Defining 'project success' for a complex project - The case of a nuclear engineering development

The case of a nuclear engineering project was investigated to establish the relevant success criteria for the development of complex, high-technology systems. The project was first categorised according to an existing scheme, and the Delphi method was used to determine the criteria for project success that apply to this specific case. A framework of project success dimensions was extended to include criteria that are of specific importance for the project under consideration. While project efficiency (delivery on time and within budget) obviously still needs to be controlled, the results provide empirical evidence for the notion that, for ‘super high tech’ projects, this is relatively less important. The relative importance of the dimensions of success was also evaluated and presented on a timeline stretching from project execution to 10 years after project completion. This provided empirical evidence for certain concepts in the literature.

[1]  David H. Gustafson,et al.  Group Techniques for Program Planning: A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes , 1976 .

[2]  Ephraim R. McLean,et al.  Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable , 1992, Inf. Syst. Res..

[3]  Aaron J. Shenhar,et al.  Reinventing project management : the diamond approach to successful growth & innovation , 2007 .

[4]  P. Mullen Delphi: myths and reality. , 2003, Journal of health organization and management.

[5]  J. Rodney Turner,et al.  Five necessary conditions for project success , 2004 .

[6]  Jeffrey K. Pinto,et al.  Critical factors in successful project implementation , 1987, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management.

[7]  Stephen K. Markham Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation , 2007 .

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

[9]  Alan C. Brent,et al.  Determining the most important factors for sustainable energy technology selection in Africa: Application of the focus group technique , 2008 .

[10]  Andrew Sage,et al.  Toward a NASA-Specific Project Management Framework , 2005 .

[11]  David Hanks,et al.  Nuclear Safeguards Considerations For The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) , 2009 .

[12]  Aaron J. Shenhar,et al.  One Size Does Not Fit All Projects: Exploring Classical Contingency Domains , 2001, Manag. Sci..

[13]  Steven A. Melnyk,et al.  An empirical investigation of the metrics alignment process , 2005 .

[14]  Cassandra Moraveck,et al.  Measuring Project Success , 2013 .

[15]  Aaron J. Shenhar,et al.  Why projects fail? How contingency theory can provide new insights – A comparative analysis of NASA’s Mars Climate Orbiter loss , 2009 .

[16]  Dov Dvir,et al.  In search of project classification: a non-universal approach to project success factors , 1998 .

[17]  Aaron J. Shenhar,et al.  Toward a typological theory of project management , 1996 .

[18]  B Sibbald,et al.  Indicators of the appropriateness of long-term prescribing in general practice in the United Kingdom: consensus development, face and content validity, feasibility, and reliability. , 1998, Quality in health care : QHC.

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

[20]  Jeffrey K. Pinto,et al.  The causes of project failure , 1990 .

[21]  Joyce Fortune,et al.  Framing of project critical success factors by a systems model , 2006 .