INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REAL ESTATE AND LAND PLANNING

VOL.1 (2018)
eISSN 2623-4807
Available online at https://ejournals.lib.auth.gr/reland

Success criteria and critical success factors in project success:

a literature review
Athanasios Lamproua, Dimitra Vagionab,
aPhD student, Department of Spatial Planning and Development, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
bAssistant Professor, Department of Spatial Planning and Development, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Abstract

Project success criteria are dependent variables that measure the successful outcome of a project, while project
success factors are the independent elements of a project that can increase the likelihood of success. In other words,
success criteria are used to measure success whilst success factors facilitate the achievement of success. The purpose
of this paper is to systematically record and identify project success criteria as well as critical success factors found
in the literature and published in academic journals in order to form an effective and widely accessible framework
to measure project success.
Aim
Time - schedule, cost - budget, user satisfaction, quality-performance, business and commercial performance are
the most frequently used success criteria, followed by technical specifications and requirements, stakeholders’
satisfaction, strategic goals/objectives and competitiveness, functionality, project team satisfaction and safety.
Some researchers also refer to contractor satisfaction, future perspective and environmental impact, while handful
are those that support that effectiveness and suppliers’ satisfaction can influence project success. The critical factors
influencing the success of projects are identified and commonly related to the following areas: project (e.g. clear
goal, realistic schedule, adequate funds, resources, size, complexity), project manager and leadership (e.g.
leadership, management of changes, effective conflict resolution, communication), project team members (e.g.
communication, technical background, qualified team), organization (e.g. top management support, responsibility
and authority chart) and external environment (client, technological environment, political environment, social
environment, physical environment).
Keywords: project success; success criteria; critical success factors

1. Introduction

Project success is undoubtedly one of the most popular issues that has been particularly prominent in academic and
business research over the past decades. The notion of what properties constitute a successful project has been
much discussed in the project management field without being able to highlight a commonly acceptable definition
until nowadays (Pinto και Slevin, 1988a; Baccarini, 1999; Müller και Judgev, 2012). From a scientific point of view,
significant differentiations and deviations between the various considerations and approaches can be distinguished
in respect with the ways that success can practically be attributed to a project. Project success should be interpreted

© 2018 by Author(s). This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International (CC BY 4.0). See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
 REAL ESTATE AND LAND PLANNING 2018
Available online at https://ejournals.lib.auth.gr/reland

based on the perspectives of the different stakeholders (owner, contractor, project manager, client, user,
community), as a result a project could be regarded a success for some parties and a failure for others respectively.
The differentiation on the viewpoint of project success perception is characteristically transferred by Freeman and
Beale (1992, p.8) as follows: “success means different thing for different people. An architect may consider success
in terms of aesthetic appearance, an engineer in terms of technical competence and a human resources manager in
terms of employee satisfaction”. However, De Wit (1988, p.165) cites one definition of project success, as derived
from the previous research of Baker et al. (1983), “the project is considered an overall success if the project meets
Proj success definition
the technical performance specification and/or mission to be performed, and if there is a high level of satisfaction
concerning the project outcome among key people”. Belassi and Tukel (1996) claim that the determination of project
success or failure is a complex process surrounded by intense ambiguity due to the inability of clear interpretation
and assessment of project success on behalf of the different stakeholders and the diversity of evaluation methods
and tools inside the literature. Generally, project success is considered “as the achievement of some predetermined
project goals, which commonly include multiple parameters” (Lim and Mohamed, 1999, p.244).
De Wit (1988) considers that a distinction should be made between the project management success and project
success in attempt to properly evaluate success. These are two concepts that are closely related, but they can show
significant differences. Project management success is determined based on fundamental success
criteria/restrictions, while project success refers to the overall accomplishment of the goals and objective of a
project. It is noted that “good project management can contribute towards project success but is unlikely to prevent
project failure” (De Wit, 1988, p.165). According to Munns and Bjeirmi (1996), the relationship between project
success and project management success is less dependent than originally believed, as these notions should be
clearly separated so as to assess project success. Both concepts concentrate on the successful execution of a project,
but they reflect completely different objectives and character. For example, there are projects that were not
completed within the predetermined restrictions (poor project management) and tend to be great successes over
time and vice versa (Munns and Bjeirmi, 1996). On the contrary, Baccarini (1999) distinguishes project success in
two aspects: project management success (focusing on project process and predetermined restrictions) and product
success (focusing on the effects of project outcomes). Complementary, Lim and Mohamed (1999) suggest two
perspectives of analyzing project success, justifying to a certain extent the usual differences between the various
perceptions. Specifically, the macro viewpoint is related to the implementation degree of the overall plan of a project
in the operational stage and the micro viewpoint refers to the achievement route on the individual levels and
components of a project at the completion of the execution stage respectively. Summarizing, an overlap between
project success and project management success can be detected, but the latter is essentially a subset of the overall
success of a project (Munns and Bjeirmi, 1996). SUBSET
Furthermore, it is widely accepted that project success consists of two fundamental components, namely project
success criteria and project success factors. Project success criteria are the dependent variables (principles,
measures, standards) that measure and evaluate the successful outcome of a project, while project success factors
are the independent elements of a project (set of circumstances, facts, elements, influences) that can increase the
likelihood of success. In other words, success criteria are used to measure success whilst success factors facilitate
the achievement of success respectively (Lim and Mohamed, 1999; Ika, 2009; Turner, 2009; Müller and Judgev,
2012).
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: section 2 describes the methodology followed in the literature review
research, section 3 presents the most cited success criteria and critical success factors, while section 4 concludes to
useful remarks.

