See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264942679

Factors that influence the success of public

sector projects in Pakistan

Conference Paper · June 2013

DOI: 10.13140/2.1.4832.9605

CITATIONS READS

6 3,109

3 authors, including:

Khalid Ahmad Khan Tayyab Maqsood

Skema Business School RMIT University
4 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS 64 PUBLICATIONS 366 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Petroleum Refining View project

Public Sector Projects in Pakistan View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Khalid Ahmad Khan on 22 August 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Factors that influence the success of public sector projects in Pakistan

by:
Dr Khalid Khan, Univ Lille Nord de France, LSMRC, SKEMA Business School
Prof Rodney Turner, Univ Lille Nord de France, LSMRC, SKEMA Business School
and Kingston Business School
Dr Tayyab Maqsood, RMIT

Dr. Khalid Ahmad KHAN Prof J Rodney TURNER

Univ Lille Nord de France, LSMRC Univ Lille Nord de France, LSMRC
Skema Business School Skema Business School
Avenue Willy Brandt Avenue Willy Brandt
F59777 Euralille France F59777 Euralille France

Tel: +92-300-8405479 Tel: +33-3-2042 4730

E-mail: khalidahmad.khan@skema.edu E-mail: rodney.turner@skema.edu

Dr. Tayyab MAQSOOD Prof J Rodney TURNER

Associate Professor- Project Management Kingston Business School
School of Property, Construction and Project Kingston Hill
Management Kingston-Upon-Thames, KT2 7LB,
RMIT UK
Swanston Street City Campus
Melbourne, Australia.

Tel: +61-3-99253916 Tel: +44-20-8417-5379

Email: tayyab.maqsood@rmit.edu.au E-mail: rodney.turner@kingston.ac.uk

Corresponding Author:
Dr. Khalid Ahmad KHAN
Univ Lille Nord de France, LSMRC
Skema Business School
Avenue Willy Brandt
F59777 Euralille France

Tel: +92-300-8405479
E-mail: khalidahmad.khan@skema.edu et

1
 Factors that influence the success of public sector projects in Pakistan

Abstract
The aim of this study was to develop constructs for project success factors and project success
criteria in the public sector of a developing country, Pakistan, and to explore the relationship
between them. Through a literature review we identified project variables for project success
factors and criteria and from them we developed a survey instrument. A total of 176 fully
completed responses were collected from a variety of stakeholders working on public sector
projects in Pakistan. Exploratory factor analysis was used to develop constructs for project
success factors and success criteria. Analysis, revealed eight success factors and, five success
criteria. Multivariate regression was used to investigate the relationship between the project
success factors and success criteria identified. Results showed that seven success factors had
a positive relationship with one or more of the success criteria. Top management support,
organizational & managerial environment and project Characteristics showed the largest
impact on project success. Only one factor, technical tasks had no impact on project success.

This paper has contributed to project management theory by obtaining empirical evidence for
project success factors and project success criteria. It has identified those that are relevant in
the context of public sector projects in Pakistan, a developing country which may differ from
the West on which many existing lists are based. We have also found the relationship
between them for that context. The paper shows that existing project success factor and
success criteria cannot be used without looking at the context in which they were developed
and it demonstrates the importance of personnel in projects by using project success factors
variable obtained from human resource research.

Keywords: project success factors; project success criteria, developing countries, Pakistan

Introduction
In 2010, the global gross fixed capital formation (GFCF) was 20% of gross domestic product
(GDP), (World Bank, 2011). GFCF is a measure of the value of acquisitions of fixed assets,
and provides an indication of the value of projects in an economy. In 2010, the GFCF ratio in
the South Asian region was 31%, second only to East Asia and Pacific at 41% (World Bank,
2012). These regions have the highest ratio of spending on projects to GDP. A significant
portion of this spending is in the public sector on development projects to create basic
infrastructure. Successful public sector projects are essential to develop basic infrastructure to
provide transportation, utilities, health, education, and economic growth.

Despite the importance of public sector infrastructure projects in the developing countries,
both the public sector and the developing world have received little attention from project
management researchers. Pinto, Cleland, and Slevin (2002) in their review of journal articles
on project management, from 1960 to 1999, found that only 7% dealt with the public sector.
And much of the project management literature has a very Western bias. Public sector
projects in developing countries have to deal with issues that are unique to that environment
including large number of stakeholders, weak procurement systems, complex processes,
shortage of skills & resources, and bureaucratic red tape (Ahsan & Gunawan, 2010).
Development project performance includes tactical considerations that deal with project

2
efficiency and strategic considerations that deal with achieving results through project
effectiveness and impact (Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development, 2008).

Pakistan falls in the South Asian region, a region that is home to 1.6 billion people. It has a
long history of public sector development. As with the other developing countries, it faces
the challenge of making effective use of its development spending. A World Bank study of
Pakistan Infrastructure Implementation Capacity in 2007 reported that the average public
sector project took three times more duration and two times more funds as originally planned
(World Bank, 2007). Khan (2007) cited data from the Planning Commission that showed
200% to 800% increase in budgets for major infrastructure projects executed between 1993
and 2003.

The aims of this research are

ƒ to identify factors that influence the success of public sector infrastructure projects in
Pakistan
ƒ to determine how public sector infrastructure projects in Pakistan are judged to be
successful, and how the success factors contribute to the achievement of success
ƒ investigate how public sector infrastructure projects in a developing country such as
Pakistan differ from Western projects in this regard
ƒ to provide empirical evidence for the nature of success factors and success criteria and the
relationship between them to make a contribution to project management theory

Literature review
Turner (2009) suggested that in order to understand project success we need to define success
in terms of project success criteria and project success factors. Project success criteria are the
dependent variables through which we measure the success of a project, and project success
factors are the independent variables that influence the success of a project.

Given the diversity in the culture, capabilities and environments in the developing world, the
challenge has been to find solutions that work for everyone. The Organization for Economic
and Cooperative Development (2008) suggested that ‘one size fits all’ solutions cannot be
found. We see the same view in project management literature with researches reporting on
differences in the way projects behave in different industries, (Pinto & Covin, 1989),
countries, (Andersen, Dyrhaug & Jessen, 2002), sectors, (Al-Tmeemy, Abdul-Rahman &
Harun, 2011; Diallo & Thuillier, 2004; Niu, Lechler & Jiang, 2010; Thomas & Fernández,
2008) and cultures (Zwikael, Shimizu, & Globerson, 2005). There is no common set of
Project Success Criteria or Project Success Factors that can be applied to all projects.

