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

net/publication/265857096

Understanding project success through analysis of project management

approach

Article  in  International Journal of Managing Projects in Business · August 2014

DOI: 10.1108/IJMPB-09-2013-0048

CITATIONS READS

48 2,140

4 authors:

Asbjorn Rolstadas Iris Tommelein

Norwegian University of Science and Technology University of California, Berkeley
176 PUBLICATIONS   794 CITATIONS    232 PUBLICATIONS   3,425 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Per Morten Schiefloe Glenn Ballard

Norwegian University of Science and Technology University of California, Berkeley
12 PUBLICATIONS   93 CITATIONS    198 PUBLICATIONS   5,214 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

DIDS (Domain-Independent Design System) View project

Linguistic Action Perspective View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Glenn Ballard on 15 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Managing Projects in Business
Understanding project success through analysis of project management approach
Rolstadås Asbjørn Tommelein Iris Morten Schiefloe Per Ballard Glenn
Article information:
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

To cite this document:

Rolstadås Asbjørn Tommelein Iris Morten Schiefloe Per Ballard Glenn , (2014),"Understanding project
success through analysis of project management approach", International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, Vol. 7 Iss 4 pp. 638 - 660
Permanent link to this document:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-09-2013-0048
Downloaded on: 01 September 2014, At: 06:03 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 39 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 48 times since 2014*

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by 115528 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald for
Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission guidelines
are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as well as
providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the Committee
on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for digital archive
preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

 The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/1753-8378.htm

IJMPB
7,4
Understanding project success
through analysis of project
management approach
638 Asbjørn Rolstadås
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

Department of Production and Quality Engineering,

Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway
Iris Tommelein
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department,
Project Production Systems Laboratory, University of California,
Berkeley, California, USA
Per Morten Schiefloe
Department of Sociology and Political Science,
Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway, and
Glenn Ballard
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department,
Project Production Systems Laboratory, University of California,
Berkeley, California, USA

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to show that project success is dependent on the project
management approach selected, relative to the challenges posed by the project, and to develop an
analytical model for analyzing the performance of the project organization.
Design/methodology/approach – The research is based on literature review, model development,
interviews, and case studies.
Findings – The findings define two different approaches in project management: The prescriptive
approach focusses on the formal qualities of the project organization, including governing
documentation and procedures. The adaptive approach focusses on the process of developing and
improving a project organization, project culture and team commitment. The two approaches have
been identified through studies of three different case projects. An analytical model, referred to as the
Pentagon model, has been applied for analyzing the performance of the project organization and
explaining the project management approach. The model focusses on five different organizational
aspects: structure, technologies, culture, social relations and networks, and interaction.
Research limitations/implications – The research is limited to megaprojects and to project
management success.
Practical implications – It is suggested that project teams consider and select their project
management approach at project initiation, and accordingly decide on relevant success factors to focus
on. The adapted Pentagon model can be applied to develop the project management organization and
assess its performance in the course of project delivery.
Originality/value – The contribution of the research is the application of the analytical model, and
the identification as well as illustration of the prescriptive, vs adaptive management approach.

International Journal of Managing This research was supported by a gift from Statoil to launch the Megaprojects Leadership
Projects in Business
Vol. 7 No. 4, 2014 Initiative of the Project Production Systems Laboratory (P2SL) at the University of California,
pp. 638-660 Berkeley. This support is gratefully acknowledged. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or
r Emerald Group Publishing Limited
1753-8378 recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect
DOI 10.1108/IJMPB-09-2013-0048 the views of P2SL or Statoil.
 Keywords Project management, Organizational performance, Project success, Analysis
Construction megaprojects, Management approach, Megaprojects
Paper type Research paper
of project
management
1. Introduction approach
The Boston Big Dig, completed in 2007, was one of the most expensive highway
projects in the USA and notoriously famous for a 190 percent cost overrun, many years 639
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

of delay, design flaws and corruption. In 2010, however, an article in the Boston Globe
stated that the project in fact has proved to be a success: “For two decades, the Big Dig,
with its ballooning price tag and inscrutable traffic patterns, made Boston the nation’s
laughingstock. Now, the joke is on everyone else” (Gelinas, 2010). The arguments are
that the new infrastructure has met the goals of improving the traffic situation and also
has contributed to an increase in property values.
This ambiguity in the meaning of “success” is due to the fact that success may be
measured against any one of several different sets of objectives (Rolstadås, 2008):
. project objectives – i.e. what the project organization is expected to deliver at the
close of the project (scope, quality, cost, time).
. business objectives – i.e. what the project owner expect to obtain from using the
project results after the project has been handed over to them from the project
organization.
. social and environmental objectives – i.e. what benefits the local society expect
from the project both during project execution and during the use of the
project results.
The above view is supported by de Wit (1988), Cooke-Davies (2002), and others who
distinguish project success (measured against the overall objectives of the project, i.e.
the business objectives) from project management success (measured against the
widespread and traditional measures of performance against scope, quality, cost, and
time, i.e. the project objectives). Belassi and Tukel (1996) also discuss this ambiguity
and propose a framework classifying the success factors into four groups: related
to project, related to project manager and team members, related to organization,
and related to external environment). Shenhar et al. (2001, 2002) describe a multidimensional
concept with four success dimensions: project efficiency, impact on the customer, direct
business and organizational success, and preparing for the future. The first dimension
is connected to fulfilling the project objectives (project management success), whereas
the last three are connected to fulfilling different business objectives for different
stakeholders (project success). Cooke-Davies (2002, p. 185) claims that the question
“Which factors are critical to project success?” differs considerably dependent on which
of the following three questions are asked:
(1) What factors are critical to project management success?
(2) What factors are critical to success on an individual project?
(3) What factors lead to consistently successful projects?
Early research on success factors such as Pinto and Slevin’s (1987) list of ten factors did
not distinguish between different success dimensions as is the case with later works
referenced above. The Boston Big Dig example illustrates it is important to distinguish
whether the project outcome is perceived as a success (measured against the business
 IJMPB objectives) from whether the project team is successful in managing the project
7,4 (measured against the project objectives). A project result can be successful even
though the project was unsuccessfully managed. The opposite may also be the case.
A project may be perfectly managed, but still come out as a business disaster, e.g.
due to changing markets. In this paper we address the performance of the project
management organization, and thus concentrate on project management success.
640 Well-developed tools are available to support project management. For example, the
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

PMI Guide to the Body of Knowledge (PMI, 2013) defines suitable practices widely
applied. Chapman and Ward (2003) and Raz and Michael (2001) among others offered
tools for project risk management. Williams (1995) developed a classified bibliography
on project risk management research. Jugdev and Thomas (2002), Ibbs and Kwak
(2000), and Yazici (2009) showed how maturity of the project organization can be
measured. Despite excellent competence in project management, however, overruns
and delays still occur.
A common description of what influences project success relies on critical success
factors (CSF) which Müller and Jugdev (2012, p. 758) defines as “elements of a project
which, when influenced, increase the likelihood of success” in their overview of the
historical development and state of the art on CSF.
Many authors have studied success factors (e.g. Rockart, 1979; Pinto and Slevin,
1987; de Wit, 1988; Belassi and Tukel, 1996; Shenhar et al., 2001; Cooke-Davies, 2002;
Fortune and White, 2006; Müller and Jugdev, 2012). Most of the factors identified tend
to be rather generic and as such may look obvious to an experienced project manager.
We believe that to fully understand what leads to project management success it is also
necessary to look at the project management approach applied. This view is supported
by some of the recent research on different schools of thought in project management.
Would an approach based on a particular school have a better chance of leading to
success than other schools? Our starting point is that there is no generic answer to
this question. On the contrary, what kind of management approach which will lead
to success depends on the actual project and the actual project organization.
Our research question was:

RQ1. How can the project management approach influence the probability of success?

