
(2008) emphasized the importance of developing social capital so that project management
office leaders could facilitate further learnings. Bartsch et al. (2013) examined how project
team social capital fosters learning within the organization through intraorganizational social
ties of project team members with other organizational employees. In doing so, intraorganiza-
tional social ties reduced organizational barriers to learning. However, Eriksson et al. (2017)
found that whereas explorative and exploitative learning processes enhanced learning within
a project, these practices did not extend to inter-project learnings.
Several articles focused on COPs, an extension of situated learning theory. In a COP, indi-
viduals can participate as much or as little as they feel comfortable doing so. Lee et al. (2015)
proposed that reputation, enjoyment, and managerial support influenced a person’s participa-
tion intensity in a COP. Bresnen et al. (2005) used the situated learning perspective to examine
current and new routines. They found that the degree to which novel managerial initiatives
interfered with existing practices and disrupted power and knowledge in the organization
influenced change. Jugdev and Mathur (2013) also adopted the situated learning theory lens.
They contrasted the limitations of lessons learned via codified knowledge sharing practices
to the less formal ways in which knowledge is shared and circulated, such as through COPs.
Sense et al. (2011) also used situated learning theory and the COP lens to study lessons learn.
Briefly, their publications highlighted project teams as learning generators (embryonic COPs)
(Sense, 2003a), political issues related to the learning process (Sense, 2003b; Sense & Antoni,
2003), team member cognitive styles as a factor related to learning practices (Sense, 2007a),
the importance of a supportive learning environment (Sense, 2007b), the relevance of social
systems to enhance learning (Sense, 2008, 2011), and the sponsor’s role to steward project
learning (Sense, 2013).
Both dynamic capabilities and absorptive capacity involve an organization using its knowl-
edge and learnings to further develop existing capabilities and understand the value of new
information. Briefly, dynamic capabilities involve an organization’s ability to constantly
integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competences (Teece et al., 1997).
Related to dynamic capabilities, absorptive capacity has to do with an organization’s ability to
take in external information and develop innovative capabilities (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990).
Absorptive capacity is composed of potential absorptive capacity and realized absorptive
capacity (Zahra & George, 2002) whereby knowledge is acquired, assimilated, transformed,
and exploited to create dynamic organizational capabilities. Bakker et al. (2011) examined
how knowledge transfer occurred between projects and the parent organization. Their findings
suggested that knowledge transfer was a complex process, and that absorptive capacity was
embedded within the organization versus held by the project manager, alluding to the concept
of knowledge transforming as it is shared versus it only being codified, uniform, and tangible.
The authors stressed that project managers needed to focus on organizational and relational
processes. As rules are revised, the new rules become an outcome of organizational learning.
Leal-Rodríguez et al. (2014) used these concepts in their empirical study showing that their
concept of relational learning moderated potential absorptive capacity and reinforced the link
to realized absorptive capacity. Also using process thinking, Koskinen (2012b) introduced
problem absorption (a form of experiential learning) as an organizational learning mechanism
whereby existing organizational rules and norms are used to address new problems.
Drawing on the dynamic competence lens, Mainga (2017) identified factors inhibiting
knowledge transfer across projects, such as time pressure, the focus on short-term deliverables,
and fear of sanctions if mistakes were acknowledged. Schindler and Eppler (2003) highlighted
two challenges of lessons learned as the reluctance to learn from mistakes and the lack of disci-
pline to use documentation such as manuals. Julian (2008) used the phrase “red light learning”
to describe punitive lessons-learned practices that demoralized learning. Reflective practices
were described as positive ways to embed learning. The importance of a safe environment
to discuss lessons learned was emphasized along with cultural changes related to reducing
power distance, placing more concerted efforts on teambuilding, and creating a learning
climate supportive of experimenting. Finally, Shepherd et al. (2011) discussed how those with
stronger commitments to the firm perceived of their organization as normalizing failure. These
individuals reported experiencing less painful negative emotions of project failure. Although
relevant, the concept of organizational commitment was not one that emerged in this review.
The next section discusses the aforementioned two sets of findings.
ANALYSIS OF THE TWO SETS OF METHODOLOGIES
An earlier review of the Project Management Journal and the International Journal of Project
Management (1994–2003) identified project evaluation and improvement (which pertain to
lessons learned) as a subject of growing significance (Crawford et al., 2006). Most of that lit-
erature was anchored in the knowledge management or quality improvement literature and dis-
cussed the benefits of lessons learned and barriers to learning. Although limited to abstracts,
this chapter identified additional topics in lessons learned since the Crawford et al. review.
It may help to think about knowledge and learning in terms of the wisdom hierarchy con-
sisting of the data-information-knowledge-wisdom pyramid and the processes and transforma-
tions between these components (Rowley, 2007). The findings in this chapter indicate that the
guide focused on the information component near the base of the wisdom pyramid. Most of the
definitions in the PMBOK® Guide focused on documentation, codified knowledge, and arti-
facts. The guide described lessons learned as “what” in concrete terms. Surprisingly, although
there is an extensive body of literature on success and benefits realization, these terms were
missing from the definitions in the guide. Project success was referred to marginally as part of
effective communication, in the context of the role of the project sponsor as a critical success
factor to achieve positive outcomes from a project, and in terms of key performance indicators
as quantifiable measures to evaluate project success.
In contrast, the abstracts stressed process and the dynamic nature of learning. The abstracts
addressed advanced concepts related to knowledge and understanding (nearing the apex of the
wisdom pyramid) and addressed how and why aspects to include multiple ways of knowing
(Davenport & Prusak, 1998) as well as knowledge as changeable. The abstracts covered such
concepts as organizational routines, social capital, knowledge co-creation, knowledge circula-
tion, knowledge transformation, COPs, and situated learning theory. The themes of learning at
the individual, team, intra-project, intra-project, organizational, and interorganizational levels
were also evident in the abstracts. Learning in the workplace extends beyond cognitive and
educational learning to knowledge as relational and dynamic.
CONCLUSION
Just as rearview mirrors are essential safety features for successful road trips, the processes
of lessons learned are vital to project and project management success. Drawing on concepts
from learning, knowledge, and management, the PMBOK® Guide
With respect to methodological limitations, this chapter involved a word and phrase assess-
ment of the PMBOK® GuideAddressing these types of limitations would be avenues for
further research.
Lessons-learned processes involve sharing different types of data, information, knowledge,
and wisdom within and between organizations. Lessons learned involve formal and informal
learning practices. Our learning and sharing practices resulted in knowledge changing as it
circulates. We can improve our project management practices by keeping a diligent eye on
the rearview mirror and conducting lessons learned throughout and beyond project life cycles.
REFERENCES
Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (1999). Social capital: The good, the bad, and the ugly. In E. L. Lesser
(Ed.), Knowledge and social capital: Foundations and applications (1st ed., pp. 89–115). Butterworth
& Heinemann.
Bakker, R. M., Cambré, B., Korlaar, L., & Raab, J. (2011). Managing the project learning paradox:
A set-theoretic approach toward project knowledge transfer. International Journal of Project
Management, 29(5), 494–503.
Bartsch, V., Ebers, M., & Maurer, I. (2013). Learning in project-based organizations: The role of
project teams’ social capital for overcoming barriers to learning. International Journal of Project
Management, 31(2), 239–251.
Bratton, J., Helms-Mills, J., Pyrch, T., & Sawchuck, P. (2004). Workplace learning: A critical introduc-
tion. Garamond Press.
Bresnen, M., Goussevskaia, A., & Swan, J. (2005). Organizational routines, situated learning, and pro-
cesses of change in project-based organizations. Project Management Journal, 36(3), 27–41. https://
doi.org/905189981
Chronéer, D., & Backlund, F. (2015). A holistic view on learning in project-based organizations. Project
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and
innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 153–175.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology,
94(Supplement), S95–S120.
Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2000). A positive revolution in change: Appreciative inquiry. In R.
T. Golembiewski (Ed.), Handbook of organizational behavior (2nd ed., pp. 633–652). Routledge.
Crawford, L., Pollack, J., & England, D. (2006). Uncovering the trends in project management: Journal
emphases over the last 10 years. International Journal of Project Management, 24(2), 175–184.
Davenport, T. H., & Prusak, L. (1998). Working knowledge: How organizations manage what they know.
Harvard Business School Press.
Disterer, G. (2002). Management of project knowledge and experience. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 6(5), 512–520. https://doi.org/10.1108/17538371211192928
Eriksson, P. E., Leiringer, R., & Szentes, H. (2017). The role of co-creation in enhancing explorative and
exploitative learning in project-based settings. Project Management Journal, 48(4), 22–38.
Fenwick, T. (2008). Understanding relations of individual-collective learning in work: A review of
research. Management Learning, 39(3), 227–243.
Hsieh, H.-F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative
Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687
Jugdev, K., & Mathur, G. (2013). Bridging situated learning theory to the resource‐based view of project
management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6(4), 633–653.
Julian, J. (2008). How project management office leaders facilitate cross-project learning and continuous
improvement. Project Management Journal, 39(3), 43–58.
Kline, M. (2021). Quotation #11. https://quotefancy.com/morris-kline-quotes
Koskinen, K. U. (2012a). Organizational learning in project-based companies: A process thinking
approach. Project Management Journal, 43(3), 40–49.
Koskinen, K. U. (2012b). Problem absorption as an organizational learning mechanism in project-based
companies: Process thinking perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 30(3),
308–316.
Kotnour, T. (2000). Organizational learning practices in the project management environment.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 17(4/5). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/
10.1108/02656710010298418
Leal-Rodríguez, A. L., Roldán, J. L., Ariza-Montes, J. A., & Leal-Millán, A. (2014). From potential
absorptive capacity to innovation outcomes in project teams: The conditional mediating role of
the realized absorptive capacity in a relational learning context. International Journal of Project
Management, 32(6), 894–907.
Lee, L., Reinicke, B., Sarkar, R., & Anderson, R. (2015). Learning through interactions: Improving
project management through communities of practice. Project Management Journal, 46(1), 40–52.
Mainga, W. (2017). Examining project learning, project management competencies, and project effi-
ciency in project-based firms (PBFs). International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 10(3),
454–504.
McClory, S., Read, M., & Labib, A. (2017). Conceptualising the lessons-learned process in project man-
agement: Towards a triple-loop learning framework. International Journal of Project Management,
35(7), 1322–1335.
Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage.
Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1998.533225
Project Management Institute (2021). A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK®
Guide (7th ed.)). Project Management Institute.
Roberts, J. (2006). Limits to communities of practice. Journal of Management Studies, 43(3), 623–639.
Rowley, J. (2007). The wisdom hierarchy: Representations of the DIKW hierarchy. Journal of
Information Science, 33(2), 163–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551506070706
Schindler, M., & Eppler, M. J. (2003). Harvesting project knowledge: A review of project learning
methods and success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 21(3), 219–228.
Sense, A. J. (2003a). Learning generators: Project teams re-conceptualized. Project Management
Journal, 34(3), 4–12.
Sense, A. J. (2003b). A model of the politics of project leader learning. International Journal of Project
Management, 21(2), 107–114.
Sense, A. J. (2007a). Learning within project practice: Cognitive styles exposed. International Journal
of Project Management, 25(1), 33–40.
Sense, A. J. (2007b). Structuring the project environment for learning. International Journal of Project
Management, 25(4), 405–412.
Sense, A. J. (2008). Conceptions of learning and managing the flow of knowledge in the project‐based
environment. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(1), 33–48.
Sense, A. J. (2011). The project workplace for organizational learning development. International
Sense, A. J. (2013). A project sponsor’s impact on practice-based learning within projects. International
Sense, A. J., & Antoni, M. (2003). Exploring the politics of project learning. International Journal of
Project Management, 21(7), 487–494.
Shepherd, D. A., Patzelt, H., & Wolfe, M. (2011). Moving forward from project failure: Negative emo-
tions, affective commitment, and learning from the experience. Academy of Management Journal,
54(6), 1229–1259.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of
Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997, March). Dynamic capabilities and strategic management.
Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1097–0266(199708)18:
7<509::aid-smj882>3.0.co
Zahra, S. A., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review, reconceptualization, and extension.
Academy of Management Review, 27(2), 185–203.
17. Projects as vehicles of learning
Arthur Shelley
INTRODUCTION
Over the past three decades most organizations have become projectized in response to rapid
changes in knowledge, technology and customer expectations. That is, management has
shifted from being process orientated (to maintain best practices) to programs of projects
that constantly change the way in which organizations operate. Almost every industry has
moved from processes, through projects as occasional changes to upgrade, to projects as how
they deliver their objectives. Projects are no longer occasional improvement programs; they
maintain organizations in a constant state of transformation. This is necessary to ensure that
they remain relevant, competitive, efficient and effective. In recognition of this, the seventh
edition of the PMBOK® (PMI, 2021) has been restructured to be principles based instead of
process orientated. The other significant shift in the latest PMBOK® is significantly more
recognition of the intangible aspects of Project Management (PM), both as inputs and outputs/
outcomes. This chapter extends this view of the value of projects in sustaining performance by
recognizing projects as vehicles of learning and highlighting how project-based learning can
be optimized by the way in which the project is designed, led, planned and managed.
Processes were how we maintained control, whereas projects are how we change the world
to what we want it to become (Shelley, 2017). Processes are an excellent way to achieve
consistent results, when the world remains stable in predictable environments. However, the
world is no longer predictable nor stable. Everything is constantly changing, and fast. In this
VUCA (Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous) environment, quickly adapting to
better options is essential to ongoing relevance, competitiveness and sustained performance.
Consequently, PM, and more importantly project leadership, has become a critical capability.
This chapter explores why projects have emerged, not just as the way to deliver outputs
(a “thing” – building, system upgrade, next application, new venture); they are the vehicle
through which the capabilities to deliver the teams, relationships, confidence, trust and social
connections, to be ready for future projects and future desired outcomes. The irony is that to
consistently achieve the best possible outputs and outcomes, people need to have experienced
the challenges of real projects in genuine contexts. Theoretical case studies, often used in
formal learning, do not provide the same high-quality learning experiences as being part of
real projects. Hands-on experience in a range of complex projects is the best way to develop
these capabilities (knowledge, skills and behaviors) so critical for future success.
The overriding question being addressed in this chapter is: How can projects be designed
and implemented so that the learning opportunities for the team are as important as the other
outputs and outcomes? That is, the success measures of the project include the intangible
aspects, such as the learning experience, relationships and confidence of the team members. In
some cases, the key outcome is a high-performing team itself, something that can add signifi-
cant value to the organization in future.
240
Projects as vehicles of learning 241
LITERATURE REVIEW
In our current complex world where change is happening rapidly, one of the most impor-
tant capabilities is learning to learn, so that our capabilities remain relevant (WEF, 2020a).
Remaining relevant and competitive are important success factors in both personal and profes-
sional life. The social aspects of individual professionalism and organizational performance
are increasingly being recognized as important future success capabilities (WEF, 2020b).
Aligned with this is learning to collaborate has become a more important capability (Freeth
& Caniglia, 2020). Whilst project-based, social and collaborative learning approaches are not
yet widely used in mainstream education, some such programs being introduced with success.
For example, in Victoria, Australia (Victorian Department of Education & Training, 2020) and
Finland (Zilliacus et. al., 2017), learning in real contexts with collaborative learning and social
development is being practiced to a greater extent. These balanced and holistic approaches
to learning (Miller et al., 2018) enable people to adapt better to the constant changes in the
world and become more productive citizens. We benefit from regular critical reviews of our
capabilities for gaps in future needs, to determine what is best for our specific circumstances
as we move forward. Well-designed and facilitated education experiences are necessary for
comprehensive capability development and to ensure that learners want to continue to engage
in lifestyle learning (Shelley & Goodwin, 2018).
Traditionally, formal education has been focused on “gaining existing knowledge” rather
than building capabilities to interact with the real world in the present and the future. Whilst
possessing knowledge is an important part of capability, developing well-adapted people to
constructively participate in, and contribute to, society requires application skills and social
confidence as well (Miller, 1997). The benefits of holistic education to develop such people
and teams involves them engaging in a range of practical experiences to supplement the
theoretical aspects. Real projects are an excellent context in which such experiences can be
facilitated (Shelley & Goodwin, 2018). Projects provide the opportunity to not just apply
knowledge; they enable new knowledge to be cocreated in real contexts (Shelley, 2020b).
There have been several approaches described over the years to provide more experiential and
or comprehensive education. These have variously been listed under a range of banners includ-
ing action learning (Revans, 1980; Keys, 1994), experiential learning (Kolb & Kolb, 2009,
2017), social learning (Van Epp & Garside, 2014; Heyes, 2016; Kefalaki & Diamantidaki,
2020), collaborative learning (Essmiller, 2020; Freeth & Caniglia, 2020), student-centered
learning (Wright, 2011; Lim et. al., 2019), gamification (Sousa-Vieira et al., 2016; Schulz
et al., 2015), project-based (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Perrault & Albert, 2017; Yasseri et al.,
2018), problem-based (Bethell & Morgan, 2011) and the list goes on. However, they have not
yet become widely used in mainstream formal education (Miller et al., 2018).
The concept of holistic education to develop well-rounded citizens who positively contrib-
ute to society is not new. This was the basis of the concept of Paideia which was practiced
in ancient Greece and described by Adler (1982). Also Bloom et al. (1956) described three
domains for comprehensive education as including cognitive (knowing and thinking), psych-
omotor (doing and skills) and affective (social and cultural, or “being”). Unfortunately, much
modern education at all levels focuses more on the quantitative and cognitive or academic
aspects of learning at the expense of the application and social intangible aspects (Robinson
& Aronica, 2016). This generates graduates who can answer theoretical questions well, but
are not necessarily adept at applying the theories, or confident to engage with other people to
resolve unknown challenges. The missing application and social capabilities are significant
life success skills that need to be developed somewhere. Whilst alternative, more comprehen-
sive, education approaches continue to be published over time, there are relatively few that are
widely adopted, and even fewer that combine aspects from all such approaches (OECD, 2018).
Project-based social learning provides opportunity to accelerate the trend toward more com-
prehensive learning experiences, by combining the positive aspects of the many experiential
approaches mentioned above.
One key insight from these experiential and practical approaches is that learners are able to
explore in socially connected ways with divergent approaches. They aim to generate a range
of options for future challenges, instead of just remembering facts they were told (Hayden &
McIntosh, 2018; Downes, 2018; Lim et al., 2019; Shelley, 2021). A positive outcome of com-
bining aspects of these approaches into Applied Social Learning Ecosystems (ASLE) (Shelley
& Goodwin, 2018) is that the educational experiences are facilitated in an inclusive, construc-
tive project environment. This provides the learners an opportunity to adapt and reapply their
learning more effectively across different future contexts (Baker et al., 2002; Alvarez-Alvarez
et al., 2019; Shelley, 2021). This chapter describes insights from one approach that embeds
the best elements of many of these learning approaches into a single project-based learning
experience, leveraging real projects.
This research combines 11 cycles of action research in project-based learning programs facili-
tated over four years. During each learning program, feedback was gathered from stakeholders
about the learning experiences and activities, to inform design adjustments to implement for
the next cycle. Program participants (on average 24 in each cycle) were assigned to project
teams (3–5 people) to address real business challenges for business project owners. In each
cycle, an average of five different projects were worked on, which collectively covered gov-
ernment, education, start-up, large and small corporations and not for profit. Each project team
worked on one project and with visibility of what was happening in the other projects. Teams
proceeded through a series of guided workshop activities that first deconstructed the client
challenge and then assembled options emerging from the conversations around the challenge
and the desired tangible outputs and the intangible outcomes. The structured approach ensured
that all teams were working in parallel through some creative approaches to projects, rather
than them simply applying what they already know. This deliberate approach to introducing
new concepts is an important part of the design to optimize learning, while still delivering real
project outputs.
The principles of ASLE (Shelley and Goodwin, 2018) and Reverse Bloom Learning
Framework(RBLF) (Shelley, 2020a) were embedded into the design of blended learning expe-
riences, conducted over a period of 4 to 12 weeks (varied with different program offerings).
Data for the research analysis was generated by the learners in a series of activities supported
by a combination of online tools (MS Teams, Google Sites, discussion forums and online
collaboration boards). The learners were familiar with each other as they had been in the same
program for some time. This is a significant factor in the way they interacted with each other
as they already had a relationship as co-learners.
Table 17.1 The flow of activities in the weekly cycles of the learning program
Activity/role Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