Development practitioners in the developing world face the challenge that many of the models
for project success factors have been developed and tested in the West and so are not relevant
to their context. They can commit a Type I error by selecting and focusing on project success
factors that don’t have an effect on their projects or a Type II error by failing to pick project
success factors that are really important for them. We can see this when comparing project
success factors between different contexts. Fortune & White (2006) found ‘employee
training’ as a success factor in their study of UK government IT projects. However, Khang &
Moe (2008) in their study of development projects in Southeast Asian countries found that
capacity building including ‘employee training’ had no effect on project success. This leads
to our first research question:

3
 RQ1: What are the project success factors for public sector projects in Pakistan?

Jugdev and Müller (2005) looked at 40 years of literature on project success and found it
could no longer be viewed in the narrow confines of the “iron triangle” (scope, time & cost).
Project success is a multidimensional construct that includes both the short term project
management success (efficiency) as well as the longer term achievement of desired results
from the project (effectiveness and impact), (Jugdev, Thomas & Delisle, 2001; Xue, Turner &
Anbari, 2013). Kerzner (2010) suggested that other than efficiency and effectiveness there
are no common measures of success between the private and public sectors. The public sector
is more focused on minimizing costs and achieving stakeholder satisfaction while the private
sector focuses on maximizing profits and customer satisfaction. Toor & Ogunlana (2010) in
their study of large public sector projects in Thailand showed that stakeholder satisfaction,
safety, avoiding conflicts and effective use of resources complemented the “iron triangle” as
important performance measures. This leads to our second research question:

RQ 2: What are the project success criteria for public sector projects in Pakistan?

Many researchers in project success have looked at either success factors or success criteria
rather than both. Westerveld (2003) developed the Project Excellence Model, based on the
EFQM excellence model, which conceptually linked project success factors and criteria.
However, this model does not identify the relationshps between a set of success factors and a
success criterion. Wateridge (1995, 2000) did investigate the relationship between them for
information systems projects in Britain. Andersen, Birchall, Jessen & Money (2006) used
regression analysis to show the releationship between project success factors and success
criteria. This leads to our third research questions:

RQ 3: What is the relationship between project sucecss factors and project success
critera for public sector projects in Pakistan?

Project success criteria

We can see seven distinct dimensions of project success in literature, Table 1:

ƒ project efficiency
ƒ impact on the project team
ƒ impact on customer
ƒ business success
ƒ preparing for the future
ƒ project profile
ƒ stakeholder satisfaction

Project efficiency and impact on customer are common success dimension across several
studies. Organizations need to constantly develop capabilities to take on new projects and
this is reflected by the ‘preparing for future’ dimension (Andersen, Dyrhaug, & Jessen, 2002;
Shenhar & Dvir, 2007). Keeping project stakeholders statisfied is a performance dimensions
we see becoming more important, (Bryde & Robinson, 2005; Müller & Turner, 2007a;
Thomas & Fernández, 2008; Turner & Zolin, 2012). Governments are continuly executing
projects to address public needs. The availability of funds especially in development projects
is linked with the reputation of the previously completed projects or ‘profile’ as reported by
Diallo & Thuillier (2004). Thomas & Fernández (2008) studied the definition and
measurement of Information Technology project success in Australian companies. Their

4
work reinforced the findings of an earlier study, (Wateridge, 1995, 1998), that the way
organizations define and measure success influences project success. Organizations that
define and measure project success in clearly understood terms are more likely to achieve
success. Lipovetsky, Tishler, Dvir, and Shenhar (1997) in their study of project success in
defense industry identified four success dimensions, meeting design goals, benefits to the
customer, benefits to the developing organization, and benefits to the defence & national
infrastructure.

Table 1: Success dimensions from the literature

Project Efficiency

Preparing for the

Business Success

Project Profile
Impact on the

Stakeholders
project team

Satisfaction
Impact on
Customer

future
Atkinson (1999) ¥ ¥ ¥
Andersen, Dyrhaug, & Jessen
¥ ¥ ¥
(2002)
Rad (2003) ¥ ¥
Diallo & Thuillier (2004) ¥ ¥ ¥
Bryde & Robinson (2005) ¥ ¥ ¥
Yu, Flett & Bowers (2005) ¥ ¥
Müller & Turner (2007a) ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥
Shenhar & Dvir (2007) ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥
Thomas & Fernández (2008) ¥ ¥ ¥
Al-Tmeemy et al (2011) ¥ ¥ ¥
Turner & Zolin (2012) ¥

We see that the definition of project success is dependent on context and perspective. The
relative importance of success dimensions varies across sectors, industries, roles, geography,
and time. We also see the importance of having a clear definition and means of measuring
success for overall project success. Given the diversity of success criteria scales, we decided
not to use any existing scale and to develop a new one by using success criteria variables from
existing scales. 32 project success criteria variables were identified from literature. This list
was reviewed with a group of public sector managers who suggested two additional variables:
met safety standards and complied with environmental regulations. This final set of 34
project success criteria variables, Table 2, was incorporated in the survey questionnaire.

5
Table 2: Project success criteria variables
Reference Times
No Success Criteria Variable a b c d e f g h i j k l
m n o Cited
1 Finished within budget ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥
¥ ¥ 10
2 Completed according to specifications ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥
¥ ¥ 9
3 Finished on time ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥
¥ 9
4 Project team satisfaction ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 8
5 Project achieved its purpose ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 7
6 Sponsor satisfaction ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 7
7 Met planned quality standard ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 6
8 End-user satisfaction ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 6
9 Enabling of other project work in future ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 5
10 Yielded business and other benefits ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 5
11 Met client's requirement ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 5
12 New understanding/Knowledge gained ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 5
13 End product used as planned ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 5
14 Supplier satisfied ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 4
15 Minimum disruption to organization ¥ ¥ ¥ 3
16 Smooth handover of Project outputs ¥ ¥ ¥ 3
17 Improvement in organizational capability ¥ ¥ ¥ 3
18 Motivated for future projects ¥ ¥ ¥ 3
19 Project has good reputation ¥ ¥ ¥ 3
20 Activities carried out as scheduled ¥ ¥ ¥ 3
21 Met organizational objectives ¥ ¥ ¥ 3
22 Cost effectiveness of work ¥ ¥ 2
23 Adhered to defined procedures ¥ ¥ 2
24 Met safety standards ¥ ¥ 2
25 Project achieved a high national profile ¥ 1
26 Learned from project ¥ 1
27 Resources mobilized and used as planned ¥ 1
28 Minimum number of agreed scope changes ¥ 1
29 Project’s impacts on beneficiaries visible ¥ 1
30 Steering group satisfaction ¥ 1
31 Complied with environmental regulations ¥ 1
32 Personal financial rewards ¥ 1
33 The project satisfies the needs of users ¥ 1
34 Personal non-financial rewards ¥ 1

ID Reference
a Shenhar et al. (1997)
b Wateridge (1998)
c Lim & Mohamed (1999)
d Andersen & Jessen (2000)
e White & Fortune (2002)
f Westerveld (2003)
g Diallo & Thuillier (2004)
h Bryde (2005)
i Khang & Moe (2008)
j Thomas & Fernández (2008)
k Müller & Turner (2007b)
l Kerzner (2009)
m Turner (2009))
n Al-Tmeemy et al. (2011)
o Feedback from public sector experts