And the purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that project success correlate to the
project management approach selected. In this effort we use an analytical model
(the Pentagon model) for categorizing factors influencing the performance of the
project organization. As indicated, we limit our study to success measured against
the project objectives. We also limit our study to megaprojects.
The results from the analysis reveal two different project management approaches,
named, respectively, the prescriptive and the adaptive approach. Our findings are in
line with Shenhar and Dvir’s (2007) discussion on reinventing project management,
distinguishing between traditional project management and adaptive project
management. In later works they refer to adaptive project management as strategic
project management (Patanakul and Shenhar, 2012).

2. Literature review
2.1 Success factors
Within the field of project management, the search for CSFs began in the 1960s. Daniel
(1961, p. 116) introduced the term success factor in relation to the “management
 information crisis” that was being brought about “by too rapid organizational change.” Analysis
In the 1970s studies on project success focussed on measuring time, cost and functionality of project
improvements, implementation, and delivery systems. Academic discussions on “What
leads to project success?” started in the 1980s. This was a period with intense research management
allowing factors beyond time, cost, and functionality to be considered. Many authors approach
began producing lists of CSFs. Pinto and Slevin’s (1987) list of ten success factors is now
a classic piece of work. Müller and Jugdev (2012) recently published a review of the 641
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

research on CSF and, while underscoring the significance of the early works, claim that
success is now more broadly viewed.
An author that early broadened the view on CSF is Turner (1999) who published the
seven forces model for project success: context, attitude, sponsorship, definition, people,
systems, and organization. Christenson and Walker (2008) add that a well-communicated
and convincing project vision make a strong impact upon perceived project success.
Shenhar et al. (2002) argue that different factors influence different kinds of projects
and that we must adapt a more project-specific approach to identify the causes
of project success or failure. They studied 127 projects in Israel and recorded 360
managerial variables. They were and presented these in a list of 22 factors critical
for project success independent of the project’s characteristics. Their conclusion is that
success factors are dependent on contextual influence. This view is supported by
Müller and Turner (2007) who observed that the importance attached to project success
criteria and project success rates differ by industry, project complexity, and the age and
nationality of the project manager.
Fortune and White (2006) reviewed 63 publications focussing on CSFs. In addition,
they also reviewed the criticisms, and then tried to show how their formal systems
model can be used to “solve” the problems connected to measuring/discovering CSFs.
Table I shows their top ten CSFs and the number of corresponding citations. Totally,
81 percent of the publications include one or more of the following three factors:
“support from senior management”; “clear and realistic objectives”; and “strong/
detailed plan kept up to date.”

2.2 Project management schools of thought

A comprehensive amount of research has been published on success factors as shown
by Müller and Jugdev (2012, p. 758). They argue that the interest in project success is
evident from the streams of research identifying different “schools” or “perspectives”

Critical factor Count of citations

Support from senior management 39

Clear realistic objectives 31
Strong/detailed plan kept up to date 29
Good communication/feedback 27
User/client involvement 24
Skilled/suitably qualified/sufficient staff/team 20
Effective change management 19
Competent project manager 19
Strong business case/sound basis for project 16
Sufficient/well allocated resources 16
Table I.
Source: From Fortune and White (2006) Major success factors
 IJMPB in the field. A project management approach could be associated with a school of
7,4 thought or a perspective. Bredillet (2007) identified nine such schools of thought.
He claims that it is common to assume that projects are fairly homogeneous, but that
there is a growing understanding that projects are different, that success can be judged
in different ways, and that different projects require different competence profiles.
This viewpoint corresponds with Söderlund’s (2010) study of pluralism in project
642 management where he discusses the balance between unification and specialization
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

and argues that a too strong focus on unification may hinder the advancement of
ingenious thinking and creative tensions, and that a more diversified view is necessary
to explore and explain the difficulties of generating, forming, managing, and (eventually)
killing projects. He sums up by defining seven schools of thought as shown in Table II.
Andersen (2005) discusses different project perspectives where a perspective can be
regarded as a school of thought. Two such perspectives are highlighted: the task
perspective with main focus on the task to be accomplished, and the organizational
perspective with main focus on the temporary organization. Rolstadås (2008) similarly
distinguishes two different schools: one that emphasizes planning and control techniques,
and one that emphasizes organization and human relationships. He argues that both are
equally important and necessary.
The task perspective corresponds to what we in this paper characterize as a
prescriptive project management approach, whereas the organizational perspective
equals a more adaptive approach. This distinction between prescriptive and adaptive
project management approach is also claimed by Shenhar and Dvir (2007) when they
distinguish between traditional and adaptive approach.
It should be noted that the two different approaches are theoretical constructs which
we use to understand the performance of the project organization. In a real situation
these approaches are not mutually exclusive, but may be combined in different ways.

3. The Pentagon model

In order to assess the performance of a project organization executing a megaproject,
we need an assessment tool. Several such tools are available for business processes in
general, but we have not come across many tools that are applicable for evaluating the
effect of different project management approaches.
The Pentagon model, originally developed by Schiefloe (2011), is, however, such
a model for analyzing the performance of complex organizations. It was developed and
applied in connection with the causal analysis after the gas blow-out at Statoil’s Snorre
A platform in the North Sea in 2004 (Schiefloe and Vikland, 2006, 2009). The analysis is
based on a system-oriented approach. To understand the working situation for the
different actors involved, it combines a system perspective with a social constructivist

School Main focus of analysis

Optimization Planning, breakdown techniques, and scheduling of complex tasks

Factor Success factors and project outcomes/project performance
Contingency Project organization design/structure
Table II. Behavior Project organization processes
Söderlund’s (2010) seven Governance Governance of project organizations/transactions
schools of project Relationship Management of the formation and development phase of projects
management research Decision The interplay among decision makers in the early stages of projects
 theoretical approach, characterized by keywords such as interpretations, sense making, Analysis
and interests. of project
The Pentagon model takes both formal and informal aspects into account. As the
name Pentagon indicates, it analyses five different aspects: management
. structure; approach
. technologies; 643
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