Conversation Slide deck Weekly
starter and video announcement
Learner Watch/read Participate in Participate in team meetings as self-organized Reflections
Reflect and engagement Collaborate around themes and elements
share
Apply the concepts and elements and reflect on experiences and outcomes of their client
challenge
Learning Facilitate Load Engage in team meetings as requested
facilitator engagement announcement
session
Client and Engage in team meetings as requested
mentor
Learners’ Share perspectives of the insights from the application of ideas in different contexts (in
community discussion forums)
Ask questions about their client challenge project in the discussion forums
Notes: Conversation starters are all loaded before the program begins to encourage pre-reading and early activities.
Announcements are loaded during the program to regularly stimulate engagement between participants.
A generic overview of the program interactions is shown in Table 17.1. Each week relevant
content in the form of “Conversation Starters” (digital files shared to stimulate engagement
about that phase of the project) was shared for reading and reflection. The learners read the
materials and then interacted with each other about their perceptions of them in a discus-
sion forum (asynchronous text posts and replies). After the online dialogue was completed,
a weekly engagement session was facilitated as a videoconference to discuss the contributions
and questions the learners had about the range of contributions. Parallel to these engagements,
the learners were applying the ideas to their team “Client Project Challenge”. The client chal-
lenge is a complex problem they research and develop options for, on behalf of a real industry
client. The learner teams engage with the clients as consultants through the four-week course.
Groups interacted with their client through an initial briefing session, email, social media,
informal videoconference conversations, a formal pitch of their recommendations and finally
producing a formal business proposal report.
Discussion forum posts, video conversations and artifacts in the collaboration tools (MS
Teams, Google Sites, shared Google Docs and Miro) are all rich data sources to draw upon to
observe how the learners interacted and support their efforts to produce a professional level set
of outcomes for the client. The completed assignments, feedback on the formal peer review
and informal conversations with the learners about the challenges they face also provided
insights. Conversations between the researcher and the client, and the team mentors (an inde-
pendent industry support professional for each group), added alternative sources of insights.
All data sources were analyzed for common themes and insights about the learning experi-
ences of the learners and the impacts these had on their learning experiences. Insights in the
results section draw on the main themes emerging across the full cohort of learners.
Lifelong learning and cocreative and collaborative learning were dominant topics of
discussion with the learners throughout the course. The RBLF and ALSE were discussed in
the initial engagement session and one of the discussion theme forums. This was included
to ensure the learners were conscious of the course design and its intent; that is, not content
Table 17.2 Learning themes and their elements covered in the project-based learning
experience
Theme Primary elements associated with this theme

Why ethical consulting? Performance, leadership, ethics, innovation, trusted advisor,
reputation, professionalism
Who starts conversations for sensemaking? Emergence, culture, narrative, sensemaking
What are 3Rs? Robust Relevant Research Critical thinking, data analysis, decision-making
Where do reflective insights come from? Reflective practice, storytelling, conversation, knowledge cocreation
Situational cocreation of new knowledge
When is value created? Value, people, capability development, learning
How to achieve success through behavior? Succession, learning organization, behavior, attitude
Reviewing your consulting project. Constructively Knowledge transfer, design thinking, project management, impact,
challenging perspectives quality
Understanding the consulting industry Mentor, coach, challenge, sustainability, consult
Knowing, doing, being … and becoming Security, role models, relationships, opportunity
Persuading through effective language Influence, language, engagement, stakeholders, emotional
intelligence, belonging, identity
Changing mindsets for ownership: shifting from “what Perspective, ideas, creativity, humour,
is?” to “what is possible!” outcomes, outputs, benefits, beneficiaries, risks
Sharing your client recommendations Change, pitch, insights, ownership, performance!
delivery based, but collaborative socialization of concepts, based in real business challenges
to cocreate options that are unique to the clients’ requirements. The concepts being applied in
the programs were reinforced by the 12 themes and the 60 elements being covered in the dis-
cussion forums (Table 17.2). The themes and elements were selected to emphasize the role of
soft skills in the influence and advisors of others. This is why consulting was chosen as the title
of the course, as all successful professionals consult and are consulted on a range of matters
in their career. This applies to internal consulting as much as it does to being an external
consultant and a respected professional generally in any field. Although the perspectives differ
across contexts and fields of practice, the capabilities for professional success remain largely
behavioral and cultural. Collectively the activities, discussions, themes and elements address
eight of the top 10 Future Skills addressed by the World Economic Forum (WEF, 2020a).
The assumptions being made in this approach are that social cocreation of new insights in
uncertainty is the ideal way to develop the balanced professional capabilities across knowl-
edge, skills and behavior, or “knowing, doing and being” (Shelley, 2017). Equally important
is that the environment places the learners just outside their comfort zone, yet remaining
psychologically safe. This stimulates their creativity and ability to cocreate new options,
instead of relying on what is already known. The aim of this research is to elicit insights on the
effectiveness of this developmental approach from the learners’ perspectives and assess their
connection between this and ongoing development of future capabilities.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
There was a consistent strong sense of support for this style of project-based learning through-
out the 11 cohorts of learners. This was evident in all aspects of the program, through the high
levels of participation and engagement and the quality of the outputs the learners generated for
their project clients. Examples to support these statements are provided in learner comments
drawn from the engagement sessions, discussion forums and peer review listed in Table 17.3.
Table 17.3 Examples of feedback from learners about the learning approach
Learner comments in peer reviews or discussion forums (anonymized)

The course was facilitated in the most interactive way. We got to do many readings and discussion in the class … we get to work
with real client/real business and that is very differentiated and help to engage us stronger and build our capability and provide
strong connection with our real life experiences. Thank you.
There was of course additional pressure as we were consulting real clients, but overall it led to significantly more learning
outcomes.
The course is facilitated on the way to let people learn from each other, rather than just listen to professor. It is good to have
practical sharing from all people based on their experience. Working on the real case also made me feel that the solution, which we
provide, must be practical, because in real life people do not care much about great idea that does not apply for their business. And
we also can learn about mistake that consultant can make in real life.
This program provided great scaffolding for different learner levels, covering BOTH how to learn, and where/who/what learners
are striving to become. Each learner was able to adapt the support materials to match their level and desired development elements.
There are clear socio-contextual structures and frameworks for communicative success, which are critically important for all
learners.
Different approaches such as “Conversation Starters”, discussion, storytelling and sensemaking enabled people to participate and
share professional/cultural contexts. The collaborative conversations spiral encompassing adaptive human behaviour, knowledge
co-creation, mutual value, etc was a unique feature that was fantastic for learner orientation and inclusion.
This gives me big motivation to keep exploring more, the knowledge won’t become mine until I deliberately practiced and
keep building examples. I feel beneficial a lot when applying what I learnt in real life. Every day, we are engaging the people
surrounding us through sense-making conversations to influence others, this brings me great fulfilment when turning things in an
effective way which is mutually beneficial.
Real project is amazing. Nothing can make a medical intern feel more excited than giving them a real patient! All our learnings
finally can be applied, where potentially can generate significant impact to client’s business. The bigger the responsibility is the
higher engagement we are.
Thank you for the great efforts to build the project cases, enable the best practice on the ground.
Interesting project in real consulting process and practical initiatives.
This is the best course in the program. Though there is more demand than usual, the course is really helpful. I learnt a lot.
It is well organized in course content, well-designed pace though there is time limitation. Many extra information is shared for
students to read after course. I like the collaborative learning experience, we join the discussion board and Google Sites. There
is a 1 hour session each week to make the scholars keep updated and in touch. I admire the time management, and everything
is delivered on time with quality, especially during the discussion part that our lecture could politely and skillfully proceed the
process without making anyone feel uncomfortable.
As I shared in our last engagement session, it is indeed “save the best for last”. I have really enjoyed all engagement sessions, and
how we worked together during the intensives. We are impressed in the way the programme structure is organized, the knowledge
of consulting, the tips and techniques for delivering consulting pitches and reports, and more importantly, the dedication of
transferring the knowledge to us, and help us build our lifelong learning attitude.
In my view, this is one of top 3 excellent courses of the program due to some following reasons:
1. The dedication and knowledge from Professor as well as the structure and new tool of experience he did invest into this
course. Impressive.
2. The time management with superb and discipline, I love it so much.
3. The presentation and discussion among the cohort are very good. Thanks.
Make it on campus class rather than online as we wish to have more time and face-to-face discussion with teacher and our client.
This course is the best one I have completed. All assignments and materials have been given in a way that expose us to practical
situation. I felt kind of pressure, and at the same time kind of excitement as I worked during the course.
The positive responses were despite the learners being under considerable time pressure, as
they were all working in professional roles during the program and subjected to a time pres-
sured intensive format.
CHALLENGES OF SHORT INTENSIVE FORMAT LEARNING
All cohorts of learners were involved in blended learning (face-to-face and virtual interactions)
that involved both a three-day intensive and ongoing remote interactions. For some cohorts,
the total duration of the program was 12 weeks, and for others the whole program was com-
pleted in four weeks. Feedback about the time constraints was consistent across cohorts, as
seen in the example comments in Table 17.4. However, the impact of this was more prominent
in the four-week version of the program. This is a real challenge for lifestyle learning (Shelley
& Goodwin, 2018) in the modern era, where there is an expectation that formal learning occurs
in parallel with a challenging career. As professionals try to achieve more career impact faster,
and at the same time accelerate their development, lifestyle balance is challenged. Prioritizing
time becomes more challenging as the duration of programs are reduced to fit in the busy lives
of professionals. Everyone wants a full learning experience that is rich and applicable, but in
shorter timeframes. The heuristic time requirement for a Master’s-level course (Australian
Qualifications Framework Committee, 2013) is approximately 144 hours for an average
learner to achieve an average grade. When this time is allocated over a normal semester of 12
weeks, it is achievable with discipline. However, achieving the same quality level of learning
at AQF 9, condensed into intensive formats, places huge time pressures on learners. This
inevitably creates a conflict between the convenience of intensives and the ability to get deep
learning experiences completed in such short timeframes. Managing these expectations is
a challenge for learning facilitators, who wish to optimize the outcomes for the learners, whilst
acknowledging the time pressures they place on themselves.
Table 17.4 Examples of comments from learners about time pressures of intensive
formats
Learner comments from emails, peer reviews, MS Teams chats and discussion forums
Considering the teaching mode advertised for the whole program, the intensity of class activities could be a bit burden on some
days. However, as we always shared in class, that only 4 weeks for a consulting project is not the ideal way of delivering it.
Because of time limitation, it also creates a limit on new knowledge. For example, what will happen after we provide solution to
client, they apply but they have challenge when they apply in real life, even though we know they agree with the solution at the
beginning but what should we do at that case.
It should be longer, perhaps time allocated for the course should be double.
More time to work on the Global Consulting Project.
I wish I had more time :) to absorb the most from the course as content is rich and demand is high.
Extend the course for a few weeks to get the feedback from client if any of our solution can really help them. And from that we can
learn more why our proposal is not practical in real life, what we should do better.
I would suggest increase the course timetable to give students more time to digest and prepare for the last consulting project. Since
this is a last milestone course, it is possible to design this course from 1 month to 1 semester, so that the students have enough to
present what we have learnt from our previous courses and the new learnt consulting skills and knowledge.
As a consultant, we are accountable for helping client achieve their goal through mentoring, however we cannot help them to
execute the plan and build every single resources. It’s important to develop the debate thinking skills when aligning the core
execution plans.
I felt each hour of our very limited time together was carefully considered and I received maximum value for my money.
INSIGHTS FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF EXPERIENTIAL

LEARNING
Feedback from the learners and other parties associated with this approach highlights that the
opportunity to further embed socialization into the experiential learning activities is worth
pursuing. This learning experience was so powerful for the learners because of the range
of projects that were included over the four years and because the interactions continued to
evolve for the participant feedback with each of the 11 cycles. Optimal learning experiences
prepare learners with the capabilities (knowing, doing and being elements) to prepare them for
unknown future challenges – not focusing on what is already known (which may or may not be
relevant to future contexts). The program structure is largely the same. It benefits from refining
activities around the participant feedback to provide ways of including emerging aspects that
were not already there. As new aspects were incorporated into the program, the experience
was richer and more powerful. This does not mean adding more content; it was quite the
opposite. Content volume decreased whilst the essence of new insights was incorporated into
the relevant structured activities, often as a probing question or short video. This encouraged
the learners to socialize these “conversation starters” into the context of their project. Some of
the key features of the design changes are listed in the next section.
INSIGHTS FROM THE CLIENTS AND MENTORS IN THE

PROGRAM
Clients and mentors are an important part of this program design, as they add a level of reality
and more diversity of perspectives to the conversations. The learners recognize the importance
of this, as seen in the typical comments shared below.
Thank you team. Through your hard work, you’ve opened our eyes to the value of consulting ser-
vices & strategic analysis while providing great objective, data-driven recommendations along with
several innovative ideas. I really appreciated the team’s strategic thinking and firm apprehension of
our business despite the few exchanges we’ve had. I’m truly inspired – please know that your report
will have great significance in the future of Papillon’s growth. It will be my personal responsibility
as a stakeholder in this business to see that these valuable insights and plans get implemented. I am
a very happy client and I wish you all the best in your future endeavors! (Challenge Project Client)
The practical recommendations from the cohort were aligned with our own direction but added
cohesive, actionable steps for our company implementation. What was even more valuable were the
challenging and new perspectives provided by the students. I look forward to discussing with our Top
Management! (Challenge Project Client)
I have been a team mentor on several occasions in this program and enjoy the interactions with the
students and project clients very much. Although the role of the team mentor is there to challenge
the team to be at their best, I always learn a lot from how they interact and the ideas they bring to the
project from their diverse professional experiences. (Project Team Mentor)
HOW WOULD THE LEARNERS SHARE THEIR INSIGHTS ABOUT

THE PROJECT-BASED LEARNING EXPERIENCE?
The most important success measure about anything is customer feedback. As part of the
anonymous peer review activity, learners were asked what advice they would give to a friend
who was considering doing this program. The feedback is provided exactly as stated by the
participants, except for adjustments to ensure anonymity. This does not need to be discussed
further here, as the learners’ own words speak for themselves (Table 17.5). The answers are
sorted in order of those mainly about the structure and experiences of the program, followed
by those about the general applicability of the capabilities to ongoing professional activity.
The evidence and insights shared in this chapter highlight how engaging learners in
real-world, project-based learning activities creates deeper engagement and more meaningful
learning outcomes. Learners’ feedback shows that real client projects were a motivating
Table 17.5 Feedback from learners on whether friends should engage in this approach
Comments as stated (adjusted to anonymize where relevant)

The program embodies everything that is great about professional learning. It provides the students the opportunity to apply
numerous skills and experience gained over the previous courses in a real-life context. Make sure to read through each of
the twelve themes and additional topics before the intensive and take the time to explore other additional resources online.
I particularly enjoyed learning more about the key skills and challenges of a consultant from current and previous experts that are
also translatable to all professional fields.
Please bring one or two of your core values or strengths into class, in return you will bring back 20+ other values or even cocreated
new values exchanged through joint learning efforts. This course is not going to teach or repeated the materials where you can
search from Google or books. You should expect a psychological approach and behavior influencing experiments, through the
learning and practice. You will also experience fun games, the OrgZoo animal characteristic and behavior analysis, which gives
insights into how critical the impact behaviour is in teams.
During the course, you can freely raise your questions, share your opinions, answers come even faster than Google, and always
providing an integrated answer which beyond my expectation. You will have the chance to test your learning effectiveness on
well-prepared real challenges to excise our practice, which is the only criterion for testing knowledge. Last but not least, you
will receive constructive feedback after your pitch, you may not hear those perspectives during your work, as you’ve been too
comfortable with what you were repeatedly doing and missing the mindfulness.
Practical and interesting course.
There are a lot of new things and a new approach. You need to prepare for the new learning method and tools as well, but you will
have a chance to propose some actions which can help people to apply in real life to solve their problem.
It is really a good way of putting together all the knowledge we have learnt from the previous courses into a project and learned
additional new consulting skills. Even though you might not work in the consulting industry, the skills are needed in all aspects of
our professional career.
Interesting and high-level of interactions with various forms such as discussion, presentation, debate, examples, essay with
practical application.
This is the best courses that we participated in. Besides your rich experiences related to consulting business, the way you deliver
and touched upon Miro, Google Sites, different topics for assignment and get cohorts to involve deeply in the course.
This is a collaborative learning course. Everyone will have the opportunity to contribute to the experience. If you are great at
speech, there are lots of opportunity for you to share your ideas. If you feel stronger in writing, you can also post your ideas in
discussion session and Google Sites.
Great course to take, very interactive and real project to work on.
Consulting is the necessary skill-set not only for consultant but for a business manager, and in day-to-day life.
Be ready for some new learning mode such as Google Sites. You may find it is a little bit confusing in the beginning, but just
spend one hour on it, you will be fine.
factor that led to a higher level of investment of effort to generate high-quality outcomes.
This better prepares learners for the application of their newly developed capabilities in their
ongoing workplace and increases their awareness of the importance of being adaptable in our
current professional world (Shelley, 2021). The social, collaborative and cocreative nature of
the project-based learning generates deeper reflections, as well as a wider scope of applied
aspects of learning. This happens because instead of 24 learners learning from a single source,
36 people (students, clients, mentors and the learning facilitator) learn from each other.
Combining their diversity of experiences and perspectives across the themes and elements as
they apply to different project contexts, they individually and collectively become aware of
a wider set of possibilities. Combining learning before, during and after group interactions
reinforces the superior depth and scope of learning.
The main limitation of the current research is that this a relatively small study. Future
examples of how these learning concepts can be applied, across wider cohorts of learners
and project contexts, will further build support for the value of the approach. In time, as the
approaches of ASLE and RBLF are facilitated across more programs and more cultures,
a larger body of evidence to support how and why they work will be developed. Longitudinal
studies will also show the longer-term impacts of learning in the workplace and provide new
insights to enhance them further. Such studies can be developed through research and edu-
cation partnerships between industry, universities and facilitating philanthropic foundations.
DESIGN INSIGHTS ON WHY THIS PROJECT-BASED APPROACH