6
Project Success Factors
Pinto and Slevin (1987) in their seminal study on project success identified 10 project success
factors which they called the Project Implementation Profile (PIP). One of the criticisms of
the PIP is that project manager’s competence is missing, (Turner & Müller, 2005). This
omission was compounded by later studies that showed that the personnel factor did not
significantly affect project success, (Belout & Gauvreau, 2004; Pinto & Prescott, 1988)
These results tend to suggest that projects can succeed in the absence of competent project
mangers and project teams. However, there are a number of studies that show that the
personnel factors is important, (Hyvari, 2006; Kuen, Zailani, & Fernando, 2009; Pinto &
Covin, 1989). Dvir, Sadeh & Malach-Pines (2006) and Muller & Turner (207b) showed that
the competence and leadership style of the project manager is linked to project success.
Belassi & Tukel (1996) developed 5 composite interdependent success factors and showed
that project managers and project team members were important for project success. Wang &
Huang (2006) found that top management support and smooth working relationship between
stakeholders, (guanxi), and contractor performance had the highest influence on achieving
schedule, cost, and quality objectives in Chinese construction industry. A study by Jha & Iyer
(2007) on project success factors in the Indian construction industry found that commitment,
coordination, and competence were the most important factors for achieving schedule, cost,
and quality objectives. These studies carried in the same sector, construction, but with
different geographies, showed differences in the relative importance of success factors. These
differences suggest the role of geography/culture as an important contextual factor in project
success. Analyzing the role of the organizational set up and project structure, researchers
have found evidence both for, (Hyvari, 2006), and against, (Dvir, Lipovetsky, Shenhar, &
Tishler, 2003), their influence on project success.

As can be seen from the review of the literature, there is no universal success factor model
that can be used for all projects. There are difference by content; sector, country and industry.
Given the lack of studies in our context we decided to develop a project success factor scale
using project success factor variables from literature. From the literature we identified 70
success factors variables, Table 3, which were incorporated in the questionnaire after
reviewing with a group of public sector mangers

7
Table 2: Project Success Factor variables
Reference Times
No Success Criteria Variable a b c d e f g h i j Cited
1 Realistic schedule ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 10
2 There was a detailed budget for the project ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 9
3 Leadership quality of PM ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 9
4 Skilled and suitably qualified project team ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 8
5 Effective monitoring & control ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 7
6 Formal Procedures ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 7
7 Effective team building/motivation ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 6
8 Risks addressed/assessed/managed ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 6
9 The project mission (purpose) is clearly stated ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 5
10 Effective consultation with key stakeholders ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 5
11 Flexibility in management ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 5
12 Support from senior management ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 5
13 Support of Project sponsor ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 5
14 Commitment of all parties to the project ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 4
15 Employee development (training) ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 3
16 Adequate local capacities are available ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 3
17 Environmental influences ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 3
18 Clear communication channels ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 3
19 Correct choice of methodology/tool ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 3
20 Good communications/feedback ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 3
21 Project plans understood and accepted by all ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 3
22 Project Manager's autonomy ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 2
23 Scope and nature of work well defined in the tender ¥ ¥ ¥ ¥ 2
24 Project Manager's Technical capability ¥ ¥ ¥ 2
25 Delegation of authority ¥ ¥ ¥ 1
26 Level of complexity project ¥ ¥ ¥ 1
27 Support from stakeholders ¥ ¥ ¥ 1
28 Competencies of project designers ¥ ¥ ¥ 1
29 Effective change management ¥ ¥ ¥ 1
30 There is strong local ownership of the project ¥ ¥ ¥ 1
31 Deviations from plan routinely and clearly dealt with ¥ ¥ ¥ 1
32 Having relevant past experience ¥ ¥ ¥ 1
33 Project meetings secure efficient flow of information ¥ ¥ ¥ 1
34 Goals and purpose accepted by all involved ¥ ¥ ¥ 1
35 Competent project manager ¥ ¥ ¥ 1
36 Top management's enthusiastic support to the PM and ¥ ¥ ¥ 1
project team at site
37 Budget Management ¥ ¥ ¥ 1
38 Political environment ¥ ¥ ¥ 1
39 Favorable social environment ¥ ¥ 1
40 Urgency of need ¥ ¥ 1
41 Clear organization/job descriptions ¥ ¥ 1
42 Effective conflict resolution ¥ ¥ 1
43 End user commitment ¥ ¥ 1
44 Organizational Environment ¥ ¥ 1
45 Project execution conforms to the agreed upon plan ¥ ¥ 1
46 Project plan regularly updated ¥ ¥ 1
47 Sufficient staff ¥ ¥ 1
48 Training human resources in the skills demanded ¥ ¥ 1
49 User/client involvement ¥ ¥ 1
50 Project organization structure ¥ ¥ 1
51 Equitable administration for personnel ¥ 1
52 Fair compensation for employees ¥ 1
53 The project goals and terms can be changed if ¥ 1
conditions make it necessary

8
Table 3: Project Success Factor variables (cont)
Reference Times
No Success Criteria Variable a b c d e f g h i j Cited
54 The final date of project completion is clearly defined ¥ 1
55 Good performance by contractors ¥ 1
56 Project duration (3 years or less) ¥ 1
57 Past experience of project management ¥ 1
methodology/tools
58 Good performance by consultants ¥ 1
59 Economic environment ¥ 1
60 Uniqueness of the project activities ¥ 1
61 Steering committee ¥ 1
62 Support of Project champion ¥ 1
63 Rapport of PM with contractors ¥ 1
64 Rapport of PM with sponsor ¥ 1
65 Regular budget update ¥ 1
66 Timely decisions by the owner or his engineer ¥ 1
67 Competencies of project management team ¥ 1
68 Clear policies to sustain project's activities and results ¥ 1
69 The project leader possesses adequate administrative ¥ 1
skills
70 The project leader possesses adequate interpersonal ¥ 1
skills

ID Lit Reference ID Lit Reference

a Tsui (1987) f Fortune and White (2006)
b Tishler, Dvir, Shenhar, and Lipovetsky (1996) g Hyvari (2006)
c Andersen and Jessen (2000) h Iyer and Jha (2006)
d White and Fortune (2002) i Khang and Moe (2008)
e Shenhar, Tishler, Dvir, Lipovetsky, and Lechler (2002) j Kuen, Zailani, and Fernando (2009)

9
Methodology
The research questions for this study were addressed using a cross-sectional quantitative study
based on a post-positivism perspective. The research methodology proceeded as follows:

1. A literature review was carried to identify project success factor variables, project success
criterion variables and build the initial research model and a questionnaire for the study.
2. The questionnaire was pilot tested with 10 respondents from the public sector.
3. The questionnaire was sent to key stakeholders (clients, sponsors, funding agencies,
consultants and contractors) who had worked on public sector projects.
4. Constructs for project success criteria and project success factor were developed using
exploratory factor analysis. These constructs were used to refine the research model.
5. Multivariate regression analysis was used to investigate the relationships between project
success factors (independent variables) and project success criteria (dependent variables).
Results of regression analysis were used to evaluate the research model.
6. Research results from the study were cross validated to work of other researchers to arrive
at credible conclusions.