. culture;
. interaction; and
. social relations and networks.
For our purpose, we had to make several adaptions to the model. We needed to
distinguish clearly between formal and informal qualities of the project organization,
and also to include relationships to external contexts and stakeholders (as the
Pentagon model itself focusses on the internal project organization). For each of the five
aspects we set up a list of questions in order to develop a suitable interview guide for
the application. In developing the interview guide we also took into account the
industrial practice within oil and gas and within commercial building construction.
Accordingly, we had to adapt the model to a project organization working with the
principles of lean construction and integrated project delivery. It is beyond the scope of
this paper to describe these principles, but an overview can be obtained from Ballard
et al. (2002), Koskela et al. (2002), Thomson et al. (2009), and Smith et al. (2011).
In complying with the lean principles, it was important to take into account the
dynamic situation arriving from the application of the Plan – Do – Act – Check cycle.
A large project is an ad-hoc organization, comprising a number of actors who join and
leave the project team as the project progresses. These actors operate under tight
constraints, often coping with complex external conditions. Organizing and managing
this kind of open system is demanding, and success depends on the management of
a set of organizational processes matching the Plan – Do – Act – Check cycle (Figure 1).
Challenges a project management team encounters grow as the number and
diversity of stakeholders (both internal and external) increases, as more differentiated
cultures are involved, and as communication distance increases.
Our version of the Pentagon model is illustrated in Figure 2. We used this model
successfully to study the performance of the project management of megaprojects as
well as smaller construction projects.

Decision
making

Improve- Project
Execution
ment success

Figure 1.
Monitoring Organizational processes
and control in project execution
 IJMPB Formal qualities

7,4

External relations (stakeholder influence) Structure Technologies

Formal organization Tools

External context (frame conditions)

Roles and responsibilities Infrastructure
Rules and regulations
644
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

Decision
making

Improve-
Execution
ment
Culture Social relations and networks
Values and attitudes Social capital
Norms Monitoring Trust
Knowledge and control Commitments
"Ways of working" Knowledge sharing
Power and alliances
Competition and conflicts
Interaction
Communication
Cooperation
Coordination

Figure 2. Informal qualities

The extended
Pentagon model
Source: Based on Schiefloe (2011)

Structure covers defined roles, responsibilities, and authority in the formal organization,
but also includes defined procedures, regulations, and working requirements.
Technologies refer to the different tools and infrastructures the members of the
organization are dependent on or use to perform their activities. In a project organization
this will include project control systems, communication and collaboration technologies,
office lay-out, etc.
Culture covers elements such as language/concepts, values, attitudes, norms,
knowledge, and established expectations concerning “ways of working.”
Interaction covers communication, cooperation, and coordination, and also points
to the fact that individual and collective behavior never occurs in a vacuum. People
interact with, adjust to, and are influenced by others; colleagues as well as subordinates
and leaders. Management practices, work processes and flows of information are
included in this aspect.
Social relations and networks are important ingredients in all kinds of work
situations. It represents the informal structure and the social capital of the organization.
Keywords are trust, friendship, access to knowledge and experiences, informal power,
alliances, competition, and conflicts.
The five aspects of the Pentagon model can be applied to analyze factors which
influence the performance of the project organization as they cover both formal and
informal internal qualities in a systematic way. However, the organization is also exposed
to external aspects. We have denoted these external context and external relations.
The external context represents frame conditions, which are those characteristics
of a project that cannot be changed by project management, and are rooted in the
project’s desired results, location geographically and culturally, and location in time.
For example, a company that has developed a project governing system to be applied
 for all of their projects, sets certain limitations on how the project organization can Analysis
work. This means that the flexibility in the Pentagon aspect “structure” is limited. of project
External relations represent input from external stakeholders such as contractors,
authorities, and the society at large. These stakeholders influence the project organization management
both directly and indirectly and may be crucial for the operation of the project delivery approach
system and thus also for the success or failure of the project.
We applied the Pentagon model to three different cases, analyzing the five aspects 645
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

while taking the external context and relations into account. The analysis has resulted
in a list of contributors to success.

4. Research approach
Our research question is:

RQ1. How can project management approach influence the probability of success?

We limit ourselves to looking at megaprojects and to studying project management

success.
The research approach involves four steps:
(1) a literature review;
(2) development of an analytical model;
(3) case studies; and
(4) analysis of the case studies using the model, and conclusions.
Through literature review on project and project management success, focussing
on success factors, we found the published success factors to be rather generic and in
many cases quite obvious to an experienced project manager. We therefore studied the
underlying thinking applied in managing different projects and found interesting
publications describing different schools of thought. We asked ourselves whether one
school was more successful than others, but found no conclusive proof for this. This
has led us to look at different management approaches that could be applied across
different schools of thought.
Analyzing three different cases, we used the Pentagon model to identify main
factors that contributed to successful project management. The projects represent
different application areas and geographical regions, but are all large and complex.
Two of them are completed, while one is still in progress.
For case A we used semi-structured face-to-face or telephone interviews. A detailed
interview guide was developed to ensure that all the aspects of the Pentagon model
were appropriately addressed. Each interview was done by three researchers. The
interviewers took notes during the sessions which in addition were fully recorded.
Before doing the interviews, technical documentation, and other relevant project
information was made available to the researchers and studied. During the interviews
supplementary documentation was in a number of cases requested. All interview
objects were guaranteed full anonymity.
The informants were selected in interactive dialogue with representatives of the
owner organization and also soliciting proposals from some of project managers.
We required that different levels of the project organization should be independently
interviewed, including top management. Each interview lasted between one and two
hours. A total of ten persons were interviewed.
 IJMPB Each interview was analyzed by the research team. Supplementary documentation
7,4 requested during the interviews was assessed, and the viewpoints of the interview
objects were grouped according to the dimensions in the Pentagon model. Viewpoints
expressed by several interview objects were assessed as success contributors
and mapped according to the five Pentagon aspects. In several cases information was
cross-checked with other interview objects or verified by the actual interview object.
646 For case B two of the authors have been involved in the project as advisors and
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

action researchers. Their role has been twofold. First, they provided the owner and the
project organization with available research results that could be applied to meet the
challenges of designing a project using lean construction principles. This supported
the team’s development of a project management approach based on the “no-business-
as-usual” philosophy adopted. Second, they helped to evaluate the alternatives
considered and the design of the project management system. The researchers have
had full access to all relevant documents for the project. Some of the researchers
participated weekly in meetings over the course of more than two years. Others
conducted interviews and surveys on site as appropriate for their research.
Based on their insight from following the project closely, the action research team
extracted what they believed to be the main contributors to success. These were cross-
checked with the project management, and then grouped and mapped according to the
dimensions of the Pentagon model. A full day seminar was organized where the project
management and representatives of the main contractors presented their view on what
they thought had contributed to success or failure. This was followed by a discussion
and questions from the whole research team.
As case B only had completed the design and planning phase, we used a third case
(C) to verify the findings from case B. One of the researchers has been closely
involved in the project as an advisor on the lean construction principles and the
design of the project management operating system, specifically for the civil works
part of the project. Our analysis of case C has been based on the insight of the
researcher in project execution and from studying extensive documentation on
the selected strategies and plans for the project. As for case B, the research team
extracted the success contributors based on the documentation and the insight in
the project obtained from acting as an advisor. They were then grouped and mapped
onto the Pentagon model. A full day seminar with all the researchers, the management
team, and representatives of the main contractors was organized. At this seminar they
presented their view on what was successful or not, and participants responded to
our questions.