TO LEARNING IS OPTIMAL
In each iteration of the program, constructive feedback on the project-based learning expe-
rience was gathered to refine the approach and create a more an interactive collaborative
learning ecosystem (Shelley & Goodwin, 2018). There were some consistent patterns in the
feedback that highlighted the success criteria from the learners’ perspectives. The list below
summarizes why this project-based learning experience provides a special experience for the
learners. To the author’s knowledge, there is no other learning experience that achieves all
these aspects anywhere in the world:
(1) It is a genuine interactive project-based learning experience from which the findings will
be applied by a project owner. The fact that the learners need to face the project owner
and advise them what to do next places a strong reality to the context, one that a case
study can never provide.
(2) Learners engage in semiautonomous cocreation of new knowledge for a real client
challenge and are required to deliver a practical set of recommendations within the
constraints of the client.
(3) Whilst there are extensive support materials provided across the 12 themes and 60 ele-
ments, including brief video introduction for each theme, the key content is created by
the learners themselves, within the context of their client project.
(4) Learning is stimulated by creating an “ASLE” (Shelley & Goodwin, 2018). This condu-
cive environment supports socialization of ideas to encourage sensemaking, reflection
and collaboration to support insights and emergence of options.
(5) Client and project challenge selection are critical. All accepted clients genuinely want
options for their challenges (not “the answer”). The projects are assessed for suitable
complexity and for which there is no simple copy and paste option. Only those for which
the client does not yet know how to resolve it are selected. The client commitment and
the challenge uncertainty are critical ingredients to achieve the exploratory learning.
(6) The learning is iterative through phases that build on each other within the context of the
challenges. This involves a reversal of the traditional learning approach, through a new
approach RBLF (Shelley, 2020a).
(7) The approach deliberately encompasses all three domains of learning; cognitive
(knowing), psychomotor (doing) and affective (social, cultural – being) in an inclusive,
interdependent way. This requires the learners to engage with each other in a series of
collaborative conversations (Shelley, 2021), which switch between divergent and con-
vergent thinking.
(8) The formal assessments are 40% individual, 60% team based. The high level of
team-based assessment reinforces collaboration across the team members and build-
ing the trust. The peer review process further reinforces the teamwork element of
performance.
(9) There are proactive interventions on how the teams are progressing via an anonymous
peer review process (which also solicits anonymous feedback on the course experience)
and regular conversations with the team mentor.
(10) The practical experiences of the learning facilitator and the industry mentors bring
a balance of pragmatic application and academic rigor.
(11) The individual assignment is open and collaborative. Each learner researches a differ-
ent topic and must relate it to the context of complex projects with practical insights,
personal reflections and academic rigor. Participants collectively cocreate a database
of insights on the topics that will inform decision-making on their client projects.
Participants are expected to hyperlink their assignment to others to demonstrate the
interdependencies. This creates rich learning and highlights the complexity of human
projects and highlights the power of a collaborative working culture, aspects that con-
tribute to high performance in future projects.
(12) Extensive feedback is provided on the assignments, including a paragraph on what they
did well (how they achieved the mark given) and one on what they could have added to
achieve a higher mark. This is all done within the context of a previously shared rubric,
detailing expectations for each grade across each criterion. This is supplemented with
a short video summary and in-text comments in their submitted document.
Providing all of these aspects in a single project requires significant design, planning and disci-
pline. Many people studying at this level are highly experienced and capable professionals. As
such, they have deep knowledge and confidence to act on their knowledge. This brings with it
the benefits of mutual social learning, but also the challenge of influencing competent, capable
learners to open their minds to alternative options. Traditional education (and PM) rewards
efficiency (time and cost delivery) more than effectiveness (scope and quality delivery). The
Project Management Body of Knowledge traditionally reinforced control of projects more
than adaptability and agility. However, the recently released seventh edition has shifted to
emphasize principles and pays closer attention to the human aspects and outcomes of project
success (PMI, 2021). This rebalancing the way the industry perceives projects, and they value
they generate, is a positive change. Shifting mindsets to make more balanced considerations
and investing in more inclusive conversations about possibilities is a significant part of the
learning in this approach. This is an important aspect of the learning experience. It is why
“knowing, doing and being” are all emphasized together to ensure the principles, intangible
aspects and soft skills are developed along with the technical and logistical aspects of projects.
The author suggests that projects based on principles and a balance of knowing, doing and
being make excellent vehicles for professional development across all professions. Designing
professional development in this manner ensures that projects are not just about delivery of
a thing – they also deliver more capable professionals, collaborative teams and greater poten-
tial for future performance.
CONCLUSIONS
The evidence in this research highlights the benefits of using real business projects to support
learner development. In particular, since the COVID pandemic, experiences collaborating
through a series of virtual activities, facilitated using online collaboration tools, have elevated
confidence in working remotely in project environments. Confidently engaging and leading
in virtual project environments has become an essential future skill. Engaging learners in
projects for which solutions do not yet exist, and for which the recommendations will be
implemented by business owners, places a different perspective on the learning activities. This
generates a different learning mindset, with increased ownership of the recommendations. It
also increases the motivation to engage deeper in learning activities. When teams deconstruct
the client challenge and then assemble options emerging from the conversations, they are part
of the solution. This stimulates them more than just implementing someone else’s answer. The
structured, but flexible, workshop-based “learning by doing” approach engaged participants to
cocreate novel options that applied well to the future challenges faced by the business clients.
This chapter also highlights some important andragogical aspects of this approach that
may not be immediately apparent for project professionals, including why these are important
aspects of project outcomes generally. In particular, the learning impacts of dealing with a real
complex challenge for a client that is yet to be resolved shifts the mindset from delivering
a predefined solution to creating a range of prioritized options. Focusing on learning aspects
of a project does not compromise achieving results; it amplifies the benefits and prepares
learners to be higher-performing team members on future projects. Opening the minds of
the team members to creative possibilities and encouraging more exploration of novel ideas
generated superior results (outputs and outcomes) for both the team members and the project
owners. Developing the capabilities across knowing, doing and being in balance generates not
just good project outputs for that project; it creates strong function-connected teams for future
project performance. Projects are not just vehicles of development, innovation and change –
appropriately designed and facilitated, projects can be strategic vehicles of learning too.
REFERENCES
Adler, M. J. (1982). The Paideia Proposal: An Educational Manifesto. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Alvarez-Alvarez, C., Sanchez-Ruiz, L., Ruthven, A., & Montoua Del Corte, J. (2019). Innovating in uni-
versity teaching through classroom interaction. Journal of Education, Innovation, and Communication,
1(1), 8–18.
Australian Qualifications Framework Committee. (2013). Australian Qualifications Framework. https://
www.aqf.edu.au/sites/aqf/files/aqf-2nd-edition-january-2013.pdf
Baker, A. C., Jensen, P. J., & Kolb, D. A. (2002). Conversational Learning: An Experiential Approach
to Knowledge Creation. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.
Bethell, S., & Morgan, K. (2011). Problem-based and experiential learning: Engaging students in
an undergraduate physical education module. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport and Tourism
Education, 10(1), 128–134.
Bloom, B. S., Englehart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). The Taxonomy of
Educational Objectives, the Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain.
New York: David McKay Company Inc.
Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsat, A. (1991).
Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational
Psychologist, 26(3&4), 369–398.
Downes, S. (2018). Modernised learning delivery strategies: The Canada School of Public Service tech-
nology integration project. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 1(2), 15–25.
Essmiller, K. (2020). Learning through play. In B. Hokanson, G. Clinton, A. Tawfik, A. Grincewicz
& M. Schmidt (Eds.), Educational Technology Beyond Content: Educational Communications and
Technology – Issues and Innovations. Springer International Publishing.
Freeth, R., & Caniglia, G. (2020). Learning to collaborate while collaborating: Advancing interdiscipli-
nary sustainability research. Sustainability Science, 15, 247–261.
Hayden, M., & McIntosh, S. (2018). International education: The transformative potential of experiential
learning. Oxford Review of Education, 44(4), 403–413.
Heyes, C. (2016). Who knows? Metacognitive social learning strategies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences,
20(3), 204–213.
Kefalaki, M. K., & Diamantidaki, F. (2020). Nurturing collective knowledge and intelligence: Social
phenomena and implications for practice. Journal of Education, Innovation, and Communication,
2(1), 7–9.
Keys, L. (1994). Action learning: Executive development of choice for the 1990s. Journal of
Management Development, 13(8), 50–56.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2009). The learning way: Meta-cognitive aspects of experiential learning.
Simulation & Gaming, 40(3), 297–327.
Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2017). Experiential learning theory as a guide for experiential educators in
higher education. Experiential Learning & Teaching in Higher Education, 1(1), 7–44.
Lim, G., Shelley, A. W., & Heo, D. (2019). The regulation of learning and co-creation of new knowledge
in mobile learning. Knowledge Management & E-Learning, 11(4), 449–484.
Miller, J. P. Nigh, K., Crowell, S., Novak, B., & Binder, M. J. (2018). International Handbook of Holistic
Education. New York: Routledge.
Miller, R. (1997). What Are Schools For? Holistic Education in American Culture, 3rd Edition. Brandon,
VT: Holistic Education Press.
OECD (2018). Education at a Glance. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/education/education-at-a
-glance
Perrault, E. K., & Albert, C. A. (2017). Utilizing project-based learning to increase sustainability atti-
tudes among students. Applied Environmental Education & Communication, 17(2), 96–105.
PMI (2021). PMBOK® Guide, 7th edition. Project Management Institute.
Revans, R. W. (1980). Action Learning: New Techniques for Management. London: Blond & Briggs.
Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2016) Creative Schools. London: Penguin Books.
Schulz, K.-P., Geithner, S., Woelfel, C., & Krzywinski, J. (2015). Toolkit-Based modelling and serious
play as means to foster creativity in innovation processes. Creativity and Innovation Management,
24(2), 323–340.
Shelley, A. W. (2017). KNOWledge SUCCESSion: Sustained Performance and Capability Growth

through Strategic Knowledge Projects. New York: Business Expert Press.
Shelley, A. W. (2020a). Reverse Bloom: A new hybrid approach to experiential learning for a new world.
JEICOM, 2(1), 30–45. https://coming.gr/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2_December2020_JEICOM
_FINAL_Arthur-W-Shelley.pdf
Shelley, A. W. (2020b). Cocreated projects worth doing: An inclusive collaborative approach for design
of strategic initiatives in VUCA. Journal of Technology and Governance, 1(1). April. http://creactos
.org/index.php/jtg/article/view/9/7
Shelley, A. W. (2021). Becoming Adaptable. Creative Facilitation to Develop Yourself and Transform
Cultures. Melbourne: Intelligent Answers.
Shelley, A. W., & Goodwin, D. (2018). Optimising learning outcomes through social co-creation of
new knowledge in real-life client challenges. Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 1(2), 26–31.
https://journals.sfu.ca/jalt/index.php/jalt/article/view/19
Sousa-Vieira, M. E., López-Ardao, J. C., Fernández-Veiga, M., Rodríguez-Pérez, M., & Herrería-Alonso,
S. (2016). An open source platform for using gamification and social learning methodologies in engi-
neering education: Design and experience. Computer Applications in Engineering Education, 24(5),
813–826.
Van Epp, M., & Garside, B. (2014). Monitoring and Evaluating Social Learning: A Framework for
Cross-Initiative Application. CCAFS Working Paper no. 98. Copenhagen: CGIAR Research Program
on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS).
Victorian Department of Education and Training (2020). The Victorian Curriculum F-10. Retrieved from
https://victoriancurriculum.vcaa.vic.edu.au
WEF (2020a). The Future of Jobs Report 2020. https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-future-of-jobs
-report-2020
WEF (2020b). World Economic Forum. Human Capital as an Asset: An Accounting Framework to Reset
the Value of Talent in the New World of Work. https://www.weforum.org/reports/human-capital-as
-an-asset-an-accounting-framework-to-reset-the-value-of-talent-in-the-new-world-of-work
Wright, G. B. (2011). Student-centered learning in higher education. International Journal of Teaching
and Learning in Higher Education, 23(3), 92–97.
Yasseri, D., Finley, P. M., Mayfield, B. E., Davis, D. W., Thompson, P., & Vogler, J. S. (2018). The
hard work of soft skills: Augmenting the project-based learning experience with interdisciplinary
teamwork. Instructional Science, 46(3), 457–488.
Zilliacus, H., Holm, G., & Sahlström, F. (2017). Taking steps towards institutionalising multicultural
education: The national curriculum of Finland. Multicultural Education Review, 9(4), 231–248.
18. Impact of Industry 4.0 on agile project
management
Vijaya Dixit and Upasna A. Agarwal
1. INTRODUCTION
Industry 4.0 is defined as a combined terminology for technologies such as the Internet of
Things (IoT), big data, autonomous robots, simulation, additive manufacturing, augmented
reality, virtual reality, and cloud computing. The main features of Industry 4.0 are horizontal
and vertical integration. These aspects ensure internal collaboration of subsystems that create
flexible, agile, and adaptable systems capable of offering customization in their product/
service offerings (Lin, Nagalingam, Kuik, and Murata, 2012).
The fourth industrial revolution due to Industry 4.0 has brought profound and lasting changes
in the economy and society, which in turn has resulted in the evolution of Project Management
4.0. In the new version, the entire project lifecycle right from project initiation, planning,
execution, monitoring, and control is performed by utilizing Industry 4.0 technologies. Project
Management 4.0 is characterized by digitization, virtualization, transnationalization, profes-
sionalization, and agile (Simion, Popa, and Albu, 2018). Because of these transformations, the
project environment has become more complex and dynamic, which on one hand will cause
disruptive effects on the traditional project management (Ribeiro, Amaral, and Barros, 2021),
whereas, on the other hand, it will also greatly expand the collection of automation tools and
technologies available to project managers to facilitate effective project planning, monitoring,
and control (Simion et al., 2018).
Recently, the concepts of Industry 4.0 have been successfully applied in the manufactur-
ing industry by multiple researchers (Frank, Dalenogare, and Ayala, 2019; Qin, Liu, and
Grosvenor, 2016). However, no study has reported the application of Industry 4.0 concepts in
agile project management context. Like Industry 4.0, the horizontal integration across project
entities (client, contractor, suppliers, subcontractors, statutory bodies, etc.) and the vertical
integration of a project team inside the project organization are the two fundamental aspects
of project management as well. In this study, the technologies of Industry 4.0 are studied from
the perspective of their application in various knowledge areas of agile project management.
Section 2 of this chapter discusses the impact of Industry 4.0 on project management and the
role of agile project management. Section 3 focuses on the impact of Industry 4.0 on project
human resource management (HRM). Section 4 proposes new research direction and Section
5 presents conclusions and future directions.
254
Impact of Industry 4.0 on agile project management 255
2. IMPACT OF INDUSTRY 4.0 ON AGILE PROJECT

MANAGEMENT
Projects have unique customized requirements and are carried out in highly uncertain and
changing environments. Because of these characteristics, changes in project scope are inevita-
ble. For highly dynamic projects where precise scope definition is not possible, agile project
management approach is preferable. Agile project management comprises self-managed
adaptable teams that continuously take inputs from customer-oriented feedback loops to iter-
atively adjust the scope and performance of the project. The key capabilities of agile project
management are that it is able to handle the complexity of the projects and address uncertain
environments and resultant changes (Scholz, Sieckmann, and Kohl, 2020). The important
principles of agile as reported by Raji and Rossi (2019) are:
● AP 1: Centralized planning using a collaborative approach

● AP 2: Frequent introduction of new innovative products
● AP 3: Speedy response to customer requests
● AP 4: Leveraging IT for integration and coordination among design and development
activities
● AP 5: Leveraging IT for integration and coordination among manufacturing/company
activities
● AP 6: Flexibility of suppliers in terms of delivery time and orders
● AP 7: Leveraging IT for integration and coordination among procurement activities
● AP 8: Flexible product mix through flexible equipment
● AP 9: Enhanced offering for product customization.
Large companies operate mostly in uncertain environments. As such, uncertainty is becoming

the norm in the present global economy that operates on a free market philosophy. Arnold,
Veile, and Voigt (2018) indicated that such uncertainty could bring additional challenges for
the organization during its attempt to adopt Industry 4.0. Yanık and Işıklı (2019) stated that the
agile approach, due to its key characteristics of responsiveness and speedy decision-making,
can play a pivotal role in digital transformations of the companies, especially when the com-
panies are executing large-scale projects full with uncertainties. Marnewick and Marnewick
(2019) stated that the new environment in the era of the fourth industrial revolution requires
shortening the development and innovation, as agile is more successful and quicker in
implementing new products than the traditional project management. The aforementioned
requirement can be fulfilled by adopting the agile approach for the faster development and
implementation of innovations. Ghani at al. (2015) stated that agile methodologies enhance
project quality, customer satisfaction, and flexibility for incorporating variations and compli-
cations. The altering environment created by the fourth industrial revolution requires cautious
explanation of the shifting production prerequisites, and it is intensely linked to agile meth-
odologies and where implementation of solutions is done in an agile way (Marnewick and
Marnewick, 2019; Elnagar, Weistroffer, and Thomas, 2018).
Simion et al. (2018) suggested that digitization will help organizations perform virtual sim-
ulation of project execution before real-time execution, which will lead to better project scope
management and risk management. The availability of a large volume of data from continuous
monitoring through sensors and application of data analytics tools on this data will provide
early warning signals. The results of simulation and big data analytics will make project man-
agers conscious of the probable risks that may be encountered during different stages of the
project life cycle. This will facilitate better project risk and response management.
Smart algorithms available can provide foresight of cost and schedule of projects better
than expert assessments. Continuous data collection through sensors, machine-to-machine
communication, and smart appliances will provide updated real-time cost and schedule pro-
gress indicators and automated quality control of deliverables (Simion et al., 2018; Cakmakci,
2019). This will enable better project monitoring and control through earned value analysis.
Simion et al. (2018) stated that digitization will facilitate globalization of companies by
allowing them to execute projects simultaneously in different parts of the world. E-social
networking platforms can be used to involve stakeholders to provide feedback on project
deliverables, which can be used for improving project performance. Using virtual platforms
in procurement processes will help in sharing knowledge about purchases. E-procurement
platforms can enable smart contracts and smart sourcing.
Ribeiro et al. (2021) and Simion et al. (2018) forecasted that physical communication will
slowly be replaced by internet connectivity and use of human–machine and machine–machine
communication. Virtual telepathy will become predominant in the communication process and
the use of big data analytics will permit the flow of a huge amount of information, rapidly,
through a broader spectrum of communication such as 5G. The resulting virtualization will
accelerate the communication processes and make it more dynamic within projects that will
allow an extension of virtual teams spread across different parts of the world. Marnewick and
Marnewick (2019) suggested that as robots and machines will become part of the project team,
digital communication feedback needs to be integrated in collaborations to include nonhuman
input and feedback.
Simion et al. (2018) opined that technological interventions resulting from Industry 4.0 will
lead to enhanced complexity of the projects as the number of components to be tracked will
increase. This will create additional challenges for project integration management. However,
the focus of Industry 4.0 is on technologies such as blockchain, the IoT, and cyber-physical
systems (CPSs), and the integration of different technologies will enable information tech-
nology ecosystems to function in an intelligent and autonomous way. This will facilitate
integration management of project data by sharing of common information to all stakeholders,
enabling independent decision-making (artificial intelligence), agility, interoperability, flexi-
bility, and efficiency (Marnewick and Marnewick, 2019).
Table 18.1 presents the various Industry 4.0 technologies, their application in a project
context, and the project management knowledge areas and agile principles affected by each
technology.
Table 18.1 Application of Industry 4.0 technologies in a project management context
Industry 4.0 Application Project Agile project Author

technology management management
knowledge area aspect
Additive Additive manufacturing technology is used to Scope, AP2; AP3; Rane, Potdar, and Rane
manufacturing manufacture personalized goods and complex parts schedule, cost, AP5; AP8; (2019); Ivanov, Dolgui,
with lower production costs, energy consumption, and risk AP9 and Sokolov (2019);
material wastage. It minimizes inventory by allowing Franco and Behrens
demand-based production, and shortens the lead times (2019)
by eliminating long supply chains. In new product
development projects financial and operational risks
are higher due to innovative designing. Additive
manufacturing can create product prototypes for
feasibility check and design validation and minimize
the risk associated with new product development
Autonomous Robots will gradually become part of project teams, Resource, cost, AP3; AP5 Franco and Behrens
robots working side by side with people comfortably, and schedule (2019)
communicating with them. These robots are more
autonomous, more versatile, and more cooperative.
The use of the autonomous robots at the construction
sites will eliminate the risks associated with human
health and safety, and they can complete the repetitive
tasks with more efficiency and less cost and time
Big data Big data analytics uses computerized algorithms Risks, quality AP1; AP3; Rane et al. (2019);
analytics in large databases to identify trends, interactions, AP4 Haddud and Khare
and correlations that can reveal useful information. (2018); Ribeiro et
It helps in improving the accuracy of forecasting, al. (2021); Franco
traceability, visibility, and efficiency. The insights and Behrens (2019);
drawn from big data analytics assist in solving Cakmakci (2019); Raji
complex network problems leading to improved and Rossi (2019)
network responsiveness. Big data analytics helps
in forecasting the different risks involved in
a construction project, such as vague design specifics
and requirements, loose subcontractor control,
financial risk, etc.
Blockchain Blockchain allows non-tamperable, time-stamped Stakeholder, AP1; AP6; Rane et al. (2019);
records accessible to all stakeholders across the integration, AP7 Simion et al. (2018)
network reducing conflicts and better integration procurement
across project stakeholders. It enables rapid and
automatic payments between parties via smart
contracts, which assists in managing multiple
suppliers within the project