Data
A sample frame of 600 respondents was created using membership lists from PMI Chapters in
Pakistan who work for organizations that are involved in government projects, list of
government departments involved in development projects, and known organizations that are
involved in execution, funding and design of the development projects. The questionnaire
was sent out by post and email to respondents on 1st July 2012 and given 2 months for
response. During this period a reminder was sent via email. The total completed responses
received by 31st Aug 2012 were 176. The response rate was 29.5%.

The questionnaire had six sections. The first section had a qualifying question to verify if the
respondent had worked on a public sector project. Section 2, 3, and 4 asked them to rate the
importance of success factors, success criteria and the level of success achieved on a recent
public sector project. Sector 5 had questions relating to project demographic and section 6 had
questions relating to personal demographics.

Almost half (45%) reported an implementation role, other roles represented in the sample
included supervising agency, sponsoring agency, consultant, contractor and funding agency.
Respondents had an average total work experience of 14 years and project experience of 9
years. Most of the respondents reported they were a project team member (46%) or project
manager (42%) – there were fewer respondents in a top level/governance role. 74% of the
projects were of medium to high duration and value based on scale defined by the planning
commission. This group represents projects which are more likely to use dedicated project
manager and formal project management systems.

Analysis and results

Project Success criteria scale
Principal component analysis with Varimax rotation using default Kaiser’s criterion of
eigenvalue over 1.0 (explaining 60.94% of the variance) revealed five project success criteria
dimensions with 25 of the project success criteria variables, Table 4. Test of suitability of the
sample for factor analysis was done using Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling
Adequacy. KMO test had a value of 0.904 (‘superb’ according to Field, 2009). Bartlett’s test

10
of sphericity p<0.001 showed that correlations between items were large enough for principle
component analysis. Cronbach’s Alpha values for all factors were above 0.7 indicating good
reliability. These factors, representing the 5 dimensions of project success, were named by
cross referencing the variables in each factor with literature.

Table 4: Project Success Criteria Scale

No Factor / Item Loading % of Var Cronbach's
explained alpha
1 Project efficiency 15.90% 0.893
Finished on time .749
Finished within budget .707
Minimum number of agreed scope changes .659
Activities carried out as scheduled .622
Met planned quality standard .614
Complied with environmental regulations .564
Met safety standards .545
Cost effectiveness of work .499
2 Organizational benefits 12.10% 0.796
Learned from project .670
Adhered to defined procedures .652
End product used as planned .623
The project satisfies the needs of users .580
New understanding/Knowledge gained .507
3 Project impact 11.50% 0.811
Project’s impacts on beneficiaries are visible .719
Project achieved its purpose .664
End-user satisfaction .659
Project has good reputation .547
4 Future potential 10.90% 0.762
Enabling of other project work in future .691
Motivated for future projects .683
Improvement in organizational capability .668
Resources mobilized and used as planned .509
5 Stakeholder satisfaction 10.50% 0.725
Sponsor satisfaction .717
Steering group satisfaction .667
Met client's requirement .517
Met organizational objectives .484
Total 60.90%

Project Efficiency: In the public sector “project efficiency” measures how effectively time
and resources are utilized to produce outputs with the desired quality (Norwegian Agency for
Development Cooperation, 2008). Shenhar & Dvir (2007) define efficiency in terms of the
project’s meeting time, cost and performance targets, and this is now more commonly used in
the project success literature (Serrador and Turner, 2013). The eight items in this success

11
dimension are related to scope, time and cost performance which are classified in the
literature as micro-success, short term success or project management success. This factor
has one new variable not commonly found in literature and is relevant for public sector
projects, Complied with Environmental Regulations.

Organizational Benefits: This dimension has five items which are associated with Macro
Success - Long Term, Business success and Learning and motivation. These classifications
are associated with benefits that an organization draws from completing a project. One of the
variables, Adhered to Defined Procedures, is especially relevant in the public sector where
there is little room for deviations from rules and regulations. This item is similar but not
identical to customer as suggested by Shenhar & Dvir (2007).

Project Impact: This factor has four items, which relate to the results or effectiveness of the
project. Project's reputation is established when a project delivers the benefits for which it
was created. The classifications in literature for variables in this factor include Impact,
Project Purpose Achieved, Overall Project Success and Objectives. The long term results
from the successful completion of a project are defined as Impact in public sector
development (Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation, 2008). This item is similar
but not identical to business as suggested by Shenhar & Dvir (2007).

Future potential: This factor has four items that relate to enabling, motivation and
improvement in an organization’s capability to undertake project work in the future. The
classifications in literature for variables in this factor include Learning and Motivation,
Planning and Implementing. Shenhar & Dvir (2007) describe this success dimension as
‘Preparing for the Future’. Public sector development is an ongoing process – each year new
projects are undertaken as ongoing projects are completed. This factor has been labelled as
‘Future potential’ as it represents the success of an organization in building new
capacities/capabilities from the projects it performs.

Stakeholder satisfaction: This factor has four items which cover sponsor, steering group,
client and organizational objectives. The classifications in literature for variables in this
factor include Customer Satisfaction, Product Success and Project Management success.
Stakeholder satisfaction has been selected as the label for this factor to cover different groups
(sponsor, steering committee and client). Turner & Zolin (2012) found nine stakeholder
satisfaction dimensions, of which we found four here.

Project Success Factor scale

Principal component analysis with Varimax rotation using default Kaiser’s criterion of
eigenvalue over 1.0 (explaining 63.9% of the variance) revealed eight project success factors
with 44 of the project success factor variables, Table 5. Test of suitability of the sample for
factor analysis using KMO test had a value of 0.917 (‘superb’ according to Field, 2009).
Bartlett’s test of sphericity p<0.001 showed that correlations between items were large
enough for principal component analysis. Cronbach’s Alpha values for all factors were above
0.7 indicating good reliability. The eight project success factors were named by cross
referencing the variables in each factor with literature.

Project Management Competence: The 13 items in this factor include competence of project
manager & project team, communications and monitoring & control. In literature we see that
the variables in this factor are classified as implementing, closing/completing, planning,
financial & technical control, monitoring, feedback, coordination, internal & external

12
communications and personnel factors. Iyer and Jha (2006) defined ‘Project Management's
Competence’ as a factor in their work that covers a similar range of variables. Pinto & Slevin
(1987) have the competence of the project team and technical competence as two of their
items, but as we said above ignore the competence of the project manager.