5. Case studies
5.1 Selection of cases
The Pentagon model distinguishes the formal from the informal qualities of the project
organization. Our assumption is that these represent two different project management
approaches dependent on which of these qualities that has the main focus at the
establishment of the project management team. This implies that the focus of our study
should be at the early phase of the projects when the approach is decided. Megaprojects
normally have long duration which sometimes results in significant changes in the
project management team. By focussing on the early phase, we obtain consistent data
in the respect that the management team is the same.
Our strategy was to find two cases that could illustrate to two different project
management approaches. We looked for a project that was well executed according to
 established best practice and one where the organization was significantly challenged Analysis
in developing a feasible project. of project
Case A is from the oil and gas sector and has been executed according to best
practice in this industry by experienced project owners and contractors. Case B is from management
the construction industry. For this case an initial team was established that failed in approach
developing a project design meeting the owner’s requirement within an acceptable cost
frame. A new team was launched which was then facing the need for a “nontraditional” 647
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

solution. This project is now awaiting the governmental approval for construction
start up. It is thus not finished, but since we address the early phase, we expect that we
can draw good conclusions from the work done so far. However, to compensate for the
fact that the case B project is not finished, we decided to make a brief assessment of a
third project which is similar to case B. This case C is also a land-based construction
project. The approach applied is similar to the one applied in case B. Case C is only
used to verify the findings from case B.
All the cases are megaprojects, commonly defined as projects with a budget of more
than one billion USD. Such projects where the organization is challenged to meet
project demands attract a lot of public attention because of substantial impacts on
communities, environment, and budgets.
For each case we listed the frame conditions that we found. Then we identified
a number of contributors to success based on the data collected. We categorized these
according to the Pentagon model. These contributors to success can be regarded as
success factors. However, the contributors can also be further grouped to comprise an
overall success factor for each Pentagon aspect. Figures 3-5 corresponding to each of
the three cases show the success factors at both levels.

e
anc
rn
ve
d go res
Pr
pe edu ov
elo oc en
d ev d pr Aligned to
- ols
ell an governance
W
Project tools

Te
re ch
no
Contract strategy ctu log
Stru ies Risk management

Case A
re

Recruitment
ns
ultu

orks
and l relatio

strategy
e
ct c

ur

Established ways
netw
Cult
roje

of working
t
ia

trus
Soc
p
mon

Existing relations
ding
Com

Buil

Interaction

Information Stakeholder
strategy management
Figure 3.
Mapping of main success
factors for the case A
Good interaction project
 IJMPB us
foc
7,4 e int
i al Ne
w
c ge
an ne
e rn No business as ra
tio
ov n
-g usual to
L ow ols

Lean construction
648 Te
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

Integrated form r e ch principles

of agreement ctu no
ru log
St ies

Manage by
means approach
Case B

ns
re

The Five Big Ideas

orks
and l relatio
ultu

ure

trus nt
netw
The Five Big Ideas
c

Cult

me
am

t
ia

and ommitt
Soc
e te

Integrated form

build
at

of agreement
Cre

in c
Facilitate team
learning Interaction

Obta
Integrated form Office
of agreement infrastructure
Figure 4.
Mapping of main success
factors the case B project Fostering cooperation

ce
an
rn W
ove ell
g on -d
on ati ev
us gr elo
foc inte Application of a pe
ng and d
ro systems integration to
St ol
model bo
x
Application of a
Te systems integration
Owner carried re ch
all risk ctu no
log model
ru
St ies

Continuous
project process Case C
ns

Team working
lture

improvement
orks
and l relatio

environment
ure
u

trus nt
ct c

netw
Cult

me
proje

t
ia

and ommitt
Soc

Owner carried
build
ate

Project branding all risk

in c
Cre

Interaction
Obta

Project branding
Figure 5.
Mapping of main
success factors for
the case C project Cooperation through
committment
 5.2 Case A Analysis
Case A is an oil and gas project in Norway comprising subsea wells with a multiphase of project
pipeline to onshore process facilities. The basic concepts for development were
decided in 2002, the main contracts were awarded in 2004, installations of offshore management
facilities started in 2005, and erection and assembly of the onshore plant in 2006. The approach
facilities started operation in 2007. The project was successfully completed on time
and within budget. 649
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

In order to understand the performance of the project organization, it is necessary to

know what frame conditions the organization had to work under. We found three frame
conditions that were significant in this respect. These were derived from project
documentation that was made available to us and cross-checked with project managers
during our interviews. The three frame conditions are:
(1) Relations with partners: a common governance process for all the partners
involved simplified the decision process at the partner level and avoided delays.
(2) External stakeholders: the project management strategy for obtaining local
support and assistance had openness as its basic foundation, where the stated
aim was to “include the project in the community.”
(3) Contract strategy: the contract strategy was tailored to maximize the benefits
from a competitive market. After contracts were awarded, the structure
had sufficient flexibility for merging contracts to improve performance and
project control.
Oil and gas projects normally have several owner-partners (case A had six owner
companies) one of them acting as an operator on behalf of all. High-level plans,
technical concept, and many management issues have to be approved by all partners.
Normally each partner has its own governance system. In case A, all partners agreed
to jointly aligned project governance. Frame condition 1 thus allows us to compare this
multi-owner project with projects with a single owner. Frame condition 2 is a response
to the local political requirements and expectations. Frame condition 3 is important to
understand the flexibility in contracting that the project team was allowed.
Our interviews were structured according to the five Pentagon aspects. The research
team conducted extensive analyses of the interviews and extracted what we judged
to be main contributors to success. These contributors had been mentioned by several
interviewees at different organizational levels as a key aspects or policies on how the
project was managed. The researchers further cross-checked the contributors identified
with selected interviewees in order to gauge their prominence. Figure 3 shows the
contributors so identified, mapped to the Pentagon model as success factors.
The following list gives brief explanations of the nine success factors identified
for case A:
. Aligned governance (Pentagon aspect “Structure”): a common governance structure
with all involved partners in the project was agreed at the very beginning. This
included common decision points and procedures for all partner’s approval.
. Recruitment strategy (Pentagon aspect “Social relations and networks”):
managers selected participants on the basis of their known competence as well
as their former relations and personal networks. They built up the organization
gradually, emphasizing team building and learning. Good continuity of
personnel was obtained over the different project phases.
 IJMPB . Established ways of working (Pentagon aspect “Culture”): the mother organization
7,4 had a general acceptance of an established way of working that made it relatively
easy to establish a common conceptual platform building on shared norms and
professional language.
. Project tools (Pentagon aspect “Technologies”): well-proven project management
tools with specifications, deliveries, and schedules were used according to well-
650 established practice of the operating company.
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