Cloud Project networks comprise several entities including Integration, AP1; AP3; Rane et al. (2019);
computing suppliers, contractors, client, consultants, and cost AP4; AP5; Haddud and Khare
regulatory agencies that are located at different AP6; AP7 (2018); Ribeiro et
locations. Cloud computing technology allows al. (2021); Franco
data storage in a single source cloud, which can be and Behrens (2019);
accessed by any stakeholder of the project. This leads Cakmakci (2019); Raji
to better integration management by real-time and and Rossi (2019)
symmetrical information sharing across all entities
and across all geographical locations. As the cloud
is a shared resource, it does not incur acquisition and
maintenance costs. This reduces the operational costs
of the project, leading to savings
Cyber- CPSs ensure integration of the physical world with Integration, AP1; AP3; Zhong, Xu, Klotz,
physical the computing/virtual world. These interconnections resource AP4; AP5; and Newman (2017);
systems within CPSs guarantee real-time data and information AP7 Oztemel and Gursev
sharing, leading to a high level of coordination, (2020); Elnagar et
regulation, transparency, and efficacy al. (2018); Cakmakci
(2019); Raji and Rossi
(2019)
IoT In a project, different kinds of resources are deployed Monitoring AP1; AP3; Rane et al. (2019);
such as equipment, workers, robots, etc. Workers’ and control, AP4; AP5; Ribeiro et al. (2021);
activities and health conditions can be tracked using communication, AP7 Franco and Behrens
smart clothing and smart helmets. All aforementioned integration (2019); Cakmakci
resources in the production site can be connected (2019); Raji and Rossi
via embedded software, sensors, and electronic and (2019)
network devices through internet technology, leading
to integrated and intelligent project systems. This will
increase the quality and efficacy of data collection in
real time, thus facilitating earned value analysis for
better project monitoring and control

Simulation Simulation exploits real-time data to replicate the Schedule, risk, AP1; AP2; Rane et al. (2019);
physical world in a virtual environment, which may cost AP3; AP8 Ribeiro et al. (2021);
include computers, items, and humans. It offers Franco and Behrens
a virtual system analysis and optimization framework (2019)
that can help to reduce the project schedule, new
product development time, and expense. The
simulation can also be used for risk analysis in
projects for architecture, scheduling, planning, and
development domains
Augmented AR can be used for visualization/walking through, Monitoring and AP1; AP2; Edirisinghe (2018);
reality knowledge recovery, on-site assembly, and control, risk AP3; AP8; Ribeiro et al. (2021);
way-finding. An AR smart helmet can generate AP9 Franco and Behrens
a location-specific AR overview when it is combined (2019); Raji and Rossi
with sensor and imaging technology. Golparvar-Fard, (2019)
Peña-Mora, and Savarese (2012) invented a method
for tracking progress by image processing.
Photographs taken on-site are used in this process to
create an “as-built” 3D model, and this is compared
to the “as-planned” model. AR can be used for
a protection strategy that produces alerts to discourage
employees from entering dangerous areas (where the
area’s spatial coordinates are predefined), such as
when there is a high probability of overhead items
dropping in the construction field
3. HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN INDUSTRY 4.0
An important knowledge area of project management that is affected by Industry 4.0 is project
resource management. It involves identification, acquisition, and management of human
resources required to execute a project successfully. HRM has been a challenging task even
without Industry 4.0. Once the organization decides to implement Industry 4.0, it will force
project managers to rethink current practices and processes around HRM. Marnewick and
Marnewick (2019) and Sony and Naik (2019) opined that the top management’s commitment
and full-fledged involvement and the adaptableness of employees are important for Industry
4.0 adoption.
With digitization being implemented, project managers are reorganizing projects’ internal
structures using digital products in order to adapt to the changing requirements of Industry 4.0
(Cakmakci, 2019). Nowadays, the human members of the project team are being replaced by
robots and full automations, particularly for repetitive tasks. This makes monitoring and con-
trolling easier as much information is now available in real time. However, the aforementioned
changes require robust initiation and planning processes so that the tasks assigned to the robot
and the machine must be designed in such a way that they align with the digitization aspect of
the job crafting (Ribeiro et al., 2021).
Leadership Bushuyeva, Bushuiev, and Bushuieva (2019) stated that as the world transforms
rapidly during the fourth industrial revolution, a new generation of leaders is necessary.
These leaders need to be technologically competent so that they can respond to innovations,
thereby creating new businesses and technological opportunities for project implementation.
Jermsittiparsert (2020) revealed that leadership style and Industry 4.0 together significantly
impact organizational performance. The fourth industrial revolution has a disruptive impact
on the way organizations work. In this context, an agile mind-set needs to be adopted to
implement Industry 4.0 technologies as continuous change is brought about by the introduc-
tion of these new technologies (Marnewick and Marnewick, 2019). Project managers are the
main actors in this industrialization change process, therefore they need to have the prereq-
uisite technological skills and knowledge about technologies such as artificial intelligence,
machine learning, CPSs, and big data analytics (Ribeiro et al., 2021). Project teams need to
be agile and swift. This cannot be achieved through a “command and control” leadership
style. The authoritativeness of project managers will depend on their ability to manage the
overall flow at a holistic level as well as at a component level. Project managers need to adopt
servant-leadership qualities to lead such agile teams (Parker, Holesgrove, and Pathak, 2015).
Team: The implication of adoption of Industry 4.0 for project teams is that they have to con-
tinuously upgrade their skills and competency with respect to new technologies (Marnewick
and Marnewick, 2019). This will result in a major change that has to be accomplished in an
agile way. Thomas, Bellin, Jules, and Lynton (2012) stated that teams that are high-performing
are agile in their thinking and always play an important role in the decision-making process.
Simion et al. (2018) identified that digitization will create a globalization opportunity for
companies to have virtual teams with members from different parts of the world. The cultural
diversity in such teams on one hand will create an opportunity for new learnings, but on the
other hand will lead to new challenges of cultural differences between the members of the
project team. A major change brought about by Industry 4.0 will be in team composition,
which will have a direct impact on individual team members and their mutual interactions
(Marnewick and Marnewick, 2019). Future, virtual project teams will comprise two or more
team members, both human and nonhuman, such as robots and smart machines. This will
result in collective intelligence of both humans and computers. Robots will perform the
repetitive tasks and the role of human staff will be concentrated on the creative, planning,
non-repetitive aspects of the project. Such role revisions will lead to the disappearance of
some professions and the evolution of new ones to change the team composition (Marnewick
and Marnewick, 2021). The technical skills and competencies of team members will become
important to manage emerging technologies such as AI and robotics. Effective training of the
virtual teams can be performed using gamification or augmented reality. Furthermore, the
flexibility of the project team will be enhanced with respect to response to work schedule,
customer requirements, ability, and changes in the project environment. Ribeiro et al. (2021)
stated that in the Industry 4.0 context, the traditional hierarchical organizational structure will
be progressively altered to a flat structure wherein project team members will be independent
professional figures full of creativity and freedom. At the end of the day, irrespective of the
team’s composition, teams should be agile as this provides them with the capability to adjust
their way of thinking and working. Teams should also be ahead of the learning curve and apply
new skills and knowledge in order to function optimally in Industry 4.0.
4. DISCUSSION AND FUTURE AREAS OF RESEARCH
Agility has become an important dimension for organizational survival and thriving strategy.
As Denning (2016) suggests, “agile management is now a vast global movement that is
transforming the world of work. Most remarkably, the five largest organizations on the planet
in terms of market capitalization—Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft—are
recognizably agile”. These organizations balance dynamism and adaptability, are nonlinear
and organic, and are quick to adapt to change in a dynamic and unpredictable environment.
Burgeoning interest in agile human resource (HR) and the implications of Industry 4.0 on
HR mirrors a global trend toward new HR practices. The online publication of the Agile HR
Manifesto with over 300 signatories (https://www.agilehrmanifesto.org) is an indication of
increasing interest in developing agile HR. However, while there is accelerating interest and
relevance in the industry with regards to agile HR, scholarly research on individuals and team
behavior-related issues of Industry 4.0 implementation with agile context implementation
is sparse, fragmented, and therefore a possible area of future investigation (McMackin and
Heffernan, 2021). For future research, we propose the need to undertake focused investiga-
tions of the micro, meso, and macro aspects of agile teams under the fourth industrial revolu-
tion. We elaborate these thoughts in the following paragraphs.
Micro Level
A possible area of intervention by studies in the future could be examining the HRM
value chain in the context of agile projects in the fourth industrial revolution by using the
ability–motivation–opportunity (AMO) model (Appelbaum et al., 2000). According to
this model, in the HRM system there are three directions that are concomitantly worked
on: ability, which facilitates employees’ knowledge, skills, and abilities (KSA); moti-
vation factors (motivation-enhancing dimension); and extending working opportunities
(opportunity-enhancing dimension) (Appelbaum, Bailey, Berg and Kalleberg, 2000; Boxall
and Macky, 2009; Jiang, Lepak, Hu and Baer, 2012). The option of new Industry 4.0 tech-
nologies using agile teams can be well supported by the three AMO dimensions by creating
synergies across the value chain.
Traditional and agile organizations are fundamentally different in the way they approach
and solve business problems. Understandably, therefore, the expectations from individuals as
well as their dispositions, knowledge, skill, and attitudes in an agile organization differ from
those in a traditional organization. Employees in agile teams are expected to have stronger
tolerance to ambiguity and risk tolerance as well as planning and self-drive and organizing
capabilities (Crowder and Friess, 2015). Employees in the Industry 4.0 context are required
to have hard-core technical competencies. A possible area that needs intervention could be
exploring best cases used for selecting or training the right people or talent (or both) in agile
project teams. Extensions of this study may include training, compensation, and career devel-
opment aspects of teams.
Meso Level
Agile teams: Organizations are making focused efforts to develop their products using
agile methods (Stavru, 2014). Learning in agile teams is an iterative process and employees
work cross-functionally to achieve common goals. Using agile principles, the teams work
on specific projects and have high-quality deliverables. Typically, they take one project at
a time. Even though an increasing number of organizations strive to implement agile teams,
efforts need to be made to examine strategies of organizations transitioning from bureaucratic
systems to agile (Moe et al., 2010; Nerur, Mahapatra and Mangalaraj, 2005). The interpersonal
relationships and dynamics of an agile team could be unique. For instance, Project Aristotle of
Google found team trust and psychological safety to be critical aspects for productivity among
agile teams. Examining the process for creating trust and psychological safety in teams could
be a promising area of future investigations.
Macro Level
Agile leadership: For any project success, leadership plays a key role. Transitioning from tra-
ditional to agile organizations may involve a new organizational flat hierarchy and empower
teams. Examining the right leadership skills and styles could be an important area of inves-
tigation. We also need to investigate the nature of leadership in agile organizations from the
perspective of professionals who identify as agile leaders. What does this new way of working
require of leaders? There are a few essential leadership questions that need to be delved into
more deeply.
5. CONCLUSION
In today’s era, project management has become one of the vital fields in evaluating the
success of a project. However, the implementation of a project is a very complex process.
It has become crucial to forgo traditional project management techniques and adopt modern
tools and technologies due to the intense competition between companies to enhance the effi-
ciency and productivity of their processes. To achieve this, it is essential to reduce the project
risks involved and to make more in less time. Industry 4.0 is revolutionizing the traditional
methods with advancements in technologies and automation. As shown in Table 18.1, Industry
4.0 technologies will impact all knowledge areas of project management and enhance the
application of agile aspects. Simulation of project execution will lead to better project scope
management and risk management. Continuous data collection will enable better project
monitoring and control through earned value analysis. E-procurement platforms can enable
smart contracts and smart sourcing. Robots and machines will become part of the project team,
which will integrate digital communication and facilitate integration management. Overall, the
trade-off of cost, quality, schedule, and scope faced by traditional project management will be
overcome to a large extent by application of these technologies, leading to enhanced project
performance.
REFERENCES
Appelbaum, E., Bailey, T., Berg, P., & Kalleberg, A. L. (2000). Manufacturing advantage: Why
high-performance work systems pay off. Cornell University Press.
Arnold, C., Veile, J., & Voigt, K. I. (2018, April). What drives industry 4.0 adoption? An examination
of technological, organizational, and environmental determinants. In Proceedings of 27th Annual
Conference of the International Association for Management of Technology, Birmingham, United
Kingdom, April (pp. 22–26).
Boxall, P., & Macky, K. (2009). Research and theory on high‐performance work systems: Progressing
the high‐involvement stream. Human Resource Management Journal, 19(1), 3–23.
Bushuyeva, N., Bushuiev, D., & Bushuieva, V. (2019). Agile leadership of managing innovation pro-
jects. Innovative Technologies and Scientific Solutions for Industries, 4(10), 77–84.
Cakmakci, M. (2019, May). Interaction in project management approach within Industry 4.0. In
International Scientific-Technical Conference Manufacturing (pp. 176–189). Springer.
Crowder, J. A., & Friess, S. (2015). Agile project management: Managing for success. Springer.
Denning, S. (2016). How to make the whole organization “agile”. Strategy & Leadership, 44(4), 10–17.
Edirisinghe, R. (2018). Digital skin of the construction site: Smart sensor technologies towards the future
smart construction site. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(2).
Elnagar, S., Weistroffer, H., & Thomas, M. (2018, October). Agile requirement engineering maturity
framework for Industry 4.0. In European, Mediterranean, and Middle Eastern Conference on
Information Systems (pp. 405–418). Springer.
Franco, W. F., & Behrens, F. H. (2019, October). Agile project implementation methodology for
introducing new technologies in Industry 4.0. In Brazilian Technology Symposium (pp. 469–477).
Springer.
Frank, A. G., Dalenogare, L. S., & Ayala, N. F. (2019). Industry 4.0 technologies: Implementation
patterns in manufacturing companies. International Journal of Production Economics, 210, 15–26.
Ghani, I., Bello, M., & Bagiwa, I. L. (2015). A survey-based analysis of agile adoption on performances
of IT organizations. Journal of Internet Computing and Services, 16(5), 87–92.
Golparvar-Fard, M., Peña-Mora, F., & Savarese, S. (2012). Automated model-based progress monitor-
ing using unordered daily construction photographs and IFC as-planned models. ASCE Journal of
Computing in Civil Engineering, 29(1).
Haddud, A., & Khare, A. (2018). The impact of digitizing supply chains on lean operations. In
Marktorientiertes Produkt-und Produktionsmanagement in digitalen Umwelten (pp. 27–46). Springer
Gabler.
Ivanov, D., Dolgui, A., & Sokolov, B. (2019). The impact of digital technology and Industry 4.0 on the
ripple effect and supply chain risk analytics. International Journal of Production Research, 57(3),
829–846.
Jermsittiparsert, K. (2020). Leadership and Industry 4.0 as a tool to enhance organization performance:
Direct and indirect role of job satisfaction, competitive advantage and business sustainability. In Agile
Business Leadership Methods for Industry 4.0. Emerald Publishing Limited.
Jiang, K., Lepak, D. P., Hu, J., & Baer, J. C. (2012). How does human resource management influence
organizational outcomes? A meta-analytic investigation of mediating mechanisms. Academy of
Lin, H. W., Nagalingam, S. V., Kuik, S. S., & Murata, T. (2012). Design of a global decision support
system for a manufacturing SME: Towards participating in collaborative manufacturing. International
Journal of Production Economics, 136(1), 1–12.
Marnewick, A. L., & Marnewick, C. (2019). The ability of project managers to implement Industry
4.0-related projects. IEEE Access, 8, 314–324.
Marnewick, C., & Marnewick, A. L. (2021). Insights into managing project teams for Industry 4.0. In
Research Anthology on Cross-Industry Challenges of Industry 4.0 (pp. 1508–1528). IGI Global.
McMackin, J., & Heffernan, M. (2021). Agile for HR: Fine in practice, but will it work in theory? Human
Resource Management Review, 31(4), 100791.
Moe, N. B., Dingsøyr, T., & Dybå, T. (2010). A teamwork model for understanding an agile team: A case
study of a Scrum project. Information and Software Technology, 52(5), 480–491.
Nerur, S., Mahapatra, R., & Mangalaraj, G. (2005). Challenges of migrating to agile methodologies.
Communications of the ACM, 48(5), 72–78.
Oztemel, E., & Gursev, S. (2020). Literature review of Industry 4.0 and related technologies. Journal of
Intelligent Manufacturing, 31(1), 127–182.
Parker, D. W., Holesgrove, M., & Pathak, R. (2015). Improving productivity with self-organised teams
and agile leadership. International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 6(1),
112–128.
Qin, J., Liu, Y., & Grosvenor, R. (2016). A categorical framework of manufacturing for Industry 4.0 and
beyond. Procedia CIRP, 52, 173–178.
Raji, I. O., & Rossi, T. (2019, October). Exploring Industry 4.0 technologies as drivers of lean and agile
supply chain strategies. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and
Operations Management, Toronto, ON, Canada (pp. 23–25).
Rane, S. B., Potdar, P. R., & Rane, S. (2019). Development of project risk management framework based
on Industry 4.0 technologies. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 28(5), 31.
Ribeiro, A., Amaral, A., & Barros, T. (2021). Project manager competencies in the context of the
Industry 4.0. Procedia Computer Science, 181, 803–810.
Scholz, J. A., Sieckmann, F., & Kohl, H. (2020). Implementation with agile project management
approaches: Case study of an Industry 4.0 learning factory in China. Procedia Manufacturing, 45,
234–239.
Simion, C. P., Popa, S. C., & Albu, C. (2018, November). Project management 4.0: Project manage-
ment in the digital era. In 12th International Management Conference. Editura ASE, Bucharest
(pp. 93–100).
Sony, M., & Naik, S. (2019). Key ingredients for evaluating Industry 4.0 readiness for organizations:
A literature review. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 27(7), 2213–2232.
Stavru, S. (2014). A critical examination of recent industrial surveys on agile method usage. Journal of
Systems and Software, 94, 87–97.
Thomas, R. J., Bellin, J., Jules, C., & Lynton, N. (2012). Global leadership teams: Diagnosing three
essential qualities. Strategy Leadership, 40(3), 25–29.
Yanık, S., & Işıklı, E. (2019). An ANP approach for prioritizing the agile project management criteria in
Industry 4.0 transition. In Agile Approaches for Successfully Managing and Executing Projects in the
Fourth Industrial Revolution (pp. 165–187). IGI Global.
Zhong, R. Y., Xu, X., Klotz, E., & Newman, S. T. (2017). Intelligent manufacturing in the context of
Industry 4.0: A review. Engineering, 3(5), 616–630.
19. Performance management in public–private
partnership projects: a perspective from the
Indian road sector
Dhruv Agarwal, Sagar Deshmukh, and Ganesh Devkar
INTRODUCTION
India is reported to have the second-largest road network in the world, with a total length of
62.16 lakh kilometres, comprising national highways/expressways, state highways, and other
roads. India now has the global record for building 34 kilometres of national highways every
day, with plans to increase this to more than 100 kilometres per day (Roads and Highways/
Make in India, 2022). India’s road sector has gradually improved connectivity between
major cities, towns, and remote areas over the past few years. MoRTH (the Ministry of Road
Transport and Highways) is responsible for the planning, development, and maintenance of
India’s national highways. Until June 2020, MoRTH reportedly built only 1,681 kilometres
of roadway, with a significant jump in the process in the following year, which resulted in the
construction of 2,284 kilometres of national highways by June 2021, bringing the total length
of road construction in India to 13,298 kilometres. This has led to an increase in compound
annual growth rate of about 17% compared to that of 2016. The goal is to bring the total
roadway in India to 65,000 kilometres by 2022 at a cost of Rs. 5.35 lakh crores, and 23 national
highways by 2025 (IBEF, 2022).
Formerly, public sector entities were solely responsible for the planning, design, construc-
tion, and operation of roads in India. The role of the private sector was confined only to the
construction phase of road projects and in a fragmented manner. To incentivise the involve-
ment of private sector in India, the government brought in the public–private partnership
(PPP) model. This led to a huge boom in the industry with the emergence of the private sector
as a key player. The PPP model introduced provisions like innovative technology, better risk
distribution, superior quality of work, private investment, timesaving, and better operational
efficiency.
India has emerged as one of the largest road sectors that has embraced the PPP model.
According to the PPP database of India, as of December 2019, the Government of India (GOI)
had implemented a total of 1,824 PPP projects across different sectors and invested ₹2,495,539
crores for their execution and implementation. Of the 1,824 projects, 1,015 projects were in the
transportation sector, and 1,824 in the road and bridges category. The GOI has, so far, invested
a large share of ₹3,02,388 crores in national highway projects, the largest share within the
transportation sector (Department of Economic Affairs, 2021).
While the PPP model had a large footprint in terms of numbers of projects and quantum
of investment, the performance of PPP road projects has been far from satisfactory. Several
PPP road projects in India have run into issues like cost overrun, schedule overrun, land
acquisition issues, and government clearance problems that have impeded project performance
265
(Gopalkrishna & Karnam, 2015; Love et al., 2015). PPP research tends to focus on various
topics, but there continues to be a gap in research in the evaluation of the performance of PPP
projects in the road sector from a process life cycle perspective (Liu et al., 2018; Liu et al.,
2015; Yuan et al., 2012).
Past studies have evaluated project success, but they do not provide insights into the process
involved (Yuan et al., 2012). Process evaluation is important for favourable outcomes, both at
organisation level and project level. It helps control and improve all parts of a project life cycle
as it proceeds, thereby enabling holistic performance evaluation of the project. Thus, process
management is critical for the performance of a PPP project (Haponava & Al-Jibouri, 2012;
Kagioglou et al., 2001).
In the Indian context, there has been little research on measuring the performance of PPP
projects pertaining to the road sector. This research develops a conceptual framework for
analysing the performance of PPPs in road sector projects. It also analyses the present perfor-
mance indicators used in road sector PPP projects and recommends areas for improvement.
The following are the objectives of this study:
(1) To identify the existing methods and parameters adopted for performance measurement
of PPP road sector projects.
(2) To arrive at the key performance measurement indicators.
The scope of the study is entirely focused on road sector projects in India.
LITERATURE STUDY
Several definitions of PPPs are available in the literature today. For example, the reference
guide for PPP published by the World Bank, Asian Development Bank (ADB et al. 2014),
defines PPPs as “A long-term contract between a private party and a government entity,
for providing a public asset or service, in which the private party bears significant risk and
management responsibility, and remuneration is linked to performance”. There are multiple
definitions for the PPP model with the specifics changing across nations.
There are various types of PPP models adopted in the road sector, such as BOT (Toll), BOT
(Annuity), Hybrid Annuity Model (HAM), and Toll-Operate-Transfer (TOT). The benefits
of PPPs include risk sharing, reducing public sector administrative costs, innovation, inte-
grating the private sector’s knowledge, skills, and resources into construction and operating
efficiencies, and boosting service quality (DEA, 2016; Yuan et al., 2009; Zhang, 2006). The
complex long-term contract among PPP participants makes it different from the traditional
infrastructure delivery system. In the past few decades, PPP research has focused on topics like
(1) critical success factors (CSFs), (2) efficiency/effectiveness of project implementation, (3)
risk management, (4) concessionaire selection, (5) roles and responsibilities of the government
sector, and (6) PPP finance. However, there has been a paucity in research to assess the PPP
project’s success from a process life cycle perspective (Liu et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2015; Yuan
et al., 2012).
Performance management in public–private partnership projects 267
Background of Performance Measurement
Performance measurement is a process of evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of the