13
Table 5: Project Success Factor Scale
No Factor / Item Loading % of Var C. Alpha
explained
1 Project Management Competence 15% 0.93
Competent project manager 0.73
Competencies of project management team 0.71
Leadership quality of PM 0.70
Correct choice of project management
methodology/tool 0.69
Rapport of PM with contractors 0.64
The project leader possessed adequate
interpersonal skills 0.62
The project leader possessed adequate
administrative skills 0.61
Top management's enthusiastic support to
the PM and project team at site 0.60
Project Manager's Technical capability 0.59
Good communications/feedback 0.57
Clear communication channels 0.55
Skilled and suitably qualified project team 0.54
Effective monitoring & control 0.51
2 Organizational and managerial environment 9% 0.87
Favorable social environment 0.76
Sufficient staff 0.68
Rapport of PM with sponsor 0.61
Strong local ownership of the project 0.57
Fair compensation for employees 0.52
Delegation of authority 0.50
Equitable administration for personnel 0.50
3 Financial and Technical Control 8% 0.85
There was a detailed budget for the project 0.76
Budget Management 0.68
Formal Procedures 0.61
Nature of work well defined in the tender 0.57
Clear organization/job descriptions 0.52
4 Top Management Support 7% 0.78
Commitment of all parties to the project 0.76
Support of Project champion 0.68
Support from stakeholders 0.61
Support from senior management 0.57
5 Technical Tasks 7% 0.77
Effective change management 0.76
Having relevant past experience 0.68
Past experience of methodology/tool 0.61
Deviations from the plan were routinely and
clearly dealt with 0.57

14
 No Factor / Item Loading % of Var C. Alpha
explained
6 Personnel 6% 0.82
Training the human resources in the skills
demanded by the project 0.76
Employee development (training) 0.68
Risks were addressed/assessed/managed 0.61
The detailed project plans were understood
and accepted by all team members 0.57
7 Project Characteristics 6% 0.71
Uniqueness of the project activities 0.76
Urgency of need 0.68
Level of complexity project 0.61
The project goals and terms could be
changed if conditions made it necessary 0.57
8 Contract/consultant performance 5% 0.73
Good performance by contractors 0.76
Good performance by consultants 0.68
Competencies of project designers 0.61
Total 64%

Organizational and Managerial Environment: This factor has eight items including social
environment, ownership, sufficient staff, compensation, delegation of authority, and
administration. These items relate to an organization’s operating policies. When we look at
the literature, we see items in this factor classified under factors related to the organization,
favorable working conditions, terms of reference and commitment of all project participants.
Tishler, Dvir, Shenhar and Lipovetsky (1996) used the factor organizational & managerial
environment to describe influences of organization on project success.

Financial and Technical Control: This factor has five variables which cover budget, scope,
organizational structure and formal procedures. From the literature we see that the variables
in this factor have been classified under planning, project schedule, project plan, terms of
reference, documentation, reporting & management policy, and financial & technical control.
Pinto and Slevin (1987) have schedule and plans in their list. The top two loaded variables
relate to budget, followed by formal procedures.

Top management support: This factor has four variables which all relate to support and
commitment of stakeholders to the project. Classifications used for these variables in
literature include top management support, factors related to the organization and
commitment of all project participants. Pinto and Slevin (1987) have top management
support in their list.

Technical Tasks: This factor has four variables that cover change management, experience,
methodology/tool and control actions to manage deviations. In terms of literature
classifications, we see organizational & managerial environment, financial & technical
control, and troubleshooting. Pinto and Slevin (1987) in their original 10 project success

15
factors defined technical tasks as having adequate personnel who have the required
experience, technical skills and tools for performing project work.

Personnel: This factor has four variables with the two top loaded variables representing
human resource development. Looking at the classifications associated with these variables
in the literature we see the three of the variables are associated with personnel factors.

Project Characteristics: This factor has four variables which describe the project in terms of
uniqueness, urgency, complexity and flexibility of goals. We can see from literature that
these variables are associated with factors related to the project, project initiation and terms of
reference. This factor confirms the contingency view of project management, (Crawford,
Hobbs & Turner, 2004; Turner, Huemann, Anbari & Bredillet, 2010).

Contractor/Consultant Performance: This factor has three variables which are related to
competence/performance of contractor and consultants on the project. Fortune and White
(2006) used contractor/consultant performance in their mapping of critical success factors in
the Formal System Model.

Project Success Model

Summated scales were calculated for the eight project success factors (independent variables)
and five project success criteria (dependent variable). We used hierarchical regression with
stepwise backward method to check the relationship between the eight project success factors
and each project success criteria to develop an empirical project success model, Table 6.

Table 6: Summary of Project Success regression models (beta values)

Project Success Criteria Dimensions

Stakeholder satisfaction
Organizational benefits
Project efficiency

Future potential
Project impact

0.138** 0.156** 0.238**** 0.141** 0.207***

Project Management Competence
Organizational and Managerial 0.236**** 0.217**** 0.277**** 0.224*** 0.241****
Environment
0.346**** 0.153** 0.260**** 0.161**
Financial and Technical Control
0.200*** 0.382**** 0.294**** 0.278**** 0.373****
Top Management Support
Project Success Factors

Technical Tasks
0.197*** 0.112*
Personnel
0.162** 0.355**** 0.260**** 0.312**** 0.222***
Project Characteristics
Contractor/Consultant 0.123* 0.105* 0.121*
Performance
Sig. *.p<0.10; **.p<0.05; ***.p<0.01; ****.p<0.001

16
Multivariate regression analysis showed four of the factors, project management’s
competence, organizational & managerial environment, top management support and project
characteristics had significant relationship with all five success dimensions. Financial and
technical control had significant relationship with Project efficiency, organizational benefits,
potential, and stakeholder satisfaction. Contractor/consultant performance had marginal
relationship with project efficiency, organizational benefits and project impact. Personnel had
significant relationship with project efficiency and future potential. Technical task was the
only factor that had no significant relationship with any of the success dimensions.

Discussion
We have identified five project success dimensions, each of which is influenced to a greater
or lesser extent by the eight success factors.

Project Efficiency
We have seen from literature that cost, time and scope objects are the most commonly cited
measures of project success. These variables are part of the project efficiency success
dimension in our results. There are two variables in this factor, which have special
implication in the public sector context: minimum number of agreed changes and complied
with environmental regulations. Once the project has started any changes can undermine
performance (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Dvir & Lechler, 2004; Dvir, Lipovetsky, Shenhar &
Tishler., 2003). The impact of changes is higher in public sector projects because of the long
process for getting the necessary approvals, (Khan & Sheikh, 2005). Therefore, “minimum
number of agreed changes” is important for project efficiency. The public sector has to
comply with stringent environmental regulations (Planning Commission, 2010). In case of
non-compliance, projects can be suspended or delayed. Public sector experts suggested
adding this variable during the pilot study, this variable was not found in literature.

