Collins, A and Baccarini, D (2004) Project success: A survey. Journal of Construction Research, 5(2), pp. 211-231. ISSN 1609-9451
Abstract
Over the past decade there has been a growing literature on project success criteria, however there has been relatively little empirical data. This paper provides a significant contribution to the knowledge of project success by providing empirical data on the subject, by means of a survey of 150 Australian project managers on the subject of project success criteria. An analysis of the data found two distinct views: those that perceived project success solely in terms of the traditional project objectives of time, cost and quality; and those that considered success in terms of these objectives and the effectiveness of the project's product. The traditional project management success criteria of time, cost and quality still has a strong hold within the project management community in Australia. However, the most important success criterion was considered to be the product success criterion of meeting the owner's needs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | project success; product success; project management success |
| Index terms: | owner, Australia, project success, project manager, project management, effectiveness, survey, success criteria |
| Subjects: | sociology, project management theory and practice, performance management, profession, data collection methods, assessment methods, Geography |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Quality Management, Geographical Context, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here