. Contract strategy (Pentagon aspect “Structure”): a flexible contract strategy

tailored to maximize the benefits from a competitive market was adopted. Each
of the main contracts was followed up by a company representative. All changes
were handled continuously, with a parallel and detailed updating of documents.
. Risk management (Pentagon aspect “Technologies”): an extensive system for
risk management was established.
. Existing relations (Pentagon aspect “Social relations and networks”): existing
working relationships across organizations laid the foundation for developing
a project culture characterized by openness, allowing room for discussion and
new ideas.
. Information strategy (Pentagon aspect “Interaction”): an important mechanism
for obtaining good coordination was to hold regular meetings, both within the
management group and within sub-projects.
. Stakeholder management (Pentagon aspect “Interaction”): a clear strategy for
managing all external stakeholders was developed and implemented. This was
crucial for obtaining acceptance in the local community and commitment from
the local key players.
The pre-project and the execution projects for the onshore and offshore installations
were organized and managed according to different principles and leadership styles.
An important lesson from this case study is that the project manager’s ability to adapt
leadership and organizational development to the actual internal and external nature
and complexity of the offshore vs the onshore project was a major contribution
to success. Another important lesson is that the management team succeeded in
balancing different aspects of the project organization, working with the development
of both internal and external qualities.

5.3 Case B
Case B is a building construction project in California, USA. The facility is a large
healthcare institution and is considered to be an extremely complex project, in part
due to the governmental regulations to sustain earthquakes. In fact, the first
team that tackled this project failed in their assignment, unable to design a project
meeting the owner’s requirements within the available budget. Recognizing the
improbability of being able to meet all demands using familiar project management
practices, the project leaders set those practices aside, and proceeded with “no
business as usual” (e.g. Knott, 1996). Their strategy was to apply the principles of
lean construction.
Project planning started in 2005 and resulted in a project plan (including design),
a project organization and a clearly defined project management approach. The design
phase completed in 2012, but the project was put on hold awaiting permitting.
 As with case A, the frame conditions for project execution are important for Analysis
understanding the expectations the project organization had to meet. Some of the of project
authors on our paper had been involved in the project delivery system design monitored
and participated in the project. Based on their experience (and cross-checked with the management
project management), the most important frame conditions challenging the project approach
organization were:
651
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

(1) An earlier project team had failed. This led to the opinion that traditional
project management approaches in the then-current market conditions would
not be able to meet the demands of this project.
(2) Complicated and slow local government permitting had created a vicious circle
where incomplete drawings submitted early for approval led to increased
review time from the government.
(3) A significant gap existed between the estimated costs of the facility required
and the financial resources available for the project.
Through their involvement in the project, the researchers came up with a list of
seven factors for project success, which were cross-checked with the project’s top
management. The list of success contributors were analyzed by the research team and
grouped according to the Pentagon model. Figure 4 shows the mapping of the success
factors on the Pentagon model. Two of the factors cover more than one Pentagon
aspect. The success factor “Five Big Ideas” addresses both culture and social relations.
The success factor “integrated form of agreement” is at the same time part of the
Pentagon “structure” aspect addressing the project governance while at the same time
enabling interaction and developing social relations.
The list below gives brief explanations of the seven success factors identified for case B:
. No business as usual (Pentagon aspect “Structure”): due to the failure of the first
team, it was decided to think “outside of the box” in order to meet the
challenging external conditions.
. Manage by means (MBM) approach (Pentagon aspect “Culture”): instead of
using the management approach called “managing by results” (MBR), the
project team set out to “MBM”. MBR approaches focus on outcomes, and strive
to minimize deviations from the plan set out to achieve those outcomes. In
contrast, MBM approaches focus on teaching principles and practicing their
application, striving for continuous improvement but without judging those who
are learning based on their outcomes. Project leaders align and nurture the
capabilities of the project delivery team with the demands imposed on the
project ( Johnson and Bröms, 2000).
. Lean construction principles (Pentagon aspect “Technologies”): lean construction
is an adaption and augmentation of lean manufacturing principles to construction
projects, e.g. focussing on elimination of waste and on managing flows (Koskela
et al., 2002; Ballard et al., 2002).
. The Five Big Ideas (Pentagon aspects “Culture” and “Social relations and
networks”): five ideas were developed to foster a sound project team working
culture (Lichtig, 2006). The ideas are: collaborate – really collaborate, increase
relatedness, projects are networks of commitment, optimize the whole, and
tightly couple learning with action.
 IJMPB . Integrated form of agreement (Pentagon aspects “Structure,” “Interaction” and
7,4 “Social relations and networks”): an innovative relational form of contract called
the integrated form of agreement was developed (Thomsen et al., 2009).
This contract form fosters an environment of collaboration and innovation on
the project. It includes contract language that asks project participants to define
their operating system and encourages all project participants to cooperate
652 rather than to compete. It increases the team’s ability to deliver their project
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

optimized as the whole.

. Facilitate team learning (Pentagon aspect “Culture”): in-line with all previously
mentioned contributors, implementation of the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, was
promoted throughout the organization in order to facilitate individual team
member’s and the team’s learning.
. Office infrastructure (Pentagon aspects “Technology” and “Interaction”):
participants from different disciplines shared physical workspaces and had
easy access to each other for information sharing and discussions, which proved
to be valuable for effective coordination in the project development.
5.4 Case C
Case C is an infrastructure project in the UK. The facility, an airport terminal, was
successfully completed in 2008 on time and within budget. In light of numerous failed
deliveries of public megaprojects in the UK in the years preceding, the owner chose to
follow a radically new approach to deliver the project. The owner had so much at stake
that project failure could have meant company bankruptcy. As in case B, principles of
lean construction were applied in case C.
Architectural design started in 1989. The owner submitted a planning application in
1993. This was followed by an extended public inquiry until the authorities granted the
planning consent in 2001. The project design phase started for full and the first
construction work took place in 2002.
Both case B and C were launched requiring radically new thinking around
management and execution of the projects. This similarity in frame conditions
facilitates comparison of project organization performance. Actually, our research
team identified four frame conditions that we consider crucial in driving how the
project was managed:
(1) following several failed deliveries of public megaprojects much was at stake
for this project; a project failure could mean company bankruptcy for the
owner;
(2) the owner was actively involved in project management and daily project
execution;
(3) the project is one of Europe’s largest and most complex public megaprojects; and
(4) the owner agreed to carry all the cost risks of the construction project, rather
than contracting that out.
We already mentioned the first frame condition. The second facilitated decision
making as the owner was involved in the project. The size of the project and the
fact that it is an airport terminal (requiring post 9/11 security measures during
construction) made it quite complex as was also the case for the case B project
(although the nature of the complexity was different). The fourth frame condition
 enabled flexibility in contracting that is comparable to what they obtained through the Analysis
Integrated Form of Agreement used in the case B project. of project
Case C is findings are in line with our case B findings, as both projects pursued an
adaptive management approach. management
Our information on case C was derived from three different sources. First, we approach
studied project reports; mainly close-out reports summarizing experience from project
execution including the strategies adopted and the experience of how the project was 653
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