In terms of the influence of the success factors on project efficiency we see that the strongest
influence comes from financial and technical control and organizational and managerial
environment. High importance of financial and technical control is expected because as
Kerzner (2010) suggested, cost minimization is a key incentive for the public sector. Costs in
public sector projects in Pakistan cannot exceed original estimates by more than 4.5% without
revising the project, hence strict financial control is practiced, (Khan & Sheikh, 2005).

Organizational benefits
Organizational benefits covers two main areas, how well the product of the project is accepted
and used within the organization, and the learning/knowledge developed from performing the
project. Two of the variables in this factor, end product used as planned and new
understanding/knowledge are especially common in project success criteria studies. One of
the variables, adhered to defined procedures, had the second highest loading; it is important
in complex projects where there is a higher need for coordination between several teams.
Coordination need is high in public sector project because several departments and agencies
are involved in either granting approvals or carrying out the work. Shenhar & Dvir (2007)
suggest that as the need for coordination increases in a project, it requires the use of more
formal procedures. Accordingly, we see that the variable adhered to defined procedure has a
high loading in this factor.

Top management support, and project characteristics have the highest influence on
organizational benefits. This finding is consistent with the study of Shenhar, Dvir, Levy &

17
Maltz (2001) that found that project characteristics have a high influence on organizational
benefits. Projects with higher value and complexity lead to products that bring higher
benefits to the organization.

Project Impact
This success dimension differs from organizational benefits in that it focuses on end users or
beneficiaries who are external to the project organization. We see that the variable project
has good reputation is part of this factor; this is an external perspective of the project. Project
impact is a medium to long term success measure, project impact studies are carried out after
the project has been completed (Planning Commission, 2008). Organizational benefits and
project impact are both measures that correspond to the project effectiveness measure from
the view point of the Logical Framework Analysis approach used in the public sector
(Baccarini, 1999).

Top management support, Project characteristics, Organization & managerial environment

and Project Management’s competence have a high influence on Project Impact.

Future potential
Public sector development is an ongoing process; each year new projects are added to an
organization’s portfolio of projects. The funding given to an organization depends on its
performance in using funds to complete ongoing projects in the previous year, (Diallo &
Thuillier, 2004; Planning Commission, 2010). Future potential measures the ability of the
organization to build capacity and motivation to undertake new projects. Shenhar, Dvir, Levy
& Maltz (2001) classified this as a long-term strategic dimension.

Project characteristics, financial & technical control, Top management support and
organizational and managerial environment have a high influence on future potential. The
importance of project characteristics on future potential was also found by Shenhar, Dvir,
Levy & Maltz (2001); more complex or challenging projects help in building organizational
capability. The other three factors are linked to public sector policies for managing
development.

Stakeholder satisfaction
Satisfaction of end users and beneficiaries is part of project impact. This success dimension
looks at satisfaction of key stakeholder on the client side, including the sponsor, client,
steering group and organizational objectives. In the public sector, this covers the funding
agency and the sponsoring departments. This is a short to medium success measure, which
looks at both project efficiency and effectiveness. Sponsors and clients are involved in
funding decisions for extending existing projects or approving new ones. In case of public
sector development, the donor or funding agencies play a role similar to sponsors and clients
(Diallo & Thuillier, 2004), which makes this an important success measure for growth and
sustainability of development portfolios.

This success dimension is impacted by project management competence, organizational and

managerial environment, financial and technical control, top management support, and project
characteristics.

18
Personnel
We close this section by considering on success factor that generates much discussion. The
personnel factor has four variables of which two are related to training, training of human
resources in the skills demanded by the project and employee development (training). The
other two variables are competence related; risks were addressed/assessed/managed and the
detailed project plans were understood and accepted by all team members. The personnel
factor had a significant relationship with two projects success criteria dimensions, project
efficiency and future potential. The importance of training for project success identified in
this study contrasts with Khang & Moe (2008) study that found that training was not linked to
project success in international development projects in Africa.

The personnel success factor developed by Pinto & Slevin (1987) included recruitment,
selection, training, and team development. Belout & Gauvreau (2004) reformulated the
personnel factor using 2 variables from 11 human resource variables developed by Tsui
(1987). However, even with the new formulation, their study did not show that personnel
factor was linked to project success. In the present study, five of the human resource
variables developed by Tsui (1987) are part of the project success factor constructs, Table 7.
They are part of three project success factors, organizational and managerial environment,
financial and technical control and personnel. The first two success factors have an influence
on all five project success criteria dimensions while the last one has influence on project
efficiency and future potential. The importance of personnel found in this study using human
resource variables suggested by Tsui (1987) supports recommendation for reformulating the
personnel success factor construct by Belout (1998) and Bryson & Bromiley (1993)

Table 7: Personnel related success factor variables in success factor constructs

No   Success  factor  variable  in  construct   Equivalent  variable  in  Tsui  (1987)  
2   Organization  and  Managerial  Environment  
  Fair  compensation  for  employees   Fair  compensation  for  employees  
Equitable  administration  for  personnel   Equitable  administration  for  personnel  
3   Financial  and  Technical  control  
Clear  organization/job  descriptions   Job  description  clearness    
6   Personnel  
  Training  the  human  resources  in  the  skills  demanded  by   Training  of  project  managers  
the  project  
Employee  development  (training)   Employee  development  (training)  

Conclusions
Project success in public sector is normally measured on the basis of Results Based
Monitoring, (Xue, Turner, Lecoeuvre & Anbari, 2013) or Logical Frame Analysis
frameworks, (Landoni & Corti, 2011). These frameworks measure success in terms of
efficiency, effectiveness and efficacy. Lack of capacity development has been cited as one of
the major reasons why most of the developing countries are unlikely to achieve the
Millennium Development Goals, (Organization for Economic and Cooperative Development,
2008). Capacity is defined as the systematic development of capability to achieve
development goals.

Projects are an integral part of development and hence contribute to capacity development.
However, existing project success measures in public sector fail to cover this important
aspect. In the present study we have been able to address this gap by taking project success

19
criteria variables from literature. We have four project success criteria variables which help
to measure success in terms of capacity development; learned from project, new
understanding/knowledge gained, improvement in organizational capability, enabling of other
project work in future.

We looked at project success factors in literature and concluded that their composition was
strongly linked to the context in which they were developed. We can compare the project
success factors that we developed in this study with the ones from the literature which we
used as a source for project success factor variables, Table 8. The comparison shows that the
overlap of items between factors range from a high of 57% to a low of 20%. This shows that
if any of the existing project success factors were used in a public sector project in Pakistan
we would be devoting efforts on actions which have no impact on project success while
ignoring others which have an impact on success. This finding is important in the context of
international efforts for improving development performance. It challenges the notion of
‘works-everywhere’ thinking in development and calls for more research for developing
contingent project success factors.

Table 8: Comparison of Project Success Factors

Organizational & managerial environment
Project Success Factor

Project Management's Competence

Contract/consultant performance
Financial and Technical Control

Top Management Support

Project Characteristics

% Common Items
Technical Tasks

Total Items
Personnel

Items   13   7   5   4   4   4   4   3   44      
%  of  Variance  explained   15%   9%   8%   7%   7%   6%   6%   5%          
Cronbach's  alpha   0.93   0.87   0.85   0.78   0.77   0.82   0.71   0.73          
Hyvari (2006)   9   2   5   4   2   1   2   43   57%  
Andersen and Jessen (2000) 8 1 3 3 4 4 2   60 57%  
Kuen, Zailani & Fernando (2009) 13   2   2   2   2   4   50   57%  
Fortune and White (2006)   7   1   4   1   3   2   2     3     37   52%  
Iyer and Jha (2006)   12   5   2   1     2   32   50%  
Tishler, Dvir, Shenhar, and    
Lipovetsky (1996)   6   1   5   1     2   3   26   41%  
White and Fortune (2002)   2     1   2     4   3   1   24   30%  
 
Shenhar, Tishler, Dvir, Lipovetsky,
and Lechler (2002)   2     5   1   1   3   22   27%  
Khang and Moe (2008)   3   1   2   2           1   18   20%  
 
This study has been able to make use of Tsui (1987) work on activities that influence the
effectiveness of human resource management. These results show that project teams’

20
development and competencies are indeed important in achieving project success. Future
research can use these results to revisit the debate on the importance of ‘Personnel’ in project
success.

Practical implications
Much of the research on project success is based in the private sector and has a western
orientation. This wok has made two practical contributions:

ƒ examining project success in the public sector

ƒ examining project success in a developing country, Pakistan

Identifying the key success criteria on public sector projects in Pakistan, will enable project
participants, including clients and sponsors project managers, and project team members to
identify what they should be focusing on to achieve successful projects. Further by
identifying the project success factors that contribute to the achievement of those success
criteria will help project participants to focus their energies to achieve the outcomes they
want. The previous focus of the project success literature o the private sector in the West may
have been misleading to project participants on public sector projects in developing countries,
and so this work will enable them to better focus their efforts.

This study has identified project success factors and project success criteria and their
relationship for public sector projects in Pakistan. Researchers can extend this work to public
sector projects within the South Asian region or other developing countries. These studies
will help in understanding difference due to context and lead to the development of a
contingent success model for public sector projects in developing countries.

Academic implications
Because project success is context dependent, (and indeed that is one of the success factors
identified in this study, project characteristics), we did not start with existing definitions of
success factors and success criteria from the literature. Instead we started with 70 potential
success factor variables and 34 potential success criteria variables. We then used factor
analysis to identify eight project success factors and five project success criteria dimensions.
However, as we have shown, the results we have obtained are consistent with the previous
studies, and so we have obtained empirical support for the previous studies, much of which is
conjecture. Project management as a subject suffers from the weakness that much of it is
based on conjecture, and so empirical support, such as that obtained in this study, to help
develop project management theory, is strongly needed. We have also shown how the eight
success factors support the achievement of the five success criteria, which enhances the work
of Wateridge, 1995, 1998). We showed that technical tasks makes no contribution to the
achievement of any success criteria, which supports the proposal that project management is
not domain specific, (Turner & Müller, 2006). So once project managers have developed
their project management skills within one technical area, they can apply it to any other
technical area, as long as they have the right emotional profile, (Müller & Turner, 2007b).

21
References
Andersen, E.S., Birchall, D.A., Jessen, S.A., & Money, A.H. (2006). Exploring project
success. Baltic Journal of Management, 1(2), 127-147.
Andersen, E.S., Dyrhaug, Q.X. & Jessen, S.A. (2002). Evaluation of Chinese projects and
comparison with Norwegian projects. International Journal of Project Management,
20(8), 601-609.
Andersen, E.S. & Jessen, S.A. (2000). Project evaluation scheme: a tool for evaluating
project status and predicting project results. Project Management, 6(1), 61-67.
Ahsan, K. & Gunawan, I. (2010). Analysis of cost and schedule performance of international
development projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28(1), 68-78.
Al-Tmeemy, S.M.H.M., Abdul-Rahman, H., & Harun, Z. (2011). Future criteria for success
of building projects in Malaysia. International Journal of Project Management, 29(3),
337-348.
Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a
phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria International Journal of Project
Management, 17(6), 337-342.
Baccarini, D. (1999). The Logical Framework Method for Defining Project Success. Project
Management Journal, 30(4), 25-32.
Belassi, W. & Tukel, O.I. (1996). A new framework for determining critical success/failure
factors in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 14(3), 141-151.
Belout, A. (1998). Effects of human resource management on project effectiveness and
success: toward a new conceptual framework. Internattonal Journal of Project
Management, 16(1), 21-26.
Belout, A., & Gauvreau, C. (2004). Factors influencing project success: the impact of human
resource management. International Journal of Project Management, 22(1), 1-11.
Bryde, D. J. (2005). Methods for managing different perspectives of project success. British
Journal of Management, 16(2), 119-131.
Bryde, D.J., & Robinson, L. (2005). Client versus contractor perspectives on project success
criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 23(8), 622-629.
Bryson, J.M. & Bromiley, P. (1993). Critical Factors Affecting the Planning and
Implementation of Major Projects. Strategic Management Journal,, 14(5), 319-337.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The ‘‘real’’ success factors on projects. International Journal of
Project Management, 20, 185–190.
Crawford, L.H., Hobbs, J.B. & Turner, J.R. (2005) Project Categorization System: aligning
capability with strategy for better results, Newtown Square, PA: Project Management
Institute,
Diallo, A. & Thuillier, D. (2004). The success dimensions of international development
projects: the perceptions of African project coordinators. International Journal of Project
Management, 22(1), 19-31.
Dvir, D. & Lechler, T. (2004). Plans are nothing, changing plans is everything: the impact of
changes on project success. Research Policy, 33(1).
Dvir, D. Lipovetsky, S., Shenhar, A.J. & Tishler, A. (2003). What is really important for
project success? A refined, multivariate, comprehensive analysis. International Journal of
Management and Decision Making, 4(4), 382-404.
Dvir, D. Sadeh, A. & Malach-Pines, A. (2006). Projects and project managers: the
relationship between project managers' personality, project types, and project success.
Project Management Journal, 37(5), 36-48.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPS, 3rd edition. London: Sage.
Fortune, J., & White, D. (2006). Framing of project critical success factors by a systems
model. International Journal of Project Management, 24(1), 53-65.