steps followed to achieve the objective of the project, organisation, or stakeholder (Yang et al.,
2010). It is a challenging process as it involves high risk and financial commitments from the
private sector, long-term concession periods, and multiple stakeholder involvement. Without
performance measurements, the project would produce sub-optimal service quality.
Various performance measurement frameworks have been proposed by researchers. One
of the most frequently used performance assessment frameworks was the balanced scorecard
introduced by Kaplan and Norton (1992). Its drawback was its inability to measure perfor-
mance against multiple stakeholders’ environments (Neely et al., 2001). Neely et al. (2001)
introduced a new system called performance prism that focuses on five facets, viz., stakeholder
satisfaction, strategies, processes, capabilities, and stakeholder contribution, all of which are
inter-linked. This framework was criticised for its complexity in the implementation process
and its focus only on the product, which leads to unsuitability to process improvement. A new
framework – the key performance indicator (KPI) system – was then proposed by Liu et al.
(2015), which enabled performance measurement of projects throughout their life cycles. This
framework evaluates the process in terms of effectiveness and efficiency to achieve project
objectives. KPIs can include both quantitative and qualitative indicators of performance evalu-
ation. They are not the direct measures of performance evaluation but are targets or milestones
that alert the user about the progress of the process. Performance measures are defined to quan-
tify and understand the outcomes of the indicator. Project performance can only be measured
if the key indicators and performance measures are defined and monitored (Villalba-Romero
& Liyanage, 2016; FHWA, 2011).
Performance Evaluation in the Execution Phase
In project management, the performance of a construction project is traditionally measured

using the iron triangle factors of time, cost, and quality, while the measurement of the opera-
tion and maintenance phase is based on KPIs defined by the stakeholders. (Villalba-Romero
& Liyanage, 2016; Liu et al., 2015). Kagioglou et al. (2001) argued that the traditional
performance measurement systems (PMSs) are insufficient to assess project success. In
order to get a bigger picture, various other indicators of project success such as health and
safety, profitability, technical performance, financial performance, productivity, environ-
mental sustainability, stakeholder satisfaction, project duration, dispute resolution, transfer of
technology, material management, etc. were proposed in various studies conducted from the
project perspective (Ali et al., 2013; Chan & Chan, 2004; Cox et al., 2003; Luu et al., 2008;
Radujković et al., 2010; Tripathi & Jha, 2018).
All of the above-mentioned indicators focus on the construction phases of the project and
evaluate based on product perspective. The productive perspective means the outcome of the
construction project. This means that all the frameworks are designed to evaluate the project’s
performance at the end. This product-oriented evaluation cannot provide insights into the
performance of the processes carried out (Liu et al., 2015). Researchers felt that process-based
evaluation is ideal as product-oriented evaluation cannot help project managers in improving
the implementation process. Therefore, a new framework is required that can evaluate the
dynamic life cycle of a project in a process-oriented perspective.
Performance Evaluation of PPP Projects
Evaluating PPP projects is a complex process because of its dynamic nature, long-term con-
tractual agreement, and multiple stakeholder involvement over the project life cycle. Yuan
et al. (2009) proposed a unique KPI framework for PPP projects, in which indicators can be
used to evaluate the project’s performance based on five components, namely: (1) project’s
physical characteristics, (2) innovation and learning indicators, (3) process indicators, (4)
financing and marketing indicators, and (5) stakeholder indicators. Several shortcomings were
identified in the framework, such as a disagreement between the aims of various stakeholders.
Therefore, Yuan et al. conducted another study (2012) and analysed the framework using the
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) model to check the relationships between the perfor-
mance indicators and performance packages.
Cong and Ma (2018) developed a measurement system based on the 4E theory (Efficiency,
Economic, Effectiveness, Equity) and used the Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) model
to rank the identified indicators. Hossain et al. (2019) determined the performance indicators
and weighted them using the Analytical Hierarchical Process (AHP). These systems followed
the product evaluation process perspective.
Performance Evaluation of PPP Road Projects
Villalba-Romero and Liyanage (2016) created a step-by-step PMS for PPP road projects,
which included nine KPIs and 29 performance measures derived from Qualitative Content
Analysis (QCA). Direct scoring approach and weighing scoring assessment approach were
used for evaluation.
The National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) has developed a vendor PMS to monitor
the performance of various stakeholders/vendors in NHAI projects (CW Construction World,
2020). The aim is to generate a transparent and comprehensive performance rating system for
its stakeholders (consultants, contractors, etc.). Based on this system, vendors are rated after
multi-level reviews. Suitable amendments would be made in the contract documents to incor-
porate the ratings of vendors as one of the qualification criteria. This is aimed at achieving
higher accountability of vendors and thereby improved quality of highways.
Evaluation from a Process Life cycle Perspective
All the studies mentioned in the above sections evaluate the PPP project’s life cycle per-
formance at the end of the project, which is a product-oriented way of evaluation. Liu et al.
(2015) challenged this mode of evaluation because of its focus on the product alone, which
results in a myopic viewpoint to the project itself. It ignores the process involved in the devel-
opment of the PPP project. Process life cycle performance measurements, on the other hand,
evaluate each phase/stage of the PPP project and can address the concerns and opinions of all
stakeholders involved across the entire project life cycle. Liu et al. (2015) developed a KPI
framework using the performance prism system. The KPIs in this framework were categorised
into three phases, namely (1) initiation and planning, (2) procurement, and (3) partnership.
This framework was refined by including five evaluation nodes in the PPP project life cycle
opposed to the two evaluation nodes that were conventionally used, to effectively and effi-
ciently control the projects deployment process. The nodes were at the start of the initiation
phase, between the pre-tendering and bidding phases, the contract and design phases, the end
of the execution phase, and the end of maintenance and handover phases.
Budayan et al. (2020) developed a conceptual life cycle PMS based on stage-level KPIs for
performance measurement of BOT projects in Turkey. This study suggests that the stage-level
KPIs must be used instead of phase-level KPIs for performance measurement because in
phase-level evaluation, parties must deal with many KPIs, which could be a cumbersome
process. It also suggests that KPIs must be measured and reported regularly for continuous
improvement.
All the studies mentioned above have looked at KPIs from a life cycle perspective but with
different strategies; they have proposed performance evaluations based on phase-level KPIs.
This strategy focused on phase evaluation and overlooked the performance of stages. The
evaluation of multiple stages must be performed at the end of each phase, which could be
difficult as measuring, monitoring, and analysing multiple KPIs would require extra resources.
For this research, a mixed-method approach was adopted wherein both qualitative and quan-
titative data were collected to establish a problem-centred knowledge claim. The effective
definition of the research problem entails collecting data both simultaneously and sequen-
tially. Of the four knowledge claim areas, viz., postpositivism, constructivism, advocacy/
participatory and pragmatism, pragmatism was used for this research as it allows a choice of
multiple methods, techniques, and procedures. Three methods were finalised for data collec-
tion: semi-structured interviews, questionnaire survey, and case study, which were chosen to
achieve the research objective.
The flowchart in Figure 19.1 presents a snapshot of the research methodology.
Figure 19.1 Research methodology flowchart

DATA COLLECTION
Identifying the Key Performance Indicators
The performance evaluation framework for PPP projects was drawn by identifying potential
KPIs from various literature. The literature referred were related to stage-wise evaluation
and phase-wise evaluation frameworks for PPP projects. A few studies have focused on the
process life cycle perspective for PPP road projects (Villalba-Romero & Liyanage, 2016).
Along with this, best practice guidelines for performance measurement for PPP projects have
been reported (Budayan et al., 2020; Cong & Ma, 2018; Villalba-Romero & Liyanage, 2016;
FHWA, 2011; Hossain et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2015, 2016; Love et al., 2015;
Mladenovic et al., 2013; Okudan et al., 2020; PPP Cell DEA, 2015; PPP Toolkit, 2011; Yuan
et al., 2009, 2012).
After identification of all KPIs, the first step was to list them and categorise them into six
different project life cycle stages. A total of 168 KPIs were identified, and they were divided
into six stages, namely (1) feasibility stage, (2) PPP preparation stage, (3) evaluation and
award stage, (4) design stage, (5) construction stage, and (6) operation and maintenance stage
(PPP Toolkit, 2011). Similar KPIs were grouped and rephrased. Finally, a list of 65 KPIs was
prepared that covered the entire project process life cycle.
Semi-Structured Interviews
Semi-structured interviews were conducted to face-validate the identified KPIs and to under-
stand the current system followed in India for performance evaluation of road sector PPP
projects. The interview questions for the interaction with experts were developed based on the
understanding of literature reviews. The questions were aimed at understanding the perfor-
mance of road sector projects in India, validity of KPIs, areas of improvement in performance
measurement, projects that suffered from lack of performance measurement, and the main
challenges in projects and difficulties in implementing the performance measurement frame-
work. The experts interviewed included government and private sector officials with more
than 15 years of experience working on PPP road projects. Eight interviews were conducted
through in-person meetings or Google Meet. Each interview lasted from 45 minutes to 90
minutes. This helped in understanding the industry perspective on the performance evaluation.
Questionnaire Survey
After completion of the face-validation process, based on the expert’s recommendations, the
list of KPIs was updated. For further content validation of the KPIs, a questionnaire survey
was conducted. In this, the respondent was asked to rate the KPIs based on a Likert scale of
1 to 4, depending upon the degree of relevance as per their perspective in PPP road projects.
According to Yusoff (2019), the minimum number of experts for content validation should be
six and not exceed ten. The criteria for selecting experts were (1) the respondents must have
managerial experience in BOT road projects, (2) they must be working with clients, consult-
ants, or contracting firms, and (3) they must have a minimum of 10 years of experience in
PPP road projects. The questionnaire was shared with ten experts fulfilling the criteria and six
responses were received in the given time.
The second round of questionnaire-based survey was conducted after validating the list
of KPIs. The second round was conducted to understand the relative significance of each
KPI. The respondents were asked to rate the KPIs based on a Likert scale 1 to 5 depending
upon the degree of importance of each KPI. They were asked to highlight the KPIs that they
thought needed to be monitored continuously throughout the project stages. The questionnaire
was sent to 130 people working in various government, consulting, and contracting firms
working on PPP road projects. A total of 47 responses were received with the response rate
of 36%. A similar survey was conducted by Yuan et al. (2012), who obtained a response rate
of 13.02%. The respondents had different years of experience: 19% of respondents had five
years of experience, 9% of respondents had 5–10 years of experience, 19% of respondents
had 11–15 years of experience, 21% of respondents had 16–20 years of experience, and
a maximum 32% of respondents had more than 20 years of experience.
Case Studies
Case study analysis aims to shed light on a decision or a group of decisions, including why they
were made, how they were made, how they were implemented, and the outcomes (Yin, 2009).
Cross-case analysis helps elucidate the similarities and differences in the actions, events, and
processes for different case studies. Here cross-case analysis was conducted to understand the
project performance and to identify the evidence for each indicator and comparing the three
PPP projects. Actual challenges faced in each project were identified by conducting interviews
with project stakeholders and studying the case study reports available on public portals.
Elaborate data collection was done for all the three case studies and an overview of them is
given in Table 19A.1.
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Data analysis was done to interpret the data collected to achieve the research objective.
Semi-Structured Interviews
Currently, there is no clear framework to evaluate the performance of PPP road projects from
a process life cycle perspective. Available frameworks focus only on the project’s construc-
tion phase or operation and maintenance phase or from stakeholder perspective. Performance
monitoring is done based on the set guidelines or parameters mentioned by the client in the
contract document.
Eight interviews were conducted with the experts. The most important parameters that
directly impact the performance of the project were identified as (1) land acquisition, (2)
permits and approvals, (3) financial modelling, (4) public support, (5) traffic projections,
(6) contractor’s technical experience, (7) contractor’s financial capacity, and (8) the project
management parameters included cost, time, quality, risk, etc. During the semi-structured
interviews, the experts reviewed the identified KPIs list and suggested that a few KPIs were
not directly linked to the performance of the project, and were irrelevant in the Indian context.
A total of 20 KPIs were removed from the list of 65 KPIs. The list of eliminated KPIs is shown
in Table 19.1.
Table 19.1 List of eliminated KPIs
Sr. no. Project stage Eliminated KPIs

1 Feasibility stage Stable and favourable legal environment
2 Comprehensiveness of feasibility study
3 PPP preparation stage Innovation for strategic planning and process design
4 Contract with enough flexibility
5 Appropriateness of tender stages with terms and conditions
6 Appropriateness of timeline of tender procedure
7 Evaluation and award stage Private contractors’ willingness to participate in the project
8 Shareholders’ willingness to participate in the project
9 Creditors’ willingness to participate in the project
10 Appropriateness of negotiation framework
11 Construction stage Subcontractors’ performance
12 Vendors’ performance
13 Environmental safety
14 Prime contractor’s satisfaction
15 Subcontractors’ satisfaction
16 Vendors’ satisfaction
17 Relationship among stakeholders
18 Effective communication and responsiveness
19 Operation and maintenance Health and safety management
20 stage Creditor’s satisfaction
A total of 46 KPIs were finalised after eliminating the above-mentioned indicators through
a face-validation process.
Content Validity Analysis
The content validity process was conducted to check the degree of relevance of each item
concerning the framework. Based on the received responses, the content validity index (CVI)
values were calculated (Yusoff, 2019). There are two forms of CVI values: item content valid-
ity index (I-CVI) and scale content validity index (S-CVI).
Based on the calculations, the CVI values should be equal to or greater than 0.83 for six
responses as recommended by Yusoff (2019). All KPIs with CVI values above 0.83 were
accepted, except three KPIs, of which two KPIs had a CVI value of 0.67 and one KPI had
a CVI value of 0.50. These three KPIs were eliminated from the performance evaluation
framework. The eliminated KPIs were political stability, interface management, and end-user
satisfaction. This gave a final conceptual framework of 43 KPIs responsible for performance
evaluation, which is shown in Table 19A.2.
Ranking of Key Performance Indicators
After the finalisation of the conceptual framework, a second round of questionnaire surveys
was conducted to understand the relative importance of the indicators. The data collected from
questionnaire surveys was tested for internal consistency and the ranks of the most important
indicators were identified using the relative importance index (RII) method.
Reliability test
A reliability test was performed to determine internal consistency. For this study, Cronbach’s
alpha technique was used (Saunders et al., 2007). The Cronbach alpha coefficient for this study
was 0.85, which indicates very good reliability of the data variable (Chawla & Sondhi, 2011).
Relative Importance Index (RII)

The data collected was analysed using the RII as reported in El-Sawalhi and Hammad (2015)
and Pandit et al. (2015). The KPIs identified in this study had varying degrees of influence
on the performance measures of the PPP road projects. Therefore, the RII of each KPI was
calculated based on the following formula:
W 1n1 2n 2 3n3 4n4 5n5

