Critical factors in project implementation: a comparison of construction and R&D projects

Technovation, 9 (1989) 49-62 49 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd. England-Printed in the United Kingdom

Critical factors in project implementation: a comparison of construction and R&D

projects

Jeffrey K. Pinto College of Business Administration, Universitv of Maine,

Jeffrey G. Covin College of Management, Georgia Institute of Technology,

Orono, ME w469 IU. S. A. /

Atlanta, GA 30332 CU. S. A. I

ABSTRACT

The theoretical literature on project management tends to assume that certain organizational rules, executive procedures, and environmental conditions (we call them ‘critical success factors’) are essential to the success of all types of projects. Mean while, management practitioners frequently ignore such general rules, because they are convinced that their particular projects pose entirely unique kinds of problems. This study, based on 408 responses to an extensive questionnaire, explores managerial perceptions about project characteristics. For this purpose. we chose two types of projects apparently lying at opposite ends of a spectrum of characteristics- construction and R&D. We were interested additionally in whether/actors considered crucial to successful execution varied over the life cycles of projects. The findings suggest that while some critical success factors appear to be common to both types of projects, there also exist significant differences; and, furthermore, that these factors tend to vary with stages in the Ii/e cycle. We conclude that practitioners may derive benefit from paying attention to normative project-management theory, but that theoreticians must also descend from the level of broad generalizations to take into account the peculiarities of various classes of projects.

INTRODUCTION

Research on project management and the implementation of projects in organizations has shown evidence of a curious dichotomy in the approaches employed by academic researchers and practitioners. The prevailing tendency among the majority of academics has been to characterize all projects as fundamentally similar. In other words, for the purpose of project management research, the implicit view of many academics could be represented by the axiom ‘a project is a project is a project.’

Olf%-4972/89/503.50 0 1989 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd

SO Jeffrey K. Pinto and Jeffrey G. Covin

Except for differences in goals and in the degree of uncertainty confronted, all are assumed to have similar characteristics and properties. Indeed, it could be argued that many academics lose sight of the individual trees by focusing their efforts too broadly on the larger forest. They tend to perceive and study organizational projects in the aggregate rather than pursuing their research issues with a more overt regard for the fundamental differences among various classes or types of projects.

Practitioners (principally project managers), on the other hand, can exhibit an entirely different perspective: they are convinced that the properties, characteristics, and problems relating to their projects are unique and impossible to reproduce within a larger framework. Because each project is, in their view, fundamentally unique, little in the way of general project management prescriptions and theory can be carried over and made applicable to their own specific situation.

The purpose of this study is to attempt to blend the perspectives of both academics and practitioners within a research framework for assessing project managers’ perceptions of the critical success factors in project implementation. Specifically. this research attempts to determine if there are systematic differences in managerial perceptions about the factors influencing success and failure of various types of projects. Two distinct research questions are addressed: (i) what are the differences in the opinions of project managers about factors critical to the successful implementation of two different types of projects (R&D and construction)?; (ii) do these opinions vary with the stages in a project’s life cycle?

Answers to these questions would go far toward reconciling the approaches to project management and implementation currently exhibited by researchers and practitioners. A fundamental finding of this study is that all projects are not, in fact, similar. Rather, care must be taken to consider their underlying differences, lest one attempt to draw overly general conclusions. For managers, the results demonstrate that, while there are characteristic differences between classes of projects, there are also patterns of similarities within project types which may apply to their projects. Such a finding enables project managers to make use of a wider range of decision rules and project management techniques which they may have previously considered inappropriate for their particular ventures.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

It has long been acknowledged that the effectiveness of an organization depends, in large part, upon the successful management of its projects. As a result, the search for factors and issues that influence project success has been of interest to both managers and researchers. A large body of research suggests that many of the reasons behind project success can be found in the existence (or lack) of several critica success factors (e.g., top management support, communication, sufficient resources) [1,2]. Unfortunately, the use of these factors as predictors of project success may be contingent upon an additional set of issues often ignored by researchers. We are referring to the importance of the type of project being studied and the stage of its development.