managed. Second, one of the researchers had been engaged on the project as an advisor
to the sub-project management team. Third, we were able to organize a full-day
“debriefing” seminar with the management team and the representatives of the main
contractors where they presented their view on what was successful and not successful
and answered to our questions.
We analyzed this information to define the main contributors to success and
mapping them to the aspects of the Pentagon model. The results are shown in Figure 5.
Again some of the factors cover more than one Pentagon aspect. The systems
integration model covers the Pentagon aspect “Structure” as it serves as project
governance. At the same time it provides a number of tools covered by the Pentagon
aspect “Technologies.” The fact that the owner decided to carry all risk is a “Structure”
aspect. At the same time it was a significant enabler for communication in the project
and thus also falls under the Pentagon aspect “Interaction.” The project branding also
facilitated communication and interaction (Pentagon aspect “Interaction”) and at the
same time it served as the most important initiative to build a project culture (Pentagon
aspect “Culture”).
The list below explains the five success factors identified for case C:
. Application of a systems integration model (Pentagon aspects “Structure” and
“Technologies”): an approach defined by Davies et al. (2009) was applied. This
involves six processes required to execute a megaproject: first, systems integration
to coordinate the design, engineering, integration, and delivery of a fully functioning
operational system; second, project and program management to support an
integrated supply chain; third, digital design technologies to support design,
construction, integration, and maintenance activities; fourth, off-site fabrication,
pre-assembly, and modular production, to improve productivity, predictability, and
health and safety; fifth, just-in-time logistics to coordinate the supply of materials, to
increase speed and efficiency; and sixth, operational integration to undertake
systems tests, trials, and preparation for hand-over to operations.
. Continuous project process improvement (Pentagon aspect “Culture”): a standard
set of guidelines was introduced as a project handbook. The intention was to
improve the project development and project management process by ensuring
a consistent approach which meets business needs and opportunities and thus
created continuous improvement across the organization.
. Team working environment (Pentagon aspect “Social relations and networks”):
this helped build trust throughout the project organization.
. Owner carried all risk (Pentagon aspects “Structure” and “Social relations and
networks”): this fostered better collaboration across contractors.
. Project branding (Pentagon aspects “Culture” and “Interaction”): a strong focus
on the project brand followed up by personnel training created strong
commitment toward the project objectives.
 IJMPB 6. Project management approaches
7,4 We next use our findings from the literature and the three different cases to discuss
differences in project management approaches.
From case A we identified nine contributors leading to success, which were sorted
according to the five aspects of the Pentagon model (Figure 3).
Aligned governance and the adopted contract strategy is part of the structure
654 aspect. This served as a foundation for project execution, and is summarized in
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

Figure 3 as “well-developed governance and procedures.” Also “proven tools”

(including project tools and risk management) were used from project start-up
and onwards.
The project management approach adopted had an initial focus on the formal
qualities of the Pentagon model aspects. During the initial phase the project team was
selected and the stakeholder relations developed. The project team was trained
according to the governance structure and to use the proven tools of the operator.
The team building took advantage of existing relations within the organization of the
operator and across the partners and main contractors. The recruitment strategy
adopted built trust and strong personal relationships in the organization. This, combined
with well-established ways of working, laid the foundation for a common project culture
which came to be important for the successful accomplishment of the project task.
A success factor was the good interaction created both inside the project, among
the partners and with the external stakeholders. The external stakeholders include the
local community and the local government. The information meetings and discussions
in the local community created trust and secured commitment and acceptance from
local decision makers.
From case B we identified seven contributors leading to success (Figure 4).
The case B project started with a need for radical new thinking, thus abolishing
commonly accepted thinking on starting with a governance structure and a project
execution model. Instead, management pursued “no business as usual.” The structure
aspect in the Pentagon model is therefore characterized as “low governance initial
focus.” Actually, the main focus of the management was to obtain designers and
contractors that would cooperate and share risks and opportunities. A culture had to
be created where everyone used their competence and resources to maximize the
project performance rather than trying to advocate for their own interest in the project.
This was obtained through a new relational contract form called “Integrated Form of
Agreement.” Contractors were selected based on their perceived interest in complying
with the principles laid down in the contract. The contract form enabled the creation of
a cohesive team culture and resulted in trust among the participants and commitment
to the project objectives. It proved efficient in fostering true cooperation and
collaboration.
Another success factor was the implementation of “the Five Big Ideas,” a form of
vision-branding. As these were understood and adopted throughout the organization, it
supported development of networks and a project culture.
In its initial phase, the case B project focussed the informal qualities of the Pentagon
model. Once the organization was built and the project culture and networks
were established, formal qualities were addressed. This includes the adoption of new
thinking such as the lean construction principles.
From case C we identified five important contributors leading to success (Figure 5).
For this project a systems integration model was applied. This created a strong
governance focus and brought a set of well-defined project management tools.
 The initial approach is on the formal qualities of the Pentagon model. The structure Analysis
and the technologies establish a framework for the project team and all contractors. of project
Then, quite early, the management focus also included the informal qualities, such
as project branding. This proved to be an extremely efficient tool to develop a common management
project culture and to obtain cooperation through commitment from team members approach
and contractors.
A project handbook was developed. This handbook allowed a continuous 655
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