RII
AxN 5N
where ∑W = total weightage given to each element by the respondents, and varied from 1 to 5
(n1, n2, n3, n4, n5 = Likert scale response rating); A = highest weightage, N = total number of
respondents. The higher value of RII indicates a higher importance of KPI towards the project
performance evaluation. Ranks were considered based on the priority basis. Standard devia-
tion was used to rank the indicators with the same RII values. The lower the standard deviation
value, the stronger was the consistency of the respondents. Yuan et al. (2012) used mean and
standard deviation to rank the variables in their study. Table 19A.2 shows the ranking of KPIs.
Case Study Analysis
Case study analysis was conducted to understand the concept of performance evaluation for
the selected case studies of PPP road projects. The challenges faced in each project were iden-
tified by conducting interviews with project stakeholders and studying the case study reports
available in public portals.
This study used a case study comparison of highway projects developed under the BOT
model. The projects were selected such that they had all completed construction stages and
were in operation and maintenance stages for at least 5–6 years. The evidence for these case
studies was collected from multiple secondary sources like feasibility study, environmental
clearance report, and interviews conducted with stakeholders associated with the project such
as officials from the client organisation, independent engineer, concessionaire, and consult-
ants. These interviews helped in documenting their experience and challenges they faced
during implementation.
Based on the interviews and secondary data, the stories for all case studies were prepared
and are presented in the following section. This research compared three BOT road sector
projects and mapped the evidence for each KPI.
Cross-Case Analysis
Cross-case analysis gives a comparative view of evidence with respect to each KPI. The
evidence for case studies was tabulated for each indicator, showing the overview of evidence
indicators for each case study along with the ranks obtained from RII analysis.
The stages considered for PPP project life cycle were feasibility stage, PPP preparation
stage, evaluation and award stage, design stage, construction stage, and operation and mainte-
nance stage. The case study evidence with regards to the 43 KPIs is discussed with reference
to these stages.
Feasibility Stage
This stage comprised ten KPIs to comprehensively analyse the processes. Technical feasibil-
ity, financial feasibility, and environmental study were evidenced in all the three case studies
as the client engaged feasibility consultants to perform these studies. All three case projects
were technically feasible, whereas in terms of financial feasibility, only cases A and B were
viable based on traffic modelling, but case C was not viable as per analysis because of low
traffic demand, therefore it was proposed to be implemented on a viability gap funding scheme
under the BOT model. Environmental studies for all three cases were successfully done and
the best suitable alignments were chosen in each case, such that there was the least environ-
mental impact. In case C, major multiple bypasses were proposed to avoid any resettlement. In
terms of project needs and desired outcomes, cases A and B were part of a master infrastruc-
ture plan proposed by the relevant state government, whereas case C was proposed under the
state hsighway project scheme.
All three cases aimed at upgrading existing two-lane to four-lane toll roads. Economic
study was effectively conducted for cases B and C, whereas no evidence was found for case A.
Evidence for permits, approvals, and land acquisition for all three cases clearly shows that the
required processes were carried out efficiently but, in case A, there were issues related to land
acquisition because the local public were against the development of the road as they were
expecting huge returns for their land parcels. The value for money assessment and client’s
expertise in PPP projects was successfully evidenced. An effective risk management plan is
one of the most important indicators in this stage as per the RII analysis. Various risks were
not addressed in the case studies, which impacted the performances of the projects. In case B,
risks related to design, approvals, policy, and revenue were not clearly predicted and were not
allocated to appropriate partners. Case C lacked in predicting risk related to policy change and
the development of alternative routes and traffic-related risk was not considered effectively in
cases A and B.
PPP Preparation Stage
This stage consisted of indicators related to governance framework, procurement innovation,

preparation of detailed contract document, suitability of concession period, and deciding the
criteria for selecting concessionaire. For all three cases, the selection criteria for procurement
of concessionaire were important. For cases A and B, the selection criteria were the lowest
price offered by the bidder, whereas for case C, the bidding parameter was to quote the
minimum grant or highest premium for a fixed concession period and fixed user fees. The con-
tract document was prepared as per the standards; i.e., Asian Development Bank and World
Bank guidelines for all three case studies. The concession agreement for cases A and B was
used as a model agreement for other projects. It was evident that the suitability of concession
period is important as the concession period for all three cases fell within the limits of World
Bank guidelines, which is less than 30 years. Evidence regarding the procurement innovation
was strongly witnessed in cases A and B as these were the first projects that were implemented
on the BOOT model and the case C project was proposed under the Viability Gap Funding
(VGF) scheme. The governance framework for all three cases was properly established and the
roles and responsibilities for all stakeholders were clearly defined.
Evaluation and Award Stage
All indicators in this phase were evidenced for all three case studies except realistic schedule
of investment and revenue, effectiveness of financial close, and appropriateness of financing
options. The concessionaire’s technical and financial proposal was evaluated as it is an impor-
tant step to select any concessionaire. Evaluation was done as per the clauses mentioned in the
contract document. Cases A and B were among the initial projects that were carried out under
PPP mode and hence the concessionaire had no prior experience of PPP projects, whereas in
case C, the concessionaire gained sufficient experience to execute the project successfully.
In terms of transparency and competitive tendering procedure, very few private players
participated in the bidding process for the selection of the concessionaire, which shows poor
competitiveness. In case C, only three players participated in the bidding process for selection
of the concessionaire. The indicator related to appropriateness of toll tariffs was evidenced in
all three cases; the toll tariff was calculated based on the fixed formula recommended by the
ministry and inflation was considered based on the Whole Price Index (WPI).
Design Stage
No evidence was obtained for KPIs like technology transfer ability, technology innovation,
and design management. In this stage, much importance was given to design quality as per RII
analysis and necessary measures were taken to maintain quality. For example, in case A, the
Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contractor proposed an alternative design
to reduce the cost, which the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) overruled because of quality
issues.
Construction Stage
The construction stage had ten KPIs to monitor the construction process. An independent engi-
neer was appointed in all three case studies, which helped monitor the cost, time, quality, con-
tractor’s performance, and Environment, Health and Safety (EHS) standards for the project.
In terms of the contractor’s performance, an independent engineer supervised the contractor’s
performance for all cases. In case A, it was observed that the contractor assigned a part of work
to the subcontractor, which was against the contractual conditions. During the execution, the
subcontractor damaged the utility lines and affected the project performance. The independent
engineer was responsible for supervision of the work, and he identified this issue followed by
resolution of the same, which shows that the contractor’s performance was monitored.
It was also seen that cost and time management was done properly in cases A and B as
projects were finished within the time limit and budget. In case A, the project was estimated to
be completed in 39 months whereas it was finished in 31 months, 8 months ahead of schedule.
For case C, only minor time delays were identified. In terms of quality, no major issues were
encountered in any case study. Similarly, no major issues were recorded related to EHS expect
Table 19.2 Suggestions
Sr. no KPI Suggestions

1 Financial Financial models failed due to inaccurate traffic projections. A third-party organisation or expert
feasibility institute is suggested to be appointed for vetting the consultant’s feasibility studies.
2 Risk management It is recommended that the risk management strategy be developed during the project’s inception
phase, emphasising risk linked to traffic forecasts, design, approvals, policy changes, revenue
model, and alternative route development.
3 Land acquisition 100% of the land acquisition process must be completed during the feasibility stage. Contractor
must be hired only after land acquisition process is completed effectively. Public consultation must
be conducted in advance to avoid any hassle during execution works.
4 Contractor’s Usually, the prime contractor sublets work to a subcontractor. In some cases, the subcontractor
performance is not qualified enough to execute the job. To overcome this issue, there must be provision of
a third-party agency to monitor the overall performance of the project.
5 End-user’s It is suggested to have an in-depth public conversation to know the requirements of the end-users
willingness to and avoid any difficulty in future. Processes related to land acquisition must be initiated prior to the
support the project award of contract.
in case A where clearances related to tree cutting were encountered. This shows the proper
management of quality and EHS standards by the independent engineer in all three cases.
No evidence was found for KPIs like contract management, resource management, advance
technology, and equipment for the construction process. Strong evidence was obtained for the
end-user’s willingness to support the project. In case A, locals were against the development
of the project as they were expecting large returns in exchange for their properties, which was
then resolved by paying them the demanded returns, whereas in cases B and C the local public
were supportive and their issues were also taken into consideration.
Operation and Maintenance Stage
Currently all projects are in the operations stage and each case faces issues related to project
profitability. During the initial years of operations, projects faced issues related to insufficient
traffic, which impacted revenue collection. Cases A and B suffered because of the service
road proposed along the highway. In case C, a major drop was seen because of the proposal
of upgradation of an alternative highway, which resulted in traffic shift. This impacted the
project profitability and operational efficiency. After the construction of the asset, the client
was satisfied with the quality of work delivered. However, client satisfaction is also linked to
user satisfaction, and it was analysed based on user experience, travel time, etc. No evidence
was obtained for indicators like effective cost management, time management, transfer man-
agement, and asset condition monitoring.
Based on the above observations, the suggestions in Table 19.2 are made to overcome such
problems in the future.
CONCLUSION
This research identified the KPIs responsible for the success of a project. Through a literature
review, a list of 168 indicators were identified. Similar factors were merged and categorised
into six different stages of PPP projects and 65 KPIs were finalised.
To validate the identified indicators, face validation and content validity analysis were
performed. In face validation, semi-structured interviews were conducted to understand the
suitability of the 65 KPIs in the Indian context. Based on expert opinions, a few KPIs were
rephrased and 20 KPIs were eliminated. A conceptual framework of 46 KPIs was finalised
during expert discussions. Further, the recommended indicators were tested using a ques-
tionnaire survey to check the relevance of the indicators. The data obtained from this survey
was tested by content validity analysis. In this analysis, CVI values were calculated for all the
indicators. As per the analysis, all the indicators were valid except three indicators that showed
CVI values less than 0.83, leading to direct elimination. This validation process gave a final
framework for performance evaluation with 43 KPIs categorised into six different stages.
After the finalisation of the conceptual framework, a second round of questionnaire surveys
was conducted to understand the importance of indicators. The RII method was used to deter-
mine the ranking of the indicators. Later, cross-case analysis was carried out to understand
the overall performance for different projects. Evidence was obtained as per the framework
for each case study. From case studies, it was seen that each project faced multiple challenges
during the implementation. Suggestions are provided to overcome such challenges in future
projects.
This research helped in formulating a conceptual framework for performance evaluation of
PPP projects and it was validated by all the domain experts working in government and private
sectors. This framework helps the various stakeholders involved in a PPP project, such as the
government body, concessionaire, contractors, independent engineers, consultants, facility
managers, etc., keep track of the KPIs and monitor project performance with respect to the
KPIs to prevent problems and bottlenecks. Table 19A.1 shows the framework.
Some of the identified limitations of the study are as follows. In the cross-case analysis,
only three case studies were taken up for analysis because of time restrictions. Evidence for
the cross-case analysis was not collected effectively because of insufficient contacts. Data
collection issues arose due to the changes in multiple stakeholders, transference of officials to
other projects, and poor sharing of information due to confidentiality clauses.
The future scope of the research is to develop this framework further by identifying the per-
formance measures and designing a rating scale to evaluate these KPIs for PPP road projects.
More case studies and evidence can be obtained for cross-case analysis.
REFERENCES
ADB, World Bank, & IDB. (2014). Reference guide public-private partnerships V2. www.worldbank
.org
Ali, H. A. E. M., Al-Sulaihi, I. A., & Al-Gahtani, K. S. (2013). Indicators for measuring performance
of building construction companies in Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Journal of King Saud University –
Engineering Sciences, 25(2), 125–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksues.2012.03.002
Budayan, C., Okudan, O., & Dikmen, I. (2020). Identification and prioritization of stage-level KPIs
for BOT projects – Evidence from Turkey. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
13(6), 1311–1337. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-11–2019–0286
Chan, A. P. C., & Chan, A. P. L. (2004). Key performance indicators for measuring construction success.
In Benchmarking, 11(2), 203–221. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770410532624
Chawla, D., & Sondhi, N. (2011). Research methodology concepts and cases. Department of Economic
Affairs, Ministry of Finance, Government of India.
Cong, X., & Ma, L. (2018). Performance evaluation of public-private partnership projects from the
perspective of Efficiency, Economic, Effectiveness, and Equity: A study of residential renovation
projects in China. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061951
Cox, R. F., Raja Issa, R. A., Asce, M., & Ahrens, D. (2003). Management’s perception of key perfor-
mance indicators for construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 129(2),
142–151.
CW Construction World. (2020). NHAI to rate concessionaires, contractors, consultants. https://
www.constructionworld.in/transport-infrastructure/highways-and-roads-infrastructure/nhai-to-rate
-concessionaires-contractors-consultants/24170
DEA. (2016). PPP guide for practitioners. https://www.pppinindia.gov.in/documents/20181/33749/
PPP+Guide+for+Practitioners
Department of Economic Affairs. (2021). Rationalisation of the functions, activities and structure of the
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. https://dea.gov.in/sites/default/files/9thReportEMC.pdf
El-Sawalhi, N. I., & Hammad, S. (2015). Factors affecting stakeholder management in construction pro-
jects in the Gaza Strip. International Journal of Construction Management, 15(2), 157–169. https://
doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2015.1035626
FHWA. (2011). Key performance indicators in public-private partnerships: A state-of-the-practice
report. www.international.fhwa.dot.gov
Gopalkrishna, N., & Karnam, G. (2015). Performance analysis of national highways public private
partnerships in India. Public Works Management and Policy, 20(3), 264–285. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1087724X14558270
Haponava, T., & Al-Jibouri, S. (2012). Proposed system for measuring project performance using
process-based key performance indicators. Journal of Management in Engineering, 28(2), 140–149.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943–5479.0000078
Hossain, M., Guest, R., & Smith, C. (2019). Performance indicators of public private partnership in
Bangladesh: An implication for developing countries. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, 68(1), 46–68. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPPM-04–2018–0137
IBEF. (2022, March). https://www.ibef.org/industry/roads-india
Kagioglou, M., Cooper, R., & Aouad, G. (2001). Performance management in construction: A concep-
tual framework. Construction Management and Economics, 19(1), 85–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01446190010003425
Kaplan, R., & Norton, D. (1992). The balanced scorecard: Measures that drive performance. Harvard
Business Review. https://hbr.org/1992/01/the-balanced-scorecard-measures-that-drive-performance-2
Liu, J., Love, E. D., Davis, P. R., Smith, J., & Regan, M. (2015). Conceptual framework for the per-
formance measurement of public-private partnerships. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 21(1),
04014023-1–04014023-15.
Liu, J., Love, E. D., Sing, C. P., Asce, M., Smith, J., & Matthews, J. (2016). PPP social infrastructure
procurement: examining the feasibility of a life cycle performance measurement framework. Journal
of Infrastructure Systems, 23(3). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943–555X
Love, P. E. D., Liu, J., Matthews, J., Sing, C. P., & Smith, J. (2015). Future proofing PPPs: Life-cycle
performance measurement and building information modelling. Automation in Construction, 56,
26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2015.04.008
Liu, H. J., Love, P. E. D., Smith, J., Irani, Z., Hajli, N., & Sing, M. C. P. (2018). From design to
operations: A process management life-cycle performance measurement system for Public-Private
Partnerships. Production Planning and Control, 29(1), 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287
.2017.1382740
Luu, T. van, Kim, S. Y., Cao, H. L., & Park, Y. M. (2008). Performance measurement of construction
firms in developing countries. Construction Management and Economics, 26(4), 373–386. https://doi
.org/10.1080/01446190801918706
Mladenovic, G., Vajdic, N., Wündsch, B., & Temeljotov-Salaj, A. (2013). Use of key performance
indicators for PPP transport projects to meet stakeholders’ performance objectives. Built Environment
Project and Asset Management 3(2), 228–249. https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-05–2012–0026
Neely, A., Adams, C., & Crowe, P. (2001). The performance prism in practice. Measuring Business
Excellence, 5(2), 6–13. https://doi.org/10.1108/13683040110385142
Okudan, O., Budayan, C., & Dikmen, I. (2020). Development of a conceptual life cycle performance
measurement system for build–operate–transfer (BOT) projects. Engineering, Construction and
Architectural Management, 28(6), 1635–1656. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-01–2020–0071
Pandit, D., Yadav, S. M., & Vallabhbhai, S. (2015). Factors affecting efficient construction project
design development: A perspective from India. International Journal of Construction Supply Chain
Management, 5(2), 52–67. https://doi.org/10.14424/ijcscm502015–52–67
PPP Cell DEA. (2015). Post award contract management manual for highway PPP concessions. www
.pppinindia.com
PPP Toolkit. (2011). https://www.pppinindia.gov.in/toolkit/highways/module2-p4-mp.php?links=mp1
Radujković, M., Vukomanović, M., & Burcar Dunović, I. (2010). Application of key performance indi-
cators in South-Eastern European construction. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 16(4),
521–530. https://doi.org/10.3846/jcem.2010.58
Roads and Highways/Make in India. (2022). https://www.makeinindia.com/sector/roads-and-highways
Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research methods for business students. Financial
Times/Prentice Hall.
Tripathi, K. K., & Jha, K. N. (2018). An empirical study on performance measurement factors for
construction organizations. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 22(4), 1052–1066. https://doi.org/10
.1007/s12205–017–1892-z
Villalba-Romero, F., & Liyanage, C. (2016). Evaluating success in PPP road projects in Europe: A com-
parison of performance measurement approaches. Transportation Research Procedia, 14, 372–381.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2016.05.089
Yang, H., Yeung, J. F. Y., Chan, A. P. C., Chiang, Y. H., & Chan, D. W. M. (2010). A critical review of
performance measurement in construction. Journal of Facilities Management, 8(4), 269–284. https://
doi.org/10.1108/14725961011078981
Yin, R. K. 2009. Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publications.
Yuan, J., Zeng, A. Y., Skibniewski, M. J., & Li, Q. (2009). Selection of performance objectives and key
performance indicators in public-private partnership projects to achieve value for money. Construction
Management and Economics, 27(3), 253–270. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190902748705
Yuan, J., Wang, C., Skibniewski, M. J., Asce, M., & Li, Q. (2012). Developing key performance indi-
cators for public-private partnership projects: Questionnaire survey and analysis. https://doi.org/10
.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943–5479
Yusoff, M. S. B. (2019). ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation. Education in
Medicine Journal, 11(2), 49–54. https://doi.org/10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6
Zhang, X. (2006). Public clients’ best value perspectives of public private partnerships in infrastructure
development. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(2). https://doi.org/10.1061/
ASCE0733–93642006132:2107
APPENDIX
Table 19A.1 Project details
Project details Case A Case B Case C