Critical/actors in project implementation 5 1

Recent research has demonstrated that the importance of project success factors can vary dramatically as projects move through their life cycles [3]. This finding reinforces the need to adopt a contingency approach to project management theory and practice. Some critical success factors are most important early in the project’s life, while other factors become ‘critical’ at later project life cycle stages.

Because the constructs of critical success factors, project life cycle, and project type are central to our model, each of these constructs will be discussed in detail in the following sections.

Critical success factors

In attempting to explain the causes of project success and failure, many project management researchers have generated sets of ‘success factors’ that are assumed to account for much of the variance in project performance. These sets of factors have been identified through a variety of methods, including single-case studies, anec- dotal evidence, and multi-project empirical studies. In the majority of cases, however, the methods identifying these critical success factors tend to be theory based rather than empirically proven. In order to address the question of the practical relevance of many of these success factors, a method has recently been developed for generating implementation-related critical success factors on a company-by- company basis [4]. This approach identifies the unique, company-specific critical factors through a series of in-depth interviews with key members of an organization.

Because of the wide range of organizational personnel (in terms of function, level, and background) needed to identify project-critical success factors, the cross- sectional generalizability of many of these factors is subject to question. When critical factors are determined on a company-by-company basis, they may be so specific as not to be useful in other settings. Pinto and Slevin [5] recently addressed this issue through a large-scale field research project in which they identified four- teen factors that are commonly related to implementation success across a wide range of companies and project types. These factors are listed and briefly defined in Table 1.

To a greater or lesser extent, the first ten of these factors are within the control of the project team. For example, the project team will often make the effort of involving the prospective user in the early project formulation process (Client Consulta- tion) in the expectation that the client will then be more satisfied with and make use of the project’s output. The final four factors, while also having a significant impact on ultimate project success or failure, may not be within the control of the project team. For example, external events (Environmental Effects) can have important implications for project implementation, but may remain unforeseen until they actually occur.

Project life cycles

Life cycle models have been utilized in the study of organizations for a variety of purposes. Life cycles have been drawn upon to explain a wide range of

52 Jeffrey K. Pinto and Jeffrey G. Covin

TABLE 1. Project critical success factors

I

2

3

7

g

9

10

II

12

13

14

Mission - Initial clarity of goals and general directions.

Top Munugement Support - Willingness of top management to provide the necessary resources and authority/power for project success.

Project Schedule/Pluns - A detailed specification of the individual action steps required for project implementation.

Client Consultation - Communication. consultation, and active listening to all impacted parties.

Personnel - Selection, recruitment, and training of the necessary personnel for the project team.

Technicul Tasks - Availability of the required technology and expertise to accomplish the specific technical action steps.

Client Acceptonce - The act of ‘selling’ the final project to its ultimate intended users.

Monitoring und Feedbuck - Timely provision of comprehensive control information at each stage in the implementation process.

Communicufion - The provision of an appropriate network and necessary data to all key actors in the project implementation.

Troubleshoofing - The ability to handle unexpected crises and deviations from plan.

Churucferisficr 01 the frojecf Team Leuder - Competence of the project leader (administratively, interpersonally, and technically) and the amount of authority available to perform his/her duties.

Power und Polifics - The degree of political activity within the organization and the perception of the project as furthering an organization member’s self-interests.

Environmenful ufects - The likelihood of external organizational or cnvironmcntal factors impacting on the operations of the project team. positively or negatively.

Urgency -The perception of the importance of the project or the need to implement the project as soon as possible.

organizational activities, including product or brand management, the rise and decline of organizations, and changes in strategic decision priorities. The life cycle concept has also been applied in project management theory and research. For example, Thamhain and Wilemon [6], found that the propensity toward conflict can vary with the stage of a project in its life cycle. Additionally, Adams and Barndt [7] have argued that the leadership style of the project manager as well as the general project-group ‘climate’ must change as projects move through different stages of development.