improvement of the project processes as the project progressed. This focus in

conjunction with the project branding enabled the creation of values and norms that led
to project management excellence which the project needed due to its high-risk profile.
Although the case C project started off with a focus on formal qualities, it rapidly
also developed a focus on the informal qualities.
The three case projects are all different but share some characteristics that are
typical for megaprojects. The owners are large organizations with good project
management competence, the projects are large and complex, they involve many
contractors, and they have high-political attention. Our focus is on the early phase of
the projects. We thus consider all three projects to be successful although the case B
project is not yet completed. However, the route to success is different.
In cases A and C the initial focus was on the formal qualities. However, once the
projects were started, the informal qualities were developed in the organization. This is
the traditional project management approach that we will refer to as a prescriptive
approach. The basic idea is that a framework for how the project organization can
work and operate is established in the belief that this will increase the competence of
the organization so that earlier known mistakes can be avoided. It also creates a
common knowledge platform for the project team and its contractors.
In case B the initial focus was on the informal qualities. As the project team had
developed necessary trust and committed to a common project culture, the formal
qualities were addressed in cooperation among the project team and its contractors.
This project management approach contrasts with accepted thinking strongly focusses
on governance, procedures, and front-end loading. It starts by building trust in the
organization that is given more leeway in its approach. We refer to this approach as an
adaptive approach.
Using the Pentagon model, the adaptive approach means entering the project from
the bottom part of the model through the informal qualities whereas the prescriptive
approach means entering from the top through the formal qualities.
The distinction between the two approaches and their characteristics has been
derived from analyzing the project organization performance for each of the cases.
These analyses are based on interviews at different organizational levels for case A
and through the action research for the cases B and C.
For the case A project several of the interview objects pointed to the project
governance system of the operating company (owner organization) and its importance
for the way they were working and for securing timely progress and successful
completion. They faced challenges in developing a common project culture involving
both the project team and its main contractors. The offshore and onshore subprojects
used different leadership styles for developing the project culture, but for both
the existing relations and their established way of working was a major contributor to
their success.
For the case B project the action researchers experienced a strong management
focus on creating a project organization where the contractors should focus on the
 IJMPB benefit for the project rather than trying to optimize their own profit. This was enabled
7,4 through the Integrated Form of Agreement and the Five Big Ideas. Only contractors
that were assumed to understand these principles and expressing commitment to them
were considered for contracts. The need to think “no business as usual” drove this
successful approach.
For the case C project our discussions with the project management and the main
656 contractors revealed that the situation was very much the same as for case B. However,
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

they developed the project culture and commitment from the organization in a different
way, namely by focussing on developing identification and pride, symbolized by
extensive project branding.
Our findings on project management approaches are to a large extent also in line
with the literature findings on different project management schools.
Andersen’s (2005) task- and organizational perspectives align with our prescriptive
and adaptive approach. In the task perspective, the focus is on accomplishing the
project task. This is also the case in our prescriptive approach, but we also consider the
management process involved which in this case will be based on the existing
experience from the organization expressed through project governance and enabling
technologies, i.e. the formal qualities of the Pentagon model. In Andersen’s organizational
perspective, the focus is on developing an appropriate project organization. This matches
our adaptive approach, i.e. the informal qualities of the Pentagon model.
The distinction between our approaches and Andersen’s perspective is that we
claim that both perspectives are needed in a project. The adaptive approach starts with
the organizational aspects, but also requires that the formal qualities are developed as
soon as the project has been launched, and vice versa for the prescriptive approach.
This view is also supported by Rolstadås et al.’s (2011) strategies for risk navigation
that comply with our adaptive approach.
Both Bredillet (2007) and Söderlund (2010) have defined a number of schools of
thought. We will refer primarily to Söderlund’s findings as this work is the more recent
and updated (Söderlund studied 305 articles in 30 leading management and
organizational journals). A school of thought represents a scholarly background for the
research in the field which also indicates what to be focussed and the philosophy
behind the way the project task is to be accomplished. A school of thought can
therefore be associated with what we call a project management approach. A closer
look on Söderlund’s seven schools supports this view. His classification of contingency,
behavior, and relationship schools all represent an adaptive approach whereas the
remaining four points toward a prescriptive approach. One could argue that instead of
our two approaches, there should be seven, each one matching each of Söderlund’s
schools of thought. However, the distinction between some of the schools is in our
opinion not sufficiently significant to justify the definition of a project management
approach. The schools are defined based on a research focus. A somewhat different
approach will be to focus on distinctions between project management approaches that
can help the project organization in being deliberate on its initial focus and use this
for deciding on the success factors to be addressed.

7. Conclusion
The recipe to project management success has yet to be found, and there will probably
be no single best solution. Success depends on many factors that may shift from project
to project and from organization to organization. This does of course not mean that
research on success factors is not important. On the contrary, further research into
 success factors is necessary, but it is also important to seek alternative ways to Analysis
understand success. We see the recent publications on project management schools as a of project
novel approach that increase the understanding of what leads to success. In this paper
we have given our contribution which is to look at project management approaches. management
Our study shows that dependent on the project management approach (prescriptive approach
or adaptive) selected, there are different success factors to be focussed on by the project
organization. We believe that the probability of project success can be increased by 657
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

consciously selecting a project management approach at the launch of a new project.

Our distinction between the prescriptive and adaptive approach represents extremes
on a scale where any combination may be feasible in practice. We recommend that the
project management approach is discussed and decided at project start up and that
relevant success factors are defined in accordance with the approach selected. We think
that this is an important practical application of our research. How to design the
project and the project organization is an imperative question in all megaprojects.
We started be defining our research questions as:

RQ1. How can the project management approach influence the probability of
success?

Our conclusion is that the distinction between a prescriptive and an adaptive approach
can help in selecting an appropriate approach dependent on the project and its frame
conditions. We do not claim that one approach is better than the other. The approach
must be decided based on the challenges in the project and the competence of the
project organization. Further research is needed to clarify the conditions for best use
of each approach.
We have provided a model that facilitates the study of the factors that influence the
performance of the organization. This Pentagon model can be applied to analyze
completed projects. It also indicates important aspects to focus when designing
a project organization. Finally, it can serve as a tool for transfer of experience from
one project to another.

References
Andersen, E.S. (2005), Prosjektledelse – et organisasjonsperspektiv, NKI-forlaget, Oslo.
Ballard, G., Tommelein, I., Koskela, L. and Howell, G. (2002), “Lean construction tools and
techniques”, in Best, R. and de Valence, G. (Eds), Design and Construction: Building in
Value, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 227-255.
Belassi, W. and Tukel, O.I. (1996), “A new framework for determining critical success/failure
factors in project”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14 No. 3,
pp. 141-151.
Bredillet, C. (2007), “Exploring research in project management: nine schools of project
management research”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 2-4.
Chapman, C.B. and Ward, S.C. (2003), Project Risk Management: Processes, Techniques and
Insights, 2nd ed., Marcel Dekker, New York, NY.
Christenson, D. and Walker, D.H.T. (2008), “Using vision as a critical success element in project
management”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, Vol. 1 No. 4,
pp. 611-622.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002), “The ‘real’ success factors on projects”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 20 No. 3, pp. 185-190.
 IJMPB Daniel, D.R. (1961), “Management information crisis”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 39 No. 5,
pp. 111-121.
7,4
Davies, A., Gann, D. and Douglas, T. (2009), “Innovation in megaprojects: systems integration
at London Heathrow Terminal 5”, California Management Review, Vol. 51 No. 2,
pp. 101-125.
de Wit, A. (1988), “Measurement of project success”, International Journal of Project
658 Management, Vol. 6 No. 3, pp. 164-170.
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