Project authority Provincial public authority Provincial public authority Provincial public authority
Type of PPP contract Build Own Operate Transfer Build Own Operate Transfer Build Operate Transfer (BOT)
(BOOT) (BOOT)
Concession period 30 years 30 years 20 years
Project cost (as per agreement) 306.00 crores 175 crores 498.81 crores
Project cost (actual) 342.24 crores 160.83 crores 1,422.00 crores
Length of project 53.0 KM 32.0 KM 173.0 KM
Signing of concession 12 May 1999 17 October 1998 17 September 2008
agreement
Commencement of construction May 2000 March 1999 –
work
Completion of construction 20 November 2002 15 September 2000 30 April 2012
work
Commercial operation date 20 February 2003 24 October 2000 26 June 2012
Current status Operation and maintenance Operation and maintenance Operation and maintenance
stage stage stage
Table 19A.2 Framework with KPIs, rankings, evidence, and literature references
Sr. Rank KPIs Cross-case analysis Literatures

no.
Stage Rank Feasibility stage Case Case Case Yuan Yuan Mladenovic Love Villalba- J. Liu J. Liu H. J. Cong Hossain Okudan PPP FHWA PPP
1 Study Study Study et al. et al. et al. (2013) et al. Romero et al. et al. Liu and Ma et al. et al. Cell (2011) Toolkit
1 2 3 (2009) (2012) (2015) and (2015) (2016) et al. (2018) (2019) (2020) DEA (2011)
Liyanage (2018) (2015)
(2016)
KPI 1 1 Technical P P P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
feasibility
(including project
constructability
and maintainability
analysis)
KPI 2 3 Financial P P P Y Y Y Y Y
feasibility
KPI 3 3 Project needs and P P P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
desired outcomes
KPI 4 29 Environmental P P P Y Y Y Y Y Y
impact analysis
KPI 5 26 Economic X P P Y Y Y Y Y Y
feasibility
KPI 6 12 Value for money P P P Y Y Y
assessment
KPI 7 6 Effective risk P P P Y Y Y Y Y Y
management plan
KPI 8 39 Client’s expertise P P P Y Y Y Y
in PPP projects
KPI 9 4 Land acquisition P P P Y
KPI 1 15 Permits and P P P
approvals
282

no.
Stage PPP preparation
2 stage
KPI 38 Governance P P P Y Y
11 framework
KPI 41 Procurement P P P Y Y Y
12 innovation
KPI 2 Detailed contract P P P Y Y
13 draft with
technical, financial
specifications
KPI 16 Suitability of P P P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
14 concession period
KPI 9 Criteria for P P P Y Y Y Y Y Y
15 selecting
concessionaire
Stage Evaluation and
3 award stage
KPI 34 Concessionaire’s P P P Y Y Y Y Y
16 knowledge of
PPPs
KPI 18 Transparent P P P Y Y Y Y Y Y
17 and competitive
tendering
procedure
KPI 23 Evaluation of P P P
18 concessionaires’
technical proposal
no.
KPI 13 Evaluation of P P P
19 concessionaires’
financial proposal
KPI 2 32 Appropriateness of P P P
tariff/tolls or price
adjustment
KPI 27 Appropriateness of P P P Y Y Y Y
21 financing options
KPI 22 Effectiveness of X X X Y Y Y Y Y Y
22 financial close
KPI 33 Realistic schedule X X X Y Y Y
23 of investment and
revenue
Stage Design stage
4
KPI 7 Proper design and P P P Y Y Y Y Y Y
24 efficient design
process (design
quality)
KPI 43 Technology X X X Y Y Y Y Y Y
25 transfer ability
KPI 4 Technology X X X Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
26 innovation
KPI 24 Prominent design X X X Y Y
27 management and
skill
Stage Construction stage
5
284

no.
KPI 8 Contractor’s P P P Y Y Y
28 performance
KPI 5 Effective P P P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
29 quality control
management
KPI 3 11 Effective cost P P P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
management
KPI 1 Effective time P P P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
31 management
KPI 35 Effective P P P
32 environmental,
health, and safety
management
KPI 21 Effective contract P X X Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

33 management
KPI 31 Effective resource P X X Y Y Y
34 management
KPI 42 Advance X X X Y Y Y Y Y
35 technology and
equipment for
construction
process
KPI 36 End-users’ P P P
36 willingness to
support the project
Stage Operation and
6 maintenance stage
no.
KPI 2 Client’s P P P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
37 satisfaction
KPI 14 Operations P P P Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
38 management and
maintenance
KPI 25 Effective cost X X X Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
39 management
KPI 4 28 Effective time X X X Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
management
KPI 19 Project P P P
41 profitability
KPI 37 Effective transfer X X X
42 management
KPI 17 Asset condition X X X Y Y Y Y Y
43 monitoring
Index
Aristotle 120
Abdel-Alim, A. M. 92 Arnold, C. 255
Abd El-Karim, M. S. B. A. 92 array projects 136
ability–motivation–opportunity (AMO) artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots 23
model 261 Asbury, S. 216
absorptive capacity 236 assembly projects 135
academic-dependent relationship 162 asset development metrics 18
accident risk 97 Association for Project Management (APM) 94,
Ackoff, R.L. 41 215
activity-based costing theory 12 ATLAS.ti. Codes 205
actual spending (AC) values 68 Augmented Reality (AR) 259
adaptive performance management Australian Securities Exchange 119
approach 201 autonomous robots 257
principles 202 average matrix Z 99, 101, 102
Adeleke, A. Q. 92 of effects 105
Adler, M.J. 241 aviation project 152
Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) 154
Agarwal 9 Backlund, F. 235
Agarwal, Dhruv 9 Baker, B. N. 178
agency contractual relationship 49 Bakker, R. M. 236
agency theory and project governance 49 “balanced scorecard” 17
Agile approach 151, 152, 155 Banerjee, A.V. 116, 121
Agile business environments 200 Bartsch, V. 235
Agile life-cycle models 117 Bashir, H. 142
Agile methods 29 Bayesian network (BN) 145
Agile principles 262 behavioral critical success factors (CSFs) 80
Agile project frameworks 24 Bellin J. 260
Agile project management 49 “Belt-and-Road” infrastructure initiative 82
Industry 4.0 on 254 benefits management 40, 43
techniques 24 benefits realization practices 80
Agile scaling frameworks 24 Berger, G.S. 94
Agile software development frameworks 24 “bet team” 29
Agile work management frameworks 24 beyond budgeting 198, 199, 201, 202, 203, 207,
agility/flexibility in project management 208, 209, 210, 211
approach 80 advantages of 202, 203
Ahmed, Riaz 2 challenges of 203
aircraft electric system 155 principles of 202
Ajmal, M. M. 218 reasons for 209
Al-Momani, A. H. 96 summary and research question 203
alternative performance management model 201 Bhattacharya, S. 115
analytical hierarchy process (AHP) 116, 126, Bhoola, V. 96
141, 268 Big Data analytics 257
Anantatmula, V. S. 6 blockchain 257
Angelo, W.J. 96 Bloom et al (1956) 241
annual budgeting 200 BMG Research 219
Applied Social Learning Ecosystems Bogsnes, B. 200
(ALSE) 242, 243, 249 Bon-Gang, H. 93
appreciative inquiry 233 Bougie, R. 59
286
Index 287
Bourmistrov, A. 200 community of practice (COP) 235

Bratianu, C. 95 company vision to value-driven portfolio 27, 28,
Bresnen, M. 235 29, 30
Briscoe, Jon P. 129 complex adaptive system (CAS) 26
British Association for Project Management theory of 50
(APM) 80 complex aviation project, managing risk in 152
Brunet, Maude 6 complexification gap 82
Bryde, D. 97 complex projects 17
Budayan, C. 269 complex systems 39
budget allocation 198 comprehensive education 241
budgeting 200 comprehensive project performance
definition of 200 framework 18
process 199, 200, 207 computer-mediated communication tools 224
build–operate–transfer (BOT) conditional probability 145
model 273, 274 conductive organizational culture 217
projects 269 Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) model 268
road sector projects 273 conflicts/disputes 97
Bushuyeva, N. 259 Cong, X. 268
construction and demolition waste (CDW) 4, 55,
Cakmakci, M. 256 65
capacity-based metrics 12 clause, respondent opinions on recycling 63,
capstone course 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 164, 64
166, 167, 169, 170, 173 management 56, 57
capstone projects 161, 162, 164, 167, 169, 170, recycling 57
171, 172, 173 respondents’ perception of recycling 63
Carbone, T. A. 93 construction industry 55, 65, 92, 93, 96, 97, 101
care management systems 190 risk in 93
Carlo (2014) 95 risk management in 94, 110
causal group 104, 106, 109 Construction Industry Development Board
cause-and-effect relationship 98 (CIDB) 59, 65
diagram 100, 103 construction projects 61, 92, 93, 94, 96, 129
Change Control Board (CCB) 73 recycling CDW in 62
role of ‘monitoring’ to 71, 72 construction stage 275, 276
traditional role of 70, 71 constructive project environment 242
change control process 67, 70, 71 content validity analysis 277
charge-out model 208 content validity index (CVI) 272, 277
Chbaly, Hafsa 6 context gap 82
Chen, P. 56 contingency theory 77
Chinowsky, P. S. 130 continual refinement process 205
Chronéer, D. 235 continuous data collection 256
Clarke (2018) 159, 160 control charts 69, 70
Clarke, M. 159 controllability engineering theory 12
classical operational management theories 42 conventional non-participative practices 188
classic contingency theory 80 conventional versus Lean-led design
classic performance models 39 approaches 194
Cleland, D. I. 217 “Conversation Starters” 243
“Client Project Challenge” 243 co-occurrence matrices 205
clients and mentors 247 Cooper, D. R. 219
client satisfaction 276 corporate budget 201
cloud computing technology 258 corporate or organizational culture 216
Coase, Ronald 128 cost and financial performances 14
codes and themes 205 cost and time performance 14
cognition analysis 121 cost overrun 96, 97
collaborative mindset 133 cost performance 14, 15
‘command and control’ type of leadership style 260 cost to company (CTC) 197
course learning outcomes 170 decision-making process 117, 172, 191, 192, 260
course-related knowledge and skills 168 Decision Making Trial & Evaluation Laboratory
Covid-19 vaccine 40, 48 (DEMATEL) method 5, 98, 99, 100, 101,
Crawford, L. 237 104, 106, 109, 143, 144
Creswell, J. 163 decision theories 46
critical success factors (CSFs) 69, 76, 77, 80, Delhi Metro 116, 129
81, 88 delphi technique 137, 142
complexification gap 82 demand-driven planning 211
context gap 82 de Miranda Mota, C. M. 216
external environmental impact gap 83 demolition waste 56
success factors to success conditions 83, 84, den Haak, Bart 3
86, 88 dependency effect 149
temporal conflation gap 81, 82 “design funnel” 46
underperformance gap 81 “design performance gap” 6, 188, 190, 193, 194
Cronbach’s alpha 59, 273 design stage 275
cross-case analysis 271, 273, 274, 275, 276, 277 Diamond Typology framework 135
cross-cultural integration 7 digital environments 26
data analysis & visualization 222, 223 digital technologies 224
implications for theory and practice 223, 224 rapid normalization of 224
key terminologies 214, 215, 216, 217 Dinsmore 214
literature review and synthesis 217, 218, 219 directed acyclic graph (DAG) 145
notable anecdotes 223 diversity of experience, designing for 169, 170
participant’s demographics 220 Dixit 9
research methodology 219, 220 documentation-based lessons learned 235
cross cultural project management 224 Donnelly, J. 84, 86
cross-disciplinary product teams 36 Drouin, N. 122
cultural diversity 260 Duflo, E. 116, 121, 130
“cultural industries” 217 Dvir, D. 80
cultural management 225 dynamic project environment 118
cultural variables 7 Dynamic Systems Development Method
culture in information systems 216 (DSDM) 24
Cunningham, W. S. 204
customer lifetime value (CLTV) 31 earned value (EV) 68, 69, 72
customer-oriented feedback loops 255 as project monitoring 68
customer satisfaction 17, 178, 184 metrics 72
Cyber Physical System (CPS) 258 effect group 104, 109
cyber-physical systems (CPSs) 256 effective communication 179
effective project performance 2
Dainty, A. R. J. 129 effective project portfolio management 179
Dalcher, D. 84 effective risk management 5, 94
Dandage, R. V. 96 challenges to 118
Daniel, Pierre 3 plan 274
data collection process 59 effective standards
data-driven models 140 development of 16
data driven quantitative techniques 145 effective training of virtual teams 260
data integrity 70, 72 EHS standards 275, 276
project monitoring and 73 Ekholm, B.-G. 200
data integrity problem 4 Eliassen, R. 56
Daum, J. H. 201 Elizar 57
Dayal, A. 129 El-Sawalhi, N. I. 273
de-biasing project estimates 80 emergent performance, model of
decision making, models of 120 innovation in projects 44, 45, 46
fallacies, assumptions and challenges 120, instability in operations design 46, 47
121 systemic interactions of projects and opera-
hope as capability in managing projects 121, 122 tions 47, 48, 49
Index 289
Emery, F.E. 41 Fuzzy MCDM 141

Engwall, M. 82
Enshassi, A. 96 Gabus, A. 98
environmental issues 57 Galileo 116
respondents’ concerns about 61, 62 Gamble, N. 159
Eppler, M. J. 235, 236 Gandhi, Mahatma 115, 116
E-procurement platforms 256, 262 Gemünden, H.G. 80
Eriksson, P. E. 235 Gilbert, G. 161
E-social networking platforms 256 Gilbert, Guinevere 6
evaluation and award stage 275 globalization 133
“ex-ante” approach 69 global mindset 133
execution phase, performance evaluation in 267 Goldratt, Eli 25
experiential learning 152, 232, 247 Goode, M. 200
exploitative learning processes 235 “good human behavior practices” 129
exploratory learning 250 governance organizational practices 50
external client factors 177 group behaviour, equilibrium model of 171
external environment 80, 83 Gupta, Ruchita 5
external environmental impact gap 83 HAL 155
externally-funded projects 176 Hall, Douglas T. 129
external project risk factors 117 Hammad, S. 273
external risk 92 Harvey, J. B. 128, 130
familiar groups 166 healthcare facilities, complexities of defining
Farr-Wharton, R. 95 needs in 189
feasibility stage 274 Henisz, W. 129
Federal Transit Administration 75 Henrie, M. 218
Fellows, R. 219 Heskett, J. L. 216
file sharing platform 165 heterogeneous group of students 169
financial benefit 16 Hethero Terminal 5 134
financial metrics 17 hierarchical-operative groups 214
financial performance measurements 17 Hillage, J. 159
financial profitability of projects 40 Hirschman, A.O. 84
financial ROI 40 Hobbs, B. 217
Fisher, D. 178 Hoegl, M. 80
fixed capacity 7, 197, 198, 199, 205, 206, 207, Hofstede, G. 218, 219
210, 211 holistic education 241
approach 205, 206 benefits of 241
benefits of 205, 206 Honolulu rail project 76, 86
budget 210 hope model 130
challenges of 206 hospital megaproject 7
model 198 hospital projects 189
rationale of 197 Hossain, M. 268
flexible sense-and-respond mechanisms 201 human resource management (HRM) 259, 260,
flow capacity 199 261
Flyvbjerg B. 96, 115, 118, 120, 122 Hyväri, I. 81
Fontela, E. 98 Ikaa, Lavagnon A. 4
formal cost management practices 10 Ika, L.A. 84, 86, 88
formal education 241 Impact-Relation Map (IRM) 98
formal learning 246 inadequate performance indicators 14
formal project management processes 9, 184 independent risk 152
Foucault, Michel 120 Indian construction industry 116, 117, 124, 128
Fourth Industrial Revolution 254, 255, 259, 260, Indian construction projects 117, 129
261 case method 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127
free market philosophy 255 challenges to effective risk management 118
French vaccination campaign 40 hope model 130
industry environment 117 interactive project-based learning experience 249

models of decision making 120, 121, 122 intercultural communication effectiveness 219
power in projects and managing social internal project risk factors 117
risks 120 International Council for Building (CIB)
risk and governance 118, 119 Performance 18
risk management 117, 118 International Journal of Project Management 236
social risks and political risks 119 internet culture 217
success in Indian projects 116 Internet-of-Things (IOT) 256, 258
Indian projects 115, 116, 117, 128 Interpretive Structural Modelling (ISM) 143, 144
public sector projects 116 inter-project learnings 235
road sector interview questionnaire 181
case studies 271 interviews 204, 205
case study analysis 273, 274, 275, 276 intra-and inter-project learning 235
content validity analysis 272 intraorganizational social ties 235
identifying key performance iron triangle 13, 14, 83
indicators 270 Işıklı, E. 255
performance evaluation Ives, M. 218
in execution phase 267 Iyer, K.C. 115, 117, 129
of PPP project 268 Iyyunni, Chakradhar 5, 117
of PPP road project 268
performance measurement 267 Jain, Karuna 5
process lifecycle perspective 268, 269 Japp, K. P. 119
questionnaire survey 270, 271 Jermsittiparsert, K. 260
ranking of key performance Jha, K.N. 115, 117, 129
indicators 272 Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE) 204
research methodology 269 Judgev, K. 8, 178, 214, 216, 217, 235
semi-structured interviews 270, 271, Jules C. 260
272 Julian, J. 235, 236
Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) 134 Kaarbøe, K. 200
industrialisation change process 260 Kagioglou, M. 267
Industry 4.0 on Agile project management 9, Kahneman, D. 115, 120, 121, 124, 125
255, 256, 257, 258, 259 Kaivo-oja, J.R.L. 133
human resource management in 259, 260 Kamara, J. 190
macro level 262 Kanri, Hoshin 28
meso level 261, 262 Kaplan, R.S. 11, 17
micro level 261 kernel culture 219
industry environment 117 key performance indicators (KPIs) 3, 18, 42, 69,
information and communication technologies 267, 268, 269, 270, 271, 272, 273, 274,
(ICTs) 216 275, 276, 277
information technology ecosystems 256 Kharbanda, O. P. 216
infrastructure development projects 115 Koestalam, P. 57
infrastructure industry 116 Koskinen, K. U. 218, 235, 236
infrastructure projects 128 Kotnour, T. 235
initial direct-relation matrix 99 Kotter, J. P. 216
“initiative team” 29 Ku, H.-B. 204
innovation mindset 133 Kumar, Sunil 5
innovation performance 14 Kusche, I. 119
innovation projects 140 Kwok, J. Y.-c. 204
input–process–output (IPO) model 41, 43
instability in operations design 46, 47 Lai, Y. 56
Institute of International Finance (IIF) 95 Laufer, A. 129
integrated risk management mitigation 172 Lauraeus, I.T. 133
integration management 46, 170, 171 leadership
integration milestone 68 influence of 223
interactive collaborative learning ecosystem 249 principles 201
Index 291
Leal-Rodríguez, A. L. 236 Lundy, V. 94

Lean-led Design 7 Lutchman, C. 129
bridging 191, 192, 193, 194 Lynton N. 260
complexities of defining needs in healthcare
facilities 189 machine learning tools 152
using traditional practices 189, 190 MacKay, J. 129
Lean OKRs 24, 28, 31, 32, 33 Mainga, W. 236
approach 30 maintenance efficiency metrics 18
cycle 34, 35, 36 Ma, L. 268
framework 37 mal-adaptive risk behaviors 115
lean production environment 197 Malaysian construction industry 56, 62, 63
lean software development 198 Malaysian waste management 55
lean thinking 28 Malik, A. 200
“learning by doing” approach 251 “management of project management” 80
learning themes and their elements 244 managerial support and communication, lack
Lee, Chia-Kuang 5 of 94, 95
Lee, L. 235 Mantel, S. J. 216
Lee, Y. 56 Mantha, S. S. 96
lessons learned process 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237 March, J. 120, 121
Lifestyle Learning 246 Marion 4
Light Combat Aircraft (LCA) 152, 153, 154, 155 market capitalization 261
lightweight governance model 35, 36 Marnewick, A. L. 255, 256, 259
Likert rating scale for impact and probability 140 Marnewick, C. 255, 256, 259
Lim, C. S. 215 Mars Orbiter Mission (MoM) 134
line replacement units (LRU) 155 Mason, M. 220
Ling, F.Y.Y. 12 Matějka, M. 203
Liu, A. M. M. 219 Mathur, G. 235
Liu, J. 267, 268 matured organizations 176
logical framework analysis techniques 40 maturity path 207
London Stock Exchange 118 McClory, S. 235
Loosemore, M. 129 Ménard, P. M. 217
Lovallo, D. 120, 121, 124, 125 Meng, J. 94
low-quality projects 16 mentors 162, 163, 166, 167, 168
low risk management 5, 94 role, aligning expectations of 172, 173
accident risk 97 mentor-student relationship 173
conflicts/disputes 97 Merx, S. 160, 170
cost overrun 96, 97 Messner, W. 219
Decision Making Trial & Evaluation Millennials and Digital Natives generations 217
Laboratory (DEMATEL) method 98, Miller, R. 115
99, 100, 101 Mitchell 166
demographic profile 101 mitigation strategies 97
effects of 93, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109 modern quality management systems 69
failure to meet desired quality and Mohamed, M. Z. 215
requirements 97 Monte Carlo analysis 116
lack of knowledge in risk management Monte Carlo simulation 120, 125, 147
implementation 95 Morin, P.P. 94
lack of managerial support and communica- Mosa El Nawawy, O. A. 92
tion 94, 95 Mueller, J. 217
lack of resources 95 Müller R. 178
low risk attitude 95, 104 multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) 141,
poor risk culture in organization 95, 96 152
project delay/time overrun 96 multicultural delights 222
resistance to change 94 Murphy, D. C. 178
risk in construction industry 93 mutually exclusive, collectively exhaustive
systematic review 98 (MECE) 31
mutual social learning 250 “perceived employability” 159, 170

performance criteria 13
Naik, S. 259 performance dimensions 14
national culture 216 performance evaluation
National Highway Authority of India in execution phase 267
(NHAI) 268 of PPP project 268
Neely, A.D. 11, 18, 200, 267 of PPP road project 268
negative risks 92 performance frameworks of projects 18
New Complexe Hospital (NCH) project 190, performance indexes 69
191, 192, 193 performance information 13
non-favourable effect 149 performance management 18, 202
non-profit organization’s approach 176 performance measurement matrix 17
normalized direct-relation matrix 99, 102, 105, performance measurement systems (PMSs) 267,
107 268
Norton, D.P. 17 performance measures 11, 13, 14, 18
novelty, technology, complexity, and pace performance metrics 11, 12, 18
(NTCP) 80, 135, 136, 153, 154 performance models 18, 39
Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) 28, 33, 34, and frameworks 49, 50
35 performance monitoring 271
oil refinery construction project 137 performance objectives for project 18
Oliveira (2017) 92 performance prism system 268
Olsson, R. 93, 95 pessimistic explanatory style 122
“one and done” attitude 82 Petit 7
online communities group 224 Pfizer vaccine 48
online data collection 59 phase-specific performance measures 18
online questionnaires 59 Pinnington, A. H. 217
Opera House 216 Pinto, Jeffrey K. 4
operational management 49 Pinto, J. K. 216
theories 41 Pinto, J.K. 83
operational outcomes, from project outputs to 39, Plan–Do–Check–Adjust (PDCA) 35
40 planned value (PV) 72
operational project models and analyses 50 Planning Fallacy principle 80
operational system’s mission 42 ‘plan progress management’ 73
operational value chains 40, 41, 42, 43, 50 PMI 215
operation and maintenance 18, 276 political risks 119
operations strategy theories 47 Pollard, E. 159
optimal learning experiences 247 poor risk culture in organization 95, 96
Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA) model 268 portfolio funnel 32
organizational agility portfolio management 179, 184
principles of 49 Portfolio Management Office (PMO) 36
organizational commitment 236 Posterior Risk 149
organizational culture 118, 216 Power, D. 217
organizational decision making 70 Priemus, H. 120, 122
organizational guidance 203 PRINCE2 24
organizational learning 235, 236 principal–agent relationship 49
in project management environments 235 private sector, role of 265
organizational project management maturity 176 proactive risk assessment approach 154
organization and management metrics 18 proactive risk management 152
organization culture 180 probability distribution functions 147
probability impact matrix 139
pair-wise comparison 126 problem-centred knowledge claim 269
Pandit, D. 273 process-based evaluation 267
Peach, D. 159 process-based lessons learned 235
Peer Review process 250 process life cycle performance
people-readiness model 129 measurements 268
Index 293
process principles 201 profession 2

product development plan 27 program 163, 169, 171
product development practices 46 research 83, 84, 86
product management 27 skills 6, 158, 161, 162
product-oriented evaluation 267 strategies 12
product-related decision-making 16 success 2, 16, 177, 178, 179
project autonomy 80 techniques 23
project-based approach 249, 250, 251 theory 43, 76, 88
project-based learning 244 tools 16, 170
activities 248 traditional 24
experience 244, 248, 249 university program 170
programs 242 visualization of 43
project-based organizations 235 Project Management 4.0 9, 254
project-based social learning 242 Project Management Body of Knowledge Guide
project-based work 76 (PMBOK® Guide) 8, 14, 24, 93, 118,
project behavior 77 215, 225, 231, 232, 233, 234, 237, 240,
project benefits and outcomes 3 250
project constraints, impact of flow on 199 Project Management Institute (PMI) 6, 11, 93,
project critical success factors 118, 158, 164, 171, 231, 232, 234
frameworks of 78 Project Management Journal 236
project culture 217, 223 project management lessons learned 231
project definition process 191, 193 analysis of two sets of methodologies 236,
project definition stages 190 237
project delay/time overrun 96 content analysis of 232, 233, 234
project development cycles 45 journal abstracts reviewed on 234, 235, 236
project development model 81 project management maturity role on project
project-driven approach 198 performance 176, 177, 179, 180
project environment 254 case study method 181, 184
project execution efficiency 83 factors 179
projectification of society 39 project success and project management
project initiation phase 16 success 177, 178, 179
project integration management 256 research method 180
project learning process 235 survey questionnaire 180, 181
project life cycle 154 project management research methodologies 122
stages 270 project management team 134
project management 13, 14, 23, 28, 36, 37, 39, 67, project management tools 16
69, 76, 88, 172, 215, 217, 240, 262, 267 project manager
approach, agility/flexibility in 80 leadership role 2
best practices, influence of 223 project metrics 12
capstone projects 161, 174 project monitoring and data integrity 67
courses 215 baseline 67
culture 214 control charts 69, 70
degree 162, 164, 168, 170 critical success factors and key performance
factors 181 indicators as 69
field 50 earned value as project monitoring 68
frameworks 24 efficacy 73
fundamental role of 42 implementation considerations 72, 73
literature 11, 13, 76, 77 project progress data 70
maturity 6 rearview mirror approach 68, 69
methodology 215 role of ‘monitoring’ to the Change Control
methods 27 Board (CCB) 71, 72
metrics 12 system 4
model 28, 36 traditional role of Change Control Board
practices 176, 179, 183, 184 (CCB) 70, 71
principles 176, 224 Project Myopia 24
project performance 2, 8, 11, 39, 76, 176, 177, public sector entities 265
178, 223
analyzing challenges of 16, 17 Qualitative Content Analysis (QCA) 268
conceptualization of 11 qualitative research method 8
dimensions of 13, 14, 15 qualitative risk analysis 139
evaluation 273 quality performance 14
factors 179, 180, 181, 184 quantifiable and non-quantifiable skills 171, 172
framework 17, 18, 19 quantitative analysis 208, 209
management 40 quantitative models
measures of 12, 13, 14 Monte Carlo simulation 147
metrics of 12, 14 risk interaction techniques 141, 142, 143, 145
multi-level framework of 40, 41, 42, 43 risk prioritization techniques 140, 141
outcomes 18 quantitative research approach 58
planning tools 9 quantitative research design 58
project management maturity role on 176 quantitative risk analysis 116
scope of 50 questionnaire-based survey 271
project portfolio management function 181 questionnaire survey 58, 59, 272, 277
project progress data 70 rail project 75
project-related employment 168 Raisinghani, Mahesh S. 7
project-related skills and knowledge 170 Raji, I. O. 255
project reports 68 Ramos, P. A. 216
project resilience 80 random sampling method 59
project risk management 152 Rane, S. B. 96
course 170 Rankin, J. 12
project risks 93, 94, 96 Rauzana, A. 97
management 94, 95 rearview mirror approach 68, 69
Project’s Change Control Board 4 recall versus integration 170, 171
project scope management process 198 recycling CDW clause 63, 64
project’s mismanagement 76 “red light learning” 236
project’s performance 80 reduction of costs 210
project sponsorship 80 Rees-Caldwell, K. 217
project status 72 “registration system” 46
project success 2, 5, 76, 77, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, Reina, P. 96
86, 88, 133, 177, 178, 179 Reiter, Karin 119
failures 134, 135 relational learning 236
project dimension 135, 136 Relative Importance Index (RII) 273, 274, 277
project in VUCA environment 133 reliability of data 59
qualitative models and techniques for risk reliability test 273
identification and assessment 137, Remington, K. 117
139 research framework 58
quantitative models using analytics for risk resistance to change 94, 104, 108, 109
assessment 140 resource allocation 197, 208
risk management process 136, 137 respondents’ demographic profile 101
risk monitoring and control 150, 151 Reverse Bloom Learning Framework
risk response strategies 147, 148, 149, 150 (RBLF) 242, 243, 249, 250
project supervision 80 Ribeiro, A. 256, 260
Richardson 4
project team management 116
Rickards, R. C. 203
psychological sanctuary 122
risk adaptation strategy 148
public-private partnerships (PPPs) 9, 75, 265, 266
risk analytics 140
benefits of 266 risk and governance 118, 119
database of India 265 risk appetite curve, digitization of 123
preparation stage 274, 275 risk assessment 140
projects 266, 268, 270, 274, 276, 277 Monte Carlo simulation 147
road projects 265, 268, 270, 271, 273, 277 risk interaction techniques 141, 142, 143, 145
types of 266 risk prioritization techniques 140, 141
Index 295
risk attitude 95 Sanyal, S. 117

risk aversion 121 scaled agile environment 197, 210
risk-based activities 118 beyond budgeting 201
risk-based communication 115 fixed capacity 198, 199
risk behavior 115 framework 204
risk breakdown structure (RBS) 137, 138 planning in 197
risk culture 96, 118 research methodology 203, 204, 205
risk dependencies 149, 151, 152 results 205, 206, 207, 208, 209
response strategy 149 traditional budgeting 200, 201
risk identification schedule performance 14
and assessment, qualitative models and tech- Schein, E. H. 216
niques for 137, 139 Schindler, M. 235, 236
process 97 Seiden, Joshua
techniques 137, 139 “Outcomes over Output” 26, 34
risk interaction techniques 141, 142, 143, 145 Sekaran, U. 59
risk management 92, 93, 97, 109, 117, 118, 119, Sekar, G. 14
172 self-belief 159
adoption 5 self-control 130
aspects 6 Semantic Network Analysis (SNA) 142, 143
framework 115 semi-structured interviews 204, 219, 271
function 115 semi-structured questionnaire 220
implementation 93, 94, 95 sensitive defence technologies 153
in construction industry 94, 110 Shapira, Z. 120, 121
in construction projects 109 She, L.-Y. 128
in projects 5 Shenhar, A.J. 80, 117
methodology 155 Shepherd, D. A. 236
process 134, 136, 137
program 118 Shohet, I.M. 18
session 126 Shore, B. 219
strategies 147, 151, 154 short intensive format learning 246
risk mitigation strategy 148 Simion, C. P. 255, 256, 260
risk monitoring and control 150, 151 Simon, Herbert 128
risk network, visualization of 142 simulations 259
risk prevention 148 Singh, Dhruv Pratap 7
risk prioritization techniques 140, 141 Sisodia, R. 129
risk register 152 situated learning 235
risk response actions 152 Slevin, D.P. 83
risk response planning 147 Smircich, L. 218
risk response strategies 147, 148, 149, 150 Smith, C. 160, 163
risk score 140 social capital 235
risk structure matrix 142 social learning ecosystems 242
risks, types of 119 social risks
robotic systems 189 and political risks 119
Rockart, J.F. 84 managing 120
Rossi, T. 255 socio-technical systems 46
RSM Robson Rhodes LLP 118 approach 42
rules of thumb 70 operations as 41, 42
theory of 50
Sabariyah, D. 97 software-intensive system development 68
SAFe 7, 204 software product companies 24, 28, 30, 36
sample interview questions 163 software project management 81
sample scales for quantitative probability and Sony, M. 259
impact 140 sound business case 80
Samset K. 115 Sousa-Poza, A. 218
Sanofi vaccine 48 Spencer, J. 216
stage gate approach 47 traditional infrastructure delivery system 266

stage-theories of group development 171 traditional iron triangle of project
stakeholder behavior 5 management 23
stakeholder engagement 116, 118 traditional learning approach 250
standard deviation 273 traditional management approach 201
standard form of contracts 4, 55, 57, 58, 63, 64, 65 traditional MCDM techniques 141
standardized risk management practices 135 traditional practices decisions 194
standard operation procedure (SOP) 56 traditional project analysis practices 50
State Highway project scheme 274 traditional project definition practices 192
state-of-the-art technologies 152 traditional project management 23, 36, 254, 255, 262
statistical analysis 59 bets 31
Statistical Package for the Social Science company-level goal(s) 30, 31
(SPSS) 59 false beliefs of 24, 26
strategic management 215 from company vision to value-driven portfo-
cycle of operations 47 lio 27, 28, 29, 30
of organizations 40 initiatives 31
stress fundamental managerial segments 216 Lean OKRs 33
structured decision-making 117 Lean OKRs cycle 34, 35, 36
structured project management 179 outcomes over output 26
student 163 portfolio funnel 32
success conditions 77, 83, 84, 86, 88 products and outcomes 26, 27
Sundarajan, S. 97 Taylorism 24
Sung, P. 56 traffic congestion 75
super-high-tech projects 136 “triple loop of learning” 235
supportive learning environment 236 Trist, E.L. 41
survey questionnaire 6, 177, 180, 181 Turner, J. R. 219
“sustainability by the project” 81 Turner, Michelle 6
Swarup, L. 12 Turner, R. 84
Sweis, G. 96 Tversky, A. 115, 120
Sydney Opera House 216
systemic projects 39, 135 uncertainty management 45
practices 50
TACTILE model 129 process 46
tangible project 68 theories of 43
Taylorism 24 under budget 68
Tchobanogious, G. 56 underperformance gap 81
team leadership 130 unfamiliar groups 166
teamwork quality 80 United Nations Sustainability Goal 161
temporal ambidexterity 81 university capstone project case study
temporal conflation gap 81, 82 aligning expectations of the mentor’s
Theisen, R. 56 role 172, 173
theory of constraints 25 collaboration versus task allocation 164, 165
Thomas R. J. 260 confidence 167, 168
Thomke, S. 42 course knowledge and skills 168, 169
Thomsett, R. 216 designing for diversity of experience 169,
threshold value 100, 103, 104 170
Tippett, D. D. 93 developing employability 159, 160
total-influence matrix 99, 100 examining curriculum 160, 161
total relation matrix 102, 105, 107 group conflict 166, 167
traditional and agile organizations 261 impact of familiarity 165, 166
traditional budgeting 199, 200, 201, 203, 208, integrating quantifiable and non-quantifiable
209, 211 skills 171, 172
traditional education 250 mentor’s role 169
traditional hierarchical organizational method 161, 162, 163
structure 260 participants 163, 164
Index 297
recall versus integration 170, 171

right person in the right job 158, 159 Wagner, D. B. 216
skills gap identification 167 Wallin, J. 200
themes 164 Wang, T. 80
unjustified preferential partnerships 115 Ward, L. R. 215
unstable operational systems 46 waterfall approach 81, 199
unsuitable working environment 188 Water Infrastructure projects 130
UN Sustainable Development Goals 76 Watson, T. 94
Whole Price Index (WPI) 275
“vaccinate” operational system 46 Wibowo, M. A. 57
vaccination campaign 40, 46 Wijngaards-de Meij, L. 160, 170
Valuckas, D. 202, 203 Willard, B. K. 217
value chain operations 40, 41 Wingrove, D. 161
Value Creation Model (VCM) 3, 24, 27, 28, 30, work breakdown structure (WBS) 136
31, 32, 33, 35, 36 work management system 24
value-driven portfolio, company vision to 27, 28, World Economic Forum (WEF) 244
29, 30 World Health Organization 189
Vanhercke, D. 159, 170
VCM Ambassador Team 36 Yang, J. B. 100
Veile, J. 255 Yang, R.J. 142
Vendor PMS 268 Yanık, S. 255
Verma, V.K. 97 Yeh, L 56
viability gap funding scheme 274 Yuan, J. 142, 268, 271, 273
Vierlboeck, M. 200 Yusoff, M. S. B. 270
virtual mindset 133
Zahidy, A.-H. 97
virtual project environments 251, 260
Zainudin, Nurhaizan Mohd 4
virtual telepathy 256
Zarei, B. 142
visualization tools and techniques 192
Zavadskas, E. K. 92, 93
Voigt, K. I. 255
volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA)
environment 5, 117, 133, 152, 240

Research Handbook On Project Performance by Vittal S Anantatmula

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research Handbook On Project Performance by Vittal S Anantatmula

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Research

Cheltenham, UK • Northampton, MA, USA

Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.

A catalogue record for this book

Library of Congress Control Number: 2023930291

This book is available electronically in the

ISBN 978 1 80220 760 6 (cased)

1 Introduction to Research Handbook on Project Performance2

2 Project performance measures and metrics framework 11

3 An alternative to traditional project management: using lean OKRs as

4 Modeling relationships of projects and operations: toward a dynamic

PART II TACTICS, STRATEGIES, AND RISKS

5 Construction and demolition waste recycling and reuse clause in

6 Project monitoring and data integrity 67

7 Don’t ask what makes projects successful, but under what

8 Understanding the causes and effects of low-risk management:

9 Managing risk in Indian construction projects 115

10 Risk analytics for project success 133

11 Building capability for project success: examining the preparedness of

12 Role of project management maturity in project performance 176

PART III NEXT PRACTICES

13 Addressing the performance gap with lean-led design 188

14 Fixed capacity and beyond budgeting: a symbiotic relationship within

15 Cross-cultural integration in the next practices of project management:

16 Project management lessons learned: essential safety features 231

17 Projects as vehicles of learning 240

18 Impact of Industry 4.0 on agile project management 254

19 Performance management in public–private partnership projects:

Charu Chandra Gupta is a former deputy general manager of Hindustan Aeronautics

Chakradhar Iyyunni’s expertise is in risk management and decision-making, mentoring

Sunil Kumar is an experienced project management professional in the power industry. He

Tracey Richardson is an associate professor of project management at Embry–Riddle

institutional, and managerial categories along with meta-conditions such as multi-stakeholder

Singh and Raisinghani provide a comprehensive qualitative discussion on the role of

A project is considered as a temporary effort in organizations that is structured to perform a set

2. PROJECT PERFORMANCE METRICS, MEASURES, AND

2.1 Metrics of Project Performance

2.2 Measures of Project Performance

2.3 Dimensions of Project Performance

Table 2.1 Literature review summary on dimensions of project performance

3. ANALYZING THE CHALLENGES OF PROJECT

4. PROJECT PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK

According to Neely (1994), “a performance measurement system can be characterized as

Figure 2.2 Project performance framework

PROJECTS ARE TAYLORISM

THE FALSE BELIEFS OF TRADITIONAL PROJECT

OUTCOMES OVER OUTPUT

PRODUCTS AND OUTCOMES

FROM COMPANY VISION TO A VALUE-DRIVEN PORTFOLIO

(1) Embrace uncertainty in an environment that favors learning

Company-Level Goal(s) (One to Three Years)

Bets (< 12 Months)

As discussed earlier, when generating an impact on these outcome-based goals (objectives),

Initiatives (Three to Four Months)

Figure 3.2 Goal team and their portfolio responsibilities

only be effective if leadership is dedicated to empowering their skilled and knowledgeable

OKRs are written in a simple format:

Objective: [What you want to achieve]

An example of a good OKR:

LEAN OKR CYCLE: A LIGHTWEIGHT GOVERNANCE MODEL

Implementing a lightweight governance model to periodically review outcomes is vital. In

VCM AMBASSADOR TEAM

1. FROM PROJECT OUTPUTS TO OPERATIONAL OUTCOMES

1 Introduction to Research Handbook on Project Performance2

2 Project performance measures and metrics framework 11

6 Project monitoring and data integrity 67

9 Managing risk in Indian construction projects 115

10 Risk analytics for project success 133

12 Role of project management maturity in project performance 176

13 Addressing the performance gap with lean-led design 188

16 Project management lessons learned: essential safety features 231

17 Projects as vehicles of learning 240

18 Impact of Industry 4.0 on agile project management 254