For this study, a four-stage life cycle has been employed. The initial stage, Con- ceptuolization, refers to the period when strategic needs are recognized by top management and suggest the development of a project. The major concerns in this stage typically include (i) the establishment of preliminary goals and implementation

Criticalfactors in project implementation 53

plans, and (ii) the provision of the resources required to implement the project. The second project stage is referred to as PI4nning. During this stage, detailed plans are developed specifying how the stated goals are to be accomplished, and budgets are established to provide direction and control for these plans. Among the important activities in this stage is the enlistment of top management support to commit a variety of organizational resources (budgetary, human, technical, and so forth) to the project.

The third stage in the project life cycle is referred to as the Execution stage. Dur- ing this stage the actual ‘work’ of the project is performed. Specifically, materials and resources are procured, the project is carried out, and performance capabilities are verified. Finally, during the Termination stage, the activities and concerns involving project completion are of highest priority. Unused resources assigned to the project are released for other organizational purposes, project team members may be reassigned to other duties, and the project is transferred to its intended users.

Project differences: construction versus R&D

Although the project management literature is filled with specific descriptions of the unique characteristics which identify project-based work, the general consensus seems to suggest that projects usually have the following attributes: (i) a specified, limited budget; (ii) a specified time frame or duration; (iii) a preordained performance goal or set of goals; and (iv) a series of complex, interrelated activities [S]. Clearly, a wide variety of organizational activities could be considered as projects. Two of the more common types of organizational projects are those relating to construction and R&D.

While the basic differences between construction and R&D projects are intuitively obvious to many, it is helpful to identify some parameters to distinguish more systematically between these two project types. At the most basic level, construction projects involve the planning and building of some physical facility. R&D projects, on the other hand, usually involve the creation, evaluation, and/or refinement of some process, service, or product [9]. Obviously, there can be substantial within- group variability in the subsets of both construction and R&D projects in terms of such considerations as size, complexity, problem orientation, and duration. In particular, the term ‘R&D project’ can encompass a wide range of project types. However, these two classes of projects are also characterized by some fundamental between-group differences. Although the following generalization does not hold for all cases, construction projects are often more routine, less innovative, and more predictable than R&D projects [lo].

A variety of characteristics can be cited to illustrate why these two types of projects pose different sets of problems and, consequently, need to be treated and addressed separately. Among these issues are the following:

- Overt risk. R&D projects often involve greater overt risks than construction projects throughout their development process. Risk has been defined by Alter [ 111,


Narasimhan and Schroeder [12]. and others as the likelihood of encountering potentially severe project-development and implementation difficulties. Among the factors which contribute to the riskiness of a project are an unwilling user, loss or lack of project support, uncertain resource requirements, technical problems, and lack of experienced project team members. These risk factors are generally thought to be more prevalent in R&D projects than in construction projects. Construction projects are commonly initiated after the removal of many uncertainties regarding project funding, client expectations, and procedural concerns.

The concept of ‘risk’ may be framed differently for construction projects. Unlike the risk factors found in R&D projects, the implementation risks in construction projects are often the by-product of new or untried architectural designs and construction technology and techniques. For example, occasional construction accidents remind us of the fact that innovative designs or techniques can result in an inherently riskier execution phase than more traditional approaches.

- Projecf learn personnel. R&D projects are typically non-repetitive and characterized by unique requirements and processes. Accordingly, people with different skills and expertise may be specially recruited for different R&D project teams. These project team members are then reassigned at project termination. The assignment and reassignment of personnel to different projects is much less typical of construction projects. Whereas in R&D projects the expertise of individual personnel is taken into consideration and assignments are made on a project-by-project basis, in construction projects the same personnel may com- prise the project teams across many different projects. To illustrate, project managers for the industrial construction division of a large American corporation are often involved in either running or serving on an average of over 10 projects at any point in time. This degree of constancy is possible largely because the same basic skills and competencies are necessary for the successful completion of different projects.

