Project Management Priorities and the Link with Performance Management Systems

This paper reports the results of a project management practices study in the U.K. social housing sector. A five-factor model of project priorities is established, comprising traditional measures of project cost, time, and quality, in combination with a need to focus on stakeholders and to develop a customer and project team orientation. This model supports and integrates previously fragmented notions of project performance measurement. The relationship between these five project management criteria and the effectiveness and use of a performance management system (PMS) is then explored, with some limited evidence found that PMS effectiveness is an antecedent to practices that focus on the customer, the project team members, and other stakeholders

[1]  S. Ogunlana,et al.  Good project governance for proper risk allocation in public–private partnerships in Indonesia , 2006 .

[2]  D. Bryde.  Methods for Managing Different Perspectives of Project Success , 2005 .

[3]  James S. Noble,et al.  The changing basis of performance measurement , 1996 .

[4]  Michael Y. Mak,et al.  Problematic issues associated with project partnering — the contractor perspective , 2002 .

[5]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The balanced scorecard--measures that drive performance. , 2015, Harvard business review.

[6]  K. B. Hendricks,et al.  Firm characteristics, total quality management, and financial performance , 2001 .

[7]  P. Gardiner,et al.  Revisiting the golden triangle of cost, time and quality: the role of NPV in project control, success and failure , 2000 .

[8]  Ebrahim Soltani,et al.  A Contrast of HRM and Tqm Approaches to Performance Management: Some Evidence , 2005 .

[9]  Adnane Belout,et al.  Factors influencing project success: the impact of human resource management , 2004 .

[10]  H. Maylor.  Beyond the Gantt chart:: Project management moving on , 2001 .

[11]  William G Wells,et al.  An exploration of project management office features and their relationship to project performance , 2004 .

[12]  A. Neely,et al.  The performance prism in practice , 2001 .

[13]  Charalambos L. Iacovou,et al.  The linkage between reporting quality and performance in IS projects , 2007, Inf. Manag..

[14]  V. Haines,et al.  Performance Management Design and Effectiveness in Quality‐Driven Organizations , 2009 .

[15]  Anton de Wit,et al.  Measurement of project success , 1988 .

[16]  Albert P.C. Chan,et al.  Partnering in Construction: Critical Study of Problems for Implementation , 2003 .

[17]  Kuei-Yang Wu,et al.  The relationship between total quality management and project performance in building planning phase: An empirical study of real estate industries in Taiwan , 2002 .

[18]  Andy Neely,et al.  Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems , 2000 .

[19]  Walter O. Rom,et al.  An empirical investigation of project evaluation criteria , 2001 .

[20]  R. Schroeder,et al.  The impact of total productive maintenance practices on manufacturing performance , 2001 .

[21]  Hale Kaynak,et al.  The relationship between total quality management: practices and their effects on firm performance , 2003 .

[22]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  Theory-W Software Project Management: Principles and Examples , 1989, IEEE Trans. Software Eng..

[23]  Rosemary R. Fullerton,et al.  AN EXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN JIT AND FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE , 2003 .

[24]  Joyce Fortune,et al.  Current practice in project management — an empirical study , 2002 .

[25]  Mile Terziovski,et al.  The link between total quality management practice and organisational performance , 1999 .

[26]  T. Pock,et al.  Gaining Bilateral Benefit through Holistic Performance Management and Reporting , 2004 .

[27]  Roger Atkinson,et al.  Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria , 1999 .

[28]  A. Shenhar,et al.  Project Success: A Multidimensional Strategic Concept , 2001 .