277
 REAL ESTATE AND LAND PLANNING 2018
Available online at https://ejournals.lib.auth.gr/reland

2. Methodology

First of all, the main research subject covers the notion of project success and its two fundamental components
(success criteria and critical success factors) inside the scientific field of Project Management. The adopted research
methodology consists of three distinct consecutive stages. The first stage includes the systematic search of the
potential references through well-known academic databases and search engines which are officially connected with
prominent scientific handbooks and journals (e.g. Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Mendeley, Science Direct,
Scopus, Springer Link, Wiley Online, Emerald Insight, etc.). The second stage encloses the collection of the literature
that could contribute to the aimed research, while in the third stage the most useful scientific handbooks, chapters
and papers are reviewed and studied in detail. The keywords used during the whole research are “project success”,
“success criteria”, “success factors” and “critical success factors” respectively. It is also noted that the forementioned
research process had been conducted between January 2016 and December 2017.
The successful execution of the first two methodological stages led to the collection of more than 250 references
(handbooks, chapters and papers) with proven contribution to the research evolution. The detailed study of these
sources demonstrated many theoretical and empirical aspects that are arranged and recorded appropriately
according to the content of the three main thematic unities.
Subsequently, the various success criteria and critical success factors are segregated and recorded in detail in order
to generate two tables, summarizing the significant success criteria and critical success factors. Referring to the
success criteria, the systematic recording revealed over 20 different criteria from the theoretical and empirical
studies. In case of the critical success factors, the methodology followed is slightly differentiated because of the large
number of records originated from the research and study of the references (more than 400 critical success factors).
Specifically, some critical success factors with same or similar meaning, content and function are merged and
incorporated into a generic statement so as to reduce the number of different records and make the summary table
more useful and flexible. Finally, the frequency of reference/occurrence of both success criteria and critical success
factors is recorded as a mean of their significance evaluation. Essentially, this kind of index indicates the number of
citation or emergence or repetition of the different success criteria and factors inside the considered literature.

3. Results and Discussion

In this part of the paper, two summary tables (Tables 1 and 2) that present the results from the overall study of the
literature regarding with the success criteria and the critical success factors in the scientific field of project
management are cited and discussed. The tables are ranked in descending order based on the quantitative index of
reference/occurrence frequency.
As it was stated before, success criteria are one of the basic components of project success. Necessary priority is to
identify them precisely among all participants at the onset of a project. The formulation of a commonly agreed upon
framework, taking into account the various criteria on behalf of all stakeholders, is a prerequisite for the rational
assessment of project success. The classic approach of evaluating project success is based on the simplified scheme
of the three basic success criteria (time, cost and quality / performance), known in the scientific community as the
"Iron Triangle" or "Golden Triangle" or "Triangle of Virtue" (Atkinson, 1999; Westerveld, 2003; Ika, 2009). However,
there are numerous projects that came in on time and under budget and are considered failures, while there are
others that have finished late and far over budget and are branded as successes. The emerging need to broaden the
concept of success has led many researchers to adopt additional success criteria over the years. Generally, the