- Project scheduling. In construction projects, scheduling is a key to success. Fur- ther, the critical scheduling issues involve the actual execution of the project. Scheduling activities. such as ordering materials and sequencing sub-contractor interventions, can have a major impact on the successful execution of construction projects. In R&D projects, the activities involved in project execution are less amenable to scheduling. The functions over which the R&D project team can exer- cise greater control, such as scheduling project transfer to clients during project termination, are often the areas in which a concern for scheduling will be most common and related to project success.

- Evaluative/eedback. While an emphasis on control, evaluation, and feedback activities is necessary for the successful implementation of most projects, the use- fulness of these activities differs for construction and R&D projects. Evaluative feedback, particularly when this feedback is negative, has the potential to inhibit the creativity of the project team [13]. The success of R&D projects often depends on the creativity and innovativeness of team members. As a result, it is likely that


an over-emphasis on evaluation and feedback will have a negative impact on R&D success. On the other hand, since the success of construction projects is less tied to the creativity of team members, evaluation and feedback generally is more useful and has a more positive impact on these projects. This phenomenon is most apparent during the execution and termination stages, when it is necessary to assess project performance against budget and schedule constraints.

- Top management support. Another issue which demonstrates how construction and R&D projects can differ is the potential for the withdrawal of top management support for the project. The outcomes of R&D projects are, by definition, difficult to predict accurately and slow to materialize. Resources may be con- sumed with little, if any, measurable progress. As a result, great faith in these projects is often required on the part of top management, and top management support will be particularly critical for project success. While such support is no less important for construction projects, the likelihood that it will be withdrawn from ongoing projects is much lower. The resource requirements for construction projects are generally fairly predictable. Consequently, top management have a better idea of what they are getting into at the beginning of a construction project and are more likely to maintain their initial commitment. Because of the basic differences in the traits distinguishing many construction and

R&D projects, it is reasonable to expect differences in the critical factors required for successful completion of these projects across their life cycles. Given the paucity of theory and research on the differences among project types, it would be impossible to argue cogently that specific, stage-by-stage differences exist in the critical success factors associated with construction and R&D projects. However, as our discussion has suggested and as this study demonstrates, the relationship between critical factors and project success depends, in large part, upon both the type of project being studied and the stage in its life cycle at which the project resides.

METHODS

Sample

Questionnaires were mailed to 586 members of the Project Management Insti- tute-a national organization of project managers. Usable questionnaires were returned by 408 project managers, for a response rate of over 69%. Of the 408 projects described by the respondents, 335 (82%) were used in the particular research study. 184 (55 Vo) of these were construction projects and 15 1 (45 Vo) were R&D projects. This sample includes projects from both manufacturing and service firms, as well as private and public-sector projects. The remaining 73 projects not examined in this study included such miscellaneous types as studies, moves to new facilities, and special services or tests.

Measures

The questionnaire included measures of the I4 previously mentioned project critical success factors, project success, and project life cycle stage.


The Project Implementation Profile (PIP) [14] was used to identify critical success factor scores over the project life cycle. The PIP uses a seven-point Likert scale in the assessment of 72 questions, covering the 14 critical success factors. Project success was measured using an aggregate of 13 items. These multiple items assess project success based on a variety of criteria, including adherence to budget and schedule, perceived quality and utility of the completed project, and client satisfac- tion with the project. Finally, a four-stage project life cycle measure was used; brief descriptions of the stages were presented to the participants, who were asked to classify their projects as currently being in one of these four stages.

The questionnaire asked participants to think of a project in which they were currently involved or which they had recently completed. This project was to be their frame of reference in completing the questionnaire. The participants were instructed to indicate the importance of the items included in the PIP to project success during the particular life cycle stage in which they had classified their project. This approach ensured that the participants would respond to the questionnaire with a specific life-cycle stage in mind.

Stepwise regression analysis was used to identify the most important critical success factors at each stage of the construction and R&D project life cycles.

RESULTS

Table 2 presents a summary of the stepwise regression results of the significant predictors of construction and R&D project success for each life cycle stage. As can be seen, while there are some similarities in factors across the project life cycle for the two project types, there also are significant differences between the regression models at each project stage. The most notable similarity between the two types of projects is in the perceived importance of Project Mission. A clearly stated mission was found to be highly important for implementation success across each stage of the project life cycle. In fact, Mission is the only factor consistently and significantly related to project success.

For construction projects, in the conceptual stage of the project life cycle, project mission was the only significant predictor of success, explaining 54% of the total variance. Project mission, power, politics and technical tasks are the significant predictors of project success in the planning stage, collectively explaining 84% of the variance in success. The critical factors in the execution stage of the project life cycle are project mission. schedules/plans, client consultation, and client acceptance. The factors have a cumulative r-square of 0.70. Finally, technical tasks, mission, communication, and troubleshooting are the significant critical factors in the termination stage. Fifty-four percent of the variance in project success is explained by these four factors. All critical factors which loaded in the various regression models were significant at fWO.01.

Table 2 also presents the results of the stepwise regression analysis of the significant predictors of R&D project success at each life cycle stage. The key predictors of project success in the conceptual stage are project mission, client consultation,

TA

BL

E

2.

proj

ecfs

A

com

pari

son

of c

ritic

al

succ

ess

fact

ors

in e

ach

stag

e of

the

pro

ject

lif

e cy

cles

of

cons

truc

tion

and

R&

D

Stag

e of

pro

ject

C

onst

ruct

ion

R&

D

life

cycl

e

Num

ber

Fact

ors

Cum

. N

umbe

r Fa

ctor

s C

um.

of p

roje

cts

adj.

R

of p

roje

cts

adj.

R

Con

cept

ual

17

Mis

sion

Plan

ning

24

Exe

cutio

n a2

Ter

min

atio

n 61

Mis

sion

0.

71

Pow

er &

pol

itics

0.

82

Tec

hnic

al

task

s O

.B4

MiS

Sh

0.57

S

ched

ule

0.

66

Cli

ent

cons

ult.

0.69

C

lient

acc

ept.

0.70

Tec

hnic

al

task

s M

issi

on

Com

mun

.’

Tro

uble

-sho

otin

g

0.35

0.

50

0.53

0.

54

0.54

14

M

issi

on

0.67

C

lient

con

sult.

0.

81

Pers

onne

l 0.

87

Urg

ency

0.

92

30

Mis

sion

0.

30

Env

iron

. ef

fect

s’

0.38

Sc

hedu

le

0.50

M

onito

r %

fee

dbac

ka

0.54

C

lient

acc

ept.

0.63

81

Mis

sion

0.

46

Tec

hnic

al

task

s 0.

51

Top

mgm

t. su

ppor

t 0.

54

26

Mis

sion

0.

42

Sche

dule

0.

48

Clie

nt

acce

pt.’

0.

56

Tec

hnic

al

task

s 0.

61

Pers

onne

l’

0.72

-

‘Thi

s fa

ctor

ha

d a

nega

tive

regr

essi

on

coef

fici

ent


personnel, and urgency. These four factors explain 92% of the variance in project success. During the planning stage, 63% of the variance in project success is explained by project mission, environmental effects, schedule/plans, monitoring and feedback, and client acceptance. Project mission, technical tasks, and top management support are the significant critical success factors during the execution stage, having a cumulative r-square of 0.54. Finally, during the termination stage, project mission, schedule/plans, client acceptance, technical tasks, and personnel explain 72% of the variance in success.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to compare changes in the perceived importance of critical success factors at each stage in the life cycle of two common, yet fundamentally different, types of organizational projects-construction and R&D. The results of the analysis revealed that, as theory would suggest, the importance of factors varies widely, depending upon the stage in its life cycle a project occupies. It was further shown that different sets of factors predict success in the various life cycle stages of the two project types. These findings corroborate many of the conceptual distinctions between R&D and construction projects which have been discussed previously.

R&D and construction projects were argued to differ in terms of a variety of characteristics, including those involving degree of innovation, risk, and scheduling. It was found that there exist systematic differences in the factors which managers perceive to be critical to the success of these projects. To illustrate, consider the mat- ter of the recruitment, selection, and training of project team personnel. It was argued previously that ‘personnel,’ as a critical success factor, has a considerably greater impact on the success or failure of R&D projects than on construction projects. The results of our study bear out this contention. In fact, they show that personnel (the assessment of availability and subsequent recruitment) are crucial during the conceptualization phase of R&D projects. Further, the personnel factor was perceived as key during the termination phase, when project team members are typically reassigned to other duties. On the other hand, at no point in the life cycle of a construction project was the factor ‘personnel’ perceived as critical to successful implementation.

In addition to demonstrating fundamental differences in perceived importance of critical success factors between construction and R&D projects, this study reinforces earlier work in the area of project implementation. Our research confirms earlier theory used in the development of lists of critical success factors. In general, these factors were perceived by project managers to be important to the implementation process, but differentially so, depending on the stage in its life cycle at which the project resides. In other words, the importance of these critical factors varied not only ucross project type, but also within the stages of these projects. Many of those factors that were critical at one life cycle stage changed markedly from those perceived as critical at other life cycle stages.


The findings of this study have important implications both for project management researchers and for practitioners. The first implication highlights the need to adopt a more project-specific, contingency approach to the study of project implementation in organizations. Both project type and stage in the organizational life cycle are important contingency variables in the perceived importance of various critical success factors. As a result, this study reinforces the view that different managerial approaches are essential to the effective implementation of projects involving fundamentally different goals and techniques. Clearly, management theorists and researchers must be cautious in offering general prescriptions for the management of diverse types of projects.

An additional finding of this study suggests, however, that while there exist significant differences between project type, there are fundamental similarities in perceived importance of critical factors within classes of projects. For example, follow-up interviews with a group of construction project managers indicated a high level of agreement with the critical success factors uncovered, in spite of the fact that, as a group, they were involved in a wide variety of different construction projects. As a result, it may be possible for many project managers, heretofore convinced of the fundamentally distinct nature of their projects, to make use of a range of project management theories, prescriptions, or process frameworks that they may have, at one time, considered too general to be useful in addressing their specific concerns.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful implementation of projects by organizations requires a wide range of skills, expertise, technology, and resources. The difficulties involved in this process have often been exacerbated by the implicit, yet fundamentally opposite, approaches to project management and to the implementation of innovations that are taken by theoreticians and practitioners. Too often academics have sought par- simony in generalizable decision rules for organizational phenomena, while practitioners have insisted on the unique nature of their concerns, rendering many such decision rules and generalized frameworks unusable.

This study has demonstrated a useful middle ground between the attitudes of academics and practitioners when applied to the field of project implementation. Our research demonstrates that while there are basic similarities within classes of projects with similar task objectives (i.e., construction and R&D), there arecharacter- istic differences between those factors perceived as critical to thesuccessful implementation of construction and R&D projects, supporting the use of different managerial approaches in attempting to implement these different types of projects. Further, this study demonstrates how the perceived importance of these critical factors is subject to dramatic change at different stages in the project life cycle.

In conclusion, the effectiveness of project management activities is, to a large degree, contingent upon both the life cycle stage and specific attributes, or task objectives, of the project. Clearly, the successful implementation of projects requires


that the consequences of any managerial action be considered in light of the specific circumstances surrounding the project. Though the identification of a set of general critical success factors is of benefit both to managers and to academics, indiscrim- inate or rigid adherence to these factors may not always facilitate effective project implementation. Therefore, future research efforts might continue to focus fruitfully on the identification and verification of those contingency factors which affect project success.

REFERENCES

1

2

3

4

8

9

IO

II

I2

13

14

D.I. Cleland and W.R. King, Systems Analysis and Project Management. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1983. B.N. Baker, D.C. Murphy and D. Fisher, Factors affecting project success. In: D.I. Cleland

and W.R. King (Eds). Project Management Handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New

York, 1983, p. 669-685.

J.K. Pinto and J.E. Prescott, Variations in critical success factors over the stages in the pro-

ject life cycle. J. Manage., 14(l) (1988) S-IS.

A.C. Boynton and R.W. Zmud. An assessment of critical success factors. Sloan Manage.

Rev., 25(4) (1984) 17-27.

J.K. Pinto and D.P. Slevin. Critical factors in successful project implementation. IEEE

Trans. Eng. Manage., EM-34(i) (1987) 22-27.

H.J. Thamhain and D.W. Wilcmon. Conflict management in project life cycles. Sloan

Manage. Rev.. 17(2) (1975) 31-50.

J.R. Adams and S.E. Barndt. Behavioral implications of the project life cycle. In: D.I.

Cleland and W.R. King (Eds.). Project Management Handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold,

New York, 1983. pp. 183-204.

C.J. Tuman. Development and implementation of effective project management informa-

tion and control systems. In: D.I. Cleland and W.R. King (Eds.). Project Managcmcnt

Handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1983. pp. 495-532.

M.L. Tushman and R. Katz, External communication and project performance: an in-

vestigation into the role of gatekeeper. Manage. sci.. 26 (1980) 1071-1085.

J.W. Meredith and S.W. Mantel, Jr., Project Management: A Managerial Approach.

Wiley, New York, 1985, 494~~. S. Alter, implementation risk analysis. In: R. Doktor, R.L. Schultz and D.P. Slevin (Eds.),

The Implementation of Management Science. North-Holland. Amsterdam, 1979. pp. 103-

120.

R. Narasimhan and R.G. Schroeder, An empirical investigation of implementation as a

change process. In: R. Doktor, R.L. Schultz and D.P. Slevin (Eds.), The Implementation

of Management Science. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979, pp. 63-84.

T. Amabile, The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization. J. Pers.

Sot. Psychol.. 45 (1983) 357-376.

D.P. Slevin and J.K. Pinto, The project implementation profile: new tool for project

managers. Project Manage. J.. XVIIl(4) (1986) 57-71.

Critical factors in project implementation 6 I

Les facteurs critiques dans I’ex6cution des projets Une comparaison des projets de construction et de Recherche & D6veloppement (R&D)

La documentation theorique sur la gestion des projets a tendance a assumer que certaines regles d’organisation, procedures administratives et conditions ecologiques (nous les appelons les ‘facteurs critiques de reussite’) sont essentiels pour la reussite de toutes sortes de projets. En attendant, ceux qui pratiquent la gestion ne tiennent souvent pas compte de ces regles generales parce qu’ils sont convaincus que leurs projets particuliers posent des problemes uniques. Cette etude. basee sur 408 reponses a une questionnaire approfondie. examine les perceptions des cadres con- cernant les characteristiques des projets. Dans ce but nous avons choisi deux genres de projets qui sont en apparence aux bouts opposes d’une gamme de characteristiques - construction et R&D. Nous &ions interesses de savoir, en plus, si les facteurs consider& dtcisifs pour une execution reussie variaient quant au cycle de vie des projets. Les resultats laissent entendre qu’alors que certains facteurs critiques de reussite semblent 2tre les m<mes pour les deux genres de projets, il existe egalement des differences considerables; de plus, ces facteurs ont tendance a varier selon les &apes du cycle de vie. Nous en deduisons que les practiciens peuvent tirer profit s’ils pre- tent attention a la thcorie normative de la gcstion dcs projets, mais que Its thcori- ciens doivent Cgalement s’eloigner des grandcs generalisations afin de prcndre en consideration les particularites dcs divcrscs categories de projets.

Entscheidende Faktoren bei der Projektdurchfiihrung: Ein Vergleich zwischen Bauprojekten und F&E-Projekten

ABRISS

Die theoretische Literatur tibcr Projektmanagement tendiert zu der Annahmc, da8 bestimmte organisatorische Regeln, Unternehmensverfahren und Umweltbed- ingungen (wir nennen sie entscheidende Erfolgsfaktoren) fur den Erfolg aller Artcn von Projekten wichtig sind. Dennoch ignorieren Manager oft derartige allgemeine Regeln, da sie davon tiberzeugt sind. da8 ihre speziellen Projekte einzigartige Prob- leme mit sich bringen. Diese Studie, die auf 408 beantworteten ausfuhrlichen Fragebogen basiert, untersucht die verschiedenen Auffassungen der Manager von Projekteigenschaften. Zu diesem Zweck wahlten wir zwei Projektarten, deren Eigenschaften offensichtlich grundverschieden sind: Bau und F&E. Wir in- teressierten uns aunerdem dafur, ob die Faktoren, die fur die erfolgreiche Durchfuh- rung als wichtig angesehen werden, wahrend des Lebenszyklusses eines Projektes variieren. Aus den Untersuchungsergebnissen geht hervor, dal3 einige wichtige Erfolgsfaktoren fur beide Projektarten gleich zu scin scheinen, es abcr such bedeutende Unterschiede gibt. Aul3erdcm scheinen diese Faktoren wahrend dcr

62 Jeffrey K. Pinto and Jeffrey R. Covin

verschiedenen Abschnitte des Lebenszyklusses zu variieren. Wir schlieRen daraus. daB Manager Nutzen daraus ziehen, wenn sie normativer Projektverwaltungstheorien Beachtung schenken, aber such, dal3 Theoretiker sich weg von Verallgemeinerungen und hin zur Einbeziehung der Besonderheiten verschiedener Projektarten bewegen mussen.

Factores claves en la implementation de proyectos: una com- paracion de proyectos de construction y de investigation y desarollo

RESUMEN

Las teorias escritas con referencia al control de proyectos normalmente suponen que ciertas normas de organization, procedimientos directives y condiciones del medio ambiente (Ilamemoslos factores claves de Cxito) son esenciales para el exito en todo tipo de proyecto. Sin embargo, 10s ejecutivos de direction frecuentemente ignoran tales reglas generales ya que estan convencidos de que 10s problemas que surgen en sus proyectos particulares son unicos. Este estudio, basado en 408 respuestas a un amplio cuestionario, explora percepciones de la direction de em- presa en cuanto a las caracteristicas de 10s proyectos. Ante esto, hemos elegido dos tipos de proyectos de caractcristicas aparentementc opuestas - de construction y de invcstigacion y dcsarollo. Ademas estabamos interesados en saber si 10s factores considcrados clavcs para llevar a cabo con exit0 10s proycctos variaban a lo largo de 10s ciclos de vida de 10s proycctos. Los resultados sugicren quc micntras algunos fac- Lores claves dcl exit0 parecen ser comunes a ambos tipos de proyectos, tambien ex- istcn difercncias significativas; y mis alla atin. que cstos factores tienden a variar segt’m el moment0 de1 ciclo de vida del proyccto. La conclusion obtcnida es que puede scr beneficioso prcstar atcncion a tcorias normativas dc control de proycctos, pcro tambien convicne quc 10s tc6ricos dcjen las grandes gcneralizacioncs a un lado para tomar en cuenta Ias peculiaridadcs de 10s diversos tipos de proyectos.

Documents

Critical factors in project implementation: a comparison of construction and R&D projects