Fortune, J. and White, D. (2006), “Framing of project critical success factors by a formal system
model”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Gelinas, N. (2010), “Mega-success for a mega-project”, The Boston Globe, 3 October, available at:
www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2010/10/03/
mega_success_for_a_mega_project/ (accessed August 14, 2013).
Ibbs, C.W. and Kwak, Y.H. (2000), “Assessing project management maturity”, Project
Management Journal, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 32-43.
Johnson, H.T. and Bröms, A. (2000), Profit Beyond Measure: Extraordinary Results Through
Attention to Work and People, Free Press, New York, NY.
Jugdev, K. and Thomas, J. (2002), “Project management maturity models: the silver bullet of
competitive advantage?”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 33 No. 4, pp. 4-14.
Knott, T. (1996), No Business As Usual: An Extraordinary North Sea Result, British Petroleum,
London.
Koskela, L., Howell, G., Ballard, G. and Tommelein, I. (2002), “The foundations of lean
construction”, in Best, R. and de Valence, G. (Eds), Design and Construction: Building in
Value, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, pp. 211-226.
Lichtig, W.A. (2006), “The integrated agreement for lean project delivery”, Construction Lawyer,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 1-8.
Müller, R. and Jugdev, K. (2012), “Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin, and Prescott –
the elucidation of project success”, International Journal of Managing Projects in Business,
Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 757-775.
Müller, R. and Turner, R. (2007), “The influence on project managers on project success criteria
and project success by type of project”, European Management Journal, Vol. 25 No. 4,
pp. 298-309.
Patanakul, P. and Shenhar, A.J. (2012), “What project strategy really is: the fundamental building
block in strategic project management”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 43 No. 1,
pp. 4-20.
Pinto, J. and Slevin, D. (1987), “Critical factors in successful project implementation”, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 22-27.
PMI (2013), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge, 5th ed., Project Management
Institute, Newton Square, PA.
Raz, T. and Michael, E. (2001), “Use and benefit of tools for project risk management”,
International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 19, pp. 9-17.
Rockart, J.F. (1979), “Chief executives define their own data needs”, Harvard Business Review,
Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 81-93.
Rolstadås, A. (2008), Applied Project Management – How to Organize, Plan and Control Projects,
Tapir Academic Press, Trondheim.
Rolstadås, A., Hetland, P.W., Jergeas, G. and Westney, R. (2011), Risk Navigation Strategies for
Major Capital Projects – Beyond the Myth of Predictability, Springer Series in Reliability
Engineering, London.
Schiefloe, P.M. (2011), Mennesker og samfunn, Fagbokforlaget, Bergen.
 Schiefloe, P.M. and Vikland, K.M. (2006), “Formal and informal safety barriers: the Snorre A Analysis
incident”, in Soares, C.G. and Zio, E. (Eds), Safety and Reliability for Managing Risk, Taylor
& Francis, London, pp. 419-426. of project
Schiefloe, P.M. and Vikland, K.M. (2009), “Close to catastrophe, the Snorre A gas blow-out”, paper management
presented at the EGOS Conference, Barcelona, July 3. approach
Shenhar, A. and Dvir, D. (2007), Reinventing Project Management, Harvard Business School
Press, Boston, MA. 659
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

Shenhar, A., Dvir, D., Levy, O. and Maltz, A.C. (2001), “Project success: a multidimensional
strategic concept”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 699-725.
Shenhar, A.J., Tishler, A., Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S. and Lechler, T. (2002), “Refining the search for
project success factors: a multivariate, typological approach”, R&D Management, Vol. 32
No. 2, pp. 111-126.
Smith, R.E., Mossman, A. and Emmit, S. (2011), “Lean and integrated project delivery”, Lean
Construction Journal, pp. 1-16.
Söderlund, J. (2010), “Pluralism in project management: navigating the crossroads of specialization
and fragmentation”, International Journal of Management Reviews, Vol. 13, pp. 153-176.
Thomsen, C., Darrington, J.W., Dunne, D.D. and Lichtig, W.A. (2009), Managing Integrated Project
Delivery, The Construction Management Association of America, Mclean, VA.
Turner, R. (1999), The Handbook of Project-Based Management, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, London.
Williams, T. (1995), “A classified bibliography of recent research relating to project risk
management”, European Journal of Operations Research, Vol. 85 No. 1, pp. 18-38.
Yazici, H.J. (2009), “The role of project management maturity and organizational culture in
perceived performance”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 40 No. 3, pp. 14-33.

About the authors

Asbjørn Rolstadås is a Professor of Production and Quality Engineering and Vice Dean for
Research at the Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology, Norwegian University of
Science and Technology. He has about 30 years of experience from education, research, and
consulting in project management. His research in project management is targeted at success
factors, project risk management, global projects, and project management of research. He has
previous research experience in fields such as manufacturing technology, logistics, and
productivity. He is past President of the Norwegian Academy of Technological Sciences and is
member of The Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and Letters as well as the Royal Swedish
Academy of Engineering Sciences. He is the Founding Editor of the International Journal of
Production Planning and Control, and is past President of The International Federation for
Information Processing. He has served for five years on the PMI Member Advisory Group for
Standards. Professor Asbjørn Rolstadås is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
asbjorn.rolstadas@ntnu.no
Iris Tommelein is a Professor of Engineering and Project Management, in the Civil and
Environmental Engineering Department at the University of California, Berkeley, USA.
She teaches and conducts research to develop and advance the theory and principles of project-
based production management, applied to – but not limited to – the Architecture-Engineering-
Construction (AEC) industry, what is termed “Lean Construction.” Professor Tommelein jointly
with Dr Glenn Ballard directs the Project Production Systems Laboratory (P2SL –
p2sl.berkeley.edu) at the UC Berkeley, a laboratory dedicated to developing and deploying
knowledge and tools for project management, as well as a learning lab for the Northern
California construction industry. Iris is an active participant in the International Group for Lean
Construction (IGLC – www.iglc.net) and a Research Affiliate of the Lean Construction Institute
 IJMPB (LCI – www.leanconstruction.org). She served on the Executive Committee of ASCE’s Technical
Council on Computing and Information Technology (TCCIT) and is a member of the Construction
7,4 Research Council of ASCE’s Construction Institute.
Per Morten Schiefloe (Dr Philos.) is a Professor in Sociology at the Department of Sociology
and Political Science, Norwegian University of Science and Technology. He is also Research
Director at the NTNU Social Research – Studio Apertura. His main fields of research are within
660 organizational sociology and network theories, focussing on organizational change, impacts of new
Downloaded by NORWEGIAN UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY At 06:03 01 September 2014 (PT)

technology, organizational culture, innovation, safety, project management, and social capital.
Dr Glenn Ballard is a Research Director of the Project Production Systems Laboratory at the
University of California, Berkeley. He has been teaching and doing research at Berkeley since
1989. His principle research interest is adapting lean production theory from manufacturing to
project management practice. Dr Ballard has worked as a manager, trainer, and consultant with
numerous organizations ranging from construction and engineering firms to public utilities
and international oil and gas companies. Dr Ballard co-founded the International Group for Lean
Construction in 1993 and the Lean Construction Institute in 1997; both dedicated to applying lean
theory, principles and techniques to designing and constructing the built environment.

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com

Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints

View publication stats