278
 REAL ESTATE AND LAND PLANNING 2018
Available online at https://ejournals.lib.auth.gr/reland

conventional framework of project success assessment includes the following success criteria (Pinto and Slevin,
1988a; Ika, 2009): a) Cost – budget, b) Time – schedule, c) Performance – quality and d) Client satisfaction. During
the last decades, several criteria have been proposed by various researchers for the evaluation of project success.
The success criteria may differ between the various project types according to their different goals and objectives.
It should be noted that the high percent of failed projects is explained to a great extent by the adherence to specific
non inclusive success criteria (Atkinson, 1999).
Table 1 includes the most cited success criteria found in the literature.
Table 1. The most significant success criteria in the corresponding literature

Frequency of Frequency of
Success criteria Success criteria
reference/occurrence reference/ occurrence

Strategic
Time – Schedule (SC1) 39 Goals/objectives & 16
Competitiveness (SC9)
Cost – Budget (SC2) 39 Use (SC10) 14
Quality – Performance
30 Health & Safety (SC11) 14
(SC3)
Project
Client/user Satisfaction
30 Team/personnel 12
(SC4)
Satisfaction (SC12)
Business & Commercial Contractors’
24 12
Performance (SC5) Satisfaction (SC13)
Stakeholders’ Future Perspective
20 12
Satisfaction (SC6) (SC14)
Technical
Environmental Impact
Specifications & 19 10
(SC15)
Requirements (SC7)
Functionality (SC8) 16 Effectiveness (SC16) 8

Suppliers’ Satisfaction
2
(SC17)

The criteria of time – schedule (SC1), cost – budget (SC2) and quality – performance (SC3) occupy the first three
positions in the final ranking based on the frequency of their occurrence/reference in the literature during the last
four decades (e.g. Al-Tmeemy et al., 2011; Wai et al., 2012; Nguyen et al., 2013; Mukhtar and Amirudin, 2016; Silva
et al., 2016a) . Certainly, these three parameters reflect the so called project management success and can be usually
measured at the execution and the completion of each project. Another criterion with high significance is client/user
satisfaction (SC4), which has been intensively suggested by many researchers since the ends of 1980 (e.g. Serrador
and Turner, 2014; Silva et al., 2016a).
Business and commercial performance (SC5), stakeholders’ satisfaction (SC6), and technical specifications and
requirements (SC7) have a remarkable number of citations inside the considered references (e.g. Al-Tmeemy et al.,
2011; Wai et al.,2012; Khan et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2013; Sliva et al., 2016a). The commercial success of a project
and the satisfaction of its stakeholders are two important aspects relating to the midterm evaluation of project
success. Also, stakeholders’ satisfaction is incorporated in the emerging Knowledge Area of project stakeholder
management in the scientific field of modern project management (PMBoK, 2013). It could be assumed that the
279
 REAL ESTATE AND LAND PLANNING 2018
Available online at https://ejournals.lib.auth.gr/reland