22
Hyvari, I. (2006). Success of projects in different organizational conditions. Project
Management Journal, 37(4), 31-41.
Iyer, K.C. & Jha, K.N. (2006). Critical Factors Affecting Schedule Performance: Evidence
from Indian Construction Projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 132(8), 871-881.
Jha, K.N. & Iyer, K.C. (2007). Commitment, coordination, competence and the iron triangle.
International Journal of Project Management, 25(5), 527-540.
Jugdev, K., & Müller, R. (2005). A Retrospective Look At Our Evolving Understanding Of
Project Success. Project Management Journal, 36(4), 19-31.
Jugdev, K., Thomas, J. & Delisle, C.L. (2001). Rethinking Project Management: Old Truths
and New Insights. International Project Management Journal, 7(1), 36-43.
Khan, K.A. (2007). Project Management Reform Experience in a Public Sector
Environment. In Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Global North American
Congress, Atlanta, GA, October, Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute
Khan, K.A. & Sheikh, R.A. (2005). Project management in Pakistan government. In
Proceedings of the PMI Asia-Pacific Global Congress 2005, Singapore, February,
Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
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.
Kerzner, H. (2009). Project management : a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and
conrolling, 10th edition. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley.
Kerzner, H. (2010). Project Management: Best Practices - Achieving Global Excellenc, 2nd
edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Kuen, C.W., Zailani, S. & Fernando, Y. (2009). Critical factors influencing the project
success amongst manufacturing companies in Malaysia. African Journal of Business
Management, 3(1), 16-27.
Landoni, P. & Corti, B. (2011). The Management of International Development Projects:
Moving Toward a Standard Approach or Differentiation? Project Management Journal,
42(3), 45-61.
Lim, C.S., & Mohamed, M.Z. (1999). Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-
examination. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 243-248.
Müller, R. & Turner, J.R. (2007a). The influence of project managers on project success
criteria and project success by type of project. European Management Journal, 25(4),
298-309.
Müller, R., & Turner, J.R. (2007b). Matching the project manager’s leadership style to
project type. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 21-32.
Niu, J., Lechler, T.G. & Jiang, J. (2010). Success Criteria Framework for Real Estate
Project. Management Science and Engineering, 4(3), 10-23.
Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation. (2008). Results Management in
Norwegian Development Cooperation. Oslo: Norwegian Agency for Development
Cooperation.
Organization for Economics and Cooperative Development. (2008). The Paris Declaration
on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action. Paris: Organization for Economics
and Cooperative Development.
Pinto, J.K., Cleland, D.I. & Slevin, D.P. (2002). The Frontiers of Project Management
Research, Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Pinto, J.K. & Covin, J.G. (1989). Critical factors in project implementation: a comparison of
construction and R&D projects. Technovation, 9(1), 49-62.
Pinto, J.K. & Prescott, J.E. (1988). Variations in critical success factors over the stages in the
project life cycle. Journal of Management, 14(1), 5-18.

23
Pinto, J.K., & Slevin, D.P. (1987). Critical factors in successful project implementation.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 34(1), 22-27.
Planning Commission. (2008). Handbook on Planning Commission. Islamabad:
Government of Pakistan.
Planning Commission. (2010). Manual For Development Projects. Islamabad: Government
of Pakistan.
Rad, P. F. (2003). Project Success Attributes. Cost Engineering, 45(4), 23-29.
Serrador, P. & Turner, J.R. (2013) The Impact of the Planning Phase on Project Success. In
Proceedings of IRNOP XI: the eleventh conference of the International Research Network
for Organizing by Projects, Oslo, June, ed. J Söderlund and R Müller. Oslo: BI, the
Norwegian Business School.
Shenhar, A.J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond
Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O. & Maltz, A.C. (2001). Project success: a multidimensional
strategic concept. Long Range Planning, 34(6), 699-725.
Shenhar, A.J., Levy, O., & Dvir, D. (1997). Mapping the dimensions of project success.
Project Management Journal, 28(2), 5-13.
Shenhar, A.J., Tishler, A., Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S. & Lechler, T. (2002). Refining the search
for project success factors: a multivariate, typological approach. R&D Management, 32(2),
111-126.
Thomas, G. & Fernández, W. (2008). Success in IT projects: A matter of definition?
International Journal of Project Management, 26(7), 733-742.
Tishler, A., Dvir, D., Shenhar, A.J. & Lipovetsky, S. (1996). Identifying critical success
factors in defense development projects: A multivariate analysis. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 51(2), 151-171.
Toor, S. & Ogunlana, S.O. (2010). Beyond the “iron triangle”: stakeholder perception of key
performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects.
International Journal of Project Management, 28(3), 228-236.
Tsui, A.S. (1987). Defining the activities and effectiveness of the human resource
department: a multiple constituency approach. Human Resource Management, 26(1), 35-
69.
Turner, J.R. (2009). The Handbook of Project-Based Management, 3rd edition. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Turner, R., Huemann, M., Anbari, F., & Bredillet, C. (2010). Perspectives on Projects. Oxon,
UK: Routledge.
Turner, J.R., & Muller, R. (2005). The project manager's leadership style as success factor -
A literature review. Project Management Journal, 36(1), 49-61.
Turner, J.R. & Müller, R. (2006) Choosing Appropriate Project Managers: matching their
leadership style to the type of project. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management
Institute.
Turner, J.R. & Zolin, R. (2012) Forecasting success on large projects: developing reliable
scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time frames,
Project Management Journal, 43(5), 87-99.
Wang, X. & Huang, J. (2006). The relationships between key stakeholders’ project
performance and project success: perceptions of chinese construction supervising
engineers. International Journal of Project Management, 24(3), 253-260.
Wateridge, J.F. (1995). IT projects: a basis for success. International Journal of Project
Management, 13(3) 169-172.
Wateridge, J.F. (1998). How can IS/IT projects be measured for success? International
Journal of Project Management, 16(1), 59-63.

24
 Wateridge, J.F. (2000). Project health checks. In J>R> Turner, (ed). The Gower Handbookf
of Project Management. Aldershott: Gower.
Westerveld, E. (2003). The Project Excellence Model®: linking success criteria and critical
success factors. International Journal of Project Management, 21(6), 411-418.
White, D. & Fortune, J. (2002). Current practice in project management - an empirical study.
International Journal of Project Management, 20(1), 1-11
World Bank. (2007). Pakistan Infrastructure Implementation Capacity Assessment.
Islamabad: South Asia Sustainable Development Unit.
World Bank. (2012). The Little Data Book 2012. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Xue, Y, Turner, J.R., Lecoeuvre, L. & Anbari, F.T. (2013). Using results-based monitoring
and evaluation to deliver results on key infrastructure projects in China. Global Business
Perspectives, 1, 85-105.
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(6), 428-436.
Zwikael, O., Shimizu, K. & Globerson, S. (2005). Cultural differences in project
management capabilities: A field study. International Journal of Project Management,
23(6), 454-462.

25

View publication stats