technical specifications and requirements refer in a sense to the satisfaction of the various project stakeholders in
comparison with their goals and expectations.
Subsequently, the criteria of functionality (SC8), strategic goal/objectives and competitiveness (SC9), use (SC10), and
health and safety (SC11) are referred to a satisfactory degree by the corresponding literature demonstrating some
relatively newer dimensions of project success (Thomas and Fernandez, 2008; Al-Tmeemy et al., 2011; Wai et al.,
2012; Khan et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2013; Mukhtar and Amirudin, 2016; Silva et al., 2016a). Both the use and the
functionality of a project are closely related to the stakeholders’ expectations and requirements evaluated in the
period after its completion.
Furthermore, some researchers include project team/personnel satisfaction (SC12), contractors’ satisfaction (SC13),
future perspective (SC14) and environmental impact (SC15) in the proposed frameworks or lists of project success
assessment (e.g. Turner, 2009; Khan et al., 2013; Nguyen et al., 2013; Mukhtar and Amirudin, 2016; Silva et al.,
2016a). It should be noted that team/personnel satisfaction and contractors’ satisfaction essentially consist
specializations of the wider parameter of stakeholder’s satisfaction, a fact that clearly explains the trend of adoption
of additional success criteria in the recent years. The criterion of future perspective is closely related to the
achievement and maintenance of the success of a project after its completion and during its operation phase.
Effectiveness (SC16) and suppliers’ satisfaction (SC17) are placed in the last positions of the final ranking cited by a
relatively small part of the considered literature (e.g. Atkinson, 1999; Turner and Müller, 2006; Khan et al., 2013;
Silva et al., 2016a).
Generally, it is observed that the criteria of time – schedule, cost – budget, quality – performance, stakeholders’
satisfaction and project team/personnel satisfaction are enclosed to five of the primary Knowledge Areas of project
management (time management, cost management, quality management, human resource management,
stakeholder management) as presented by Project Management Institute (PMBoK Guide, 2013). Moreover, the
general attempt for the broadening of the concept of project success and the high necessity of adoption of additional
success criteria, as originated from the considerations of the corresponding literature, are clearly verified by the
results of the research.
Table 2 summarizes the 15 most significant critical success factors exported form literature review. Top 15 CSFs
Table 2. The 15 most significant critical success factors in the corresponding literature

Frequency of Frequency of
Critical Success Factors reference/ Critical Success Factors reference/
occurrence occurrence

Project mission, project goals &

objectives, project scope, project Social environment, social factors,
48 24
definition/perception, project vision social support (CSF9)
(CSF1)
Top/senior management support,
Monitoring & feedback, feedback
top/senior management support 42 23
abilities (CSF10)
commitment (CSF2)
Risk
Project communication, confrontation/evaluation/analysis/
communication/information identification, project risk
37 21
systems/channels/procedures, internal management, project
project communication (CSF3) management training, project risks
(CS11)

280
 REAL ESTATE AND LAND PLANNING 2018
Available online at https://ejournals.lib.auth.gr/reland

Project planning/monitoring/control, Project organizational structure,

monitoring & control, project project organization structure,
36 20
monitoring/control organizational policy/philosophy
mechanisms/systems/procedures (CSF4) (CSF12)
Project manager/team leader Economic environment, economic
competence & relative/past experience 33 factors/risks, national economy 20
(CSF5) (CSF13)
Technological environment,
modern/advanced/appropriate
technology, automatization, technology Project team/team members
knowledge/transfer, knowledge & 26 competence & effectiveness 20
expertise utilization/support, technology (CSF14)
level/availability, technological
advancement (CSF6)
Project finance/funding, project Project personnel, project
economics/budget, personnel ability/quality,
adequate/guaranteed project funding, 25 adequate/skilled project 19
reliable funding source, project cash- personnel, project personnel
flows (CSF7) issues (CSF15)
Political environment, political
stability/instability, political risks, Project size/value/complexity,
24 19
political factors, political influences project duration (CSF16)
(CSF8)

It is obvious that the two most cited critical success factors in the corresponding literature are project mission/goals
and objectives (CSF1) and top/senior management support (CSF2) (e.g. Silva et al., 2016b; Yong and Mustaffa, 2017).
Project mission is thought to be one of the most important parameters in a project enclosing the determination of
its scope, directions, goals and objectives. The proper definition of the project and its goals and objectives among all
stakeholders is a prerequisite for its success. Also, the support from top/senior management and the commitment
of the senior organizational executives provide a special meaning to a project and can significantly increase the
possibility of its success from the early development stages.
Indexing
Moreover, the factors of project communication (CSF3), project planning/monitoring/control (CSF4), and project
manager/leader competence and experience (CSF5) are placed in very high positions in the final ranking according
to the quantitative index of reference/occurrence frequency (e.g. Alias et al., 2014; Montequin et al., 2014; Osei-
Kyei and Chan, 2015; Silva et al., 2016b; Yong and Mustaffa, 2017). The first two critical success factors are associated
with basic processes of a project and can play an important role in its evolution route. It should be highlighted that
the proper and accurate project monitoring and control give the opportunity to the project manager and each
stakeholder to get informed about the progress of project execution so as to be ready to intervene in case of
potential deficiencies or omissions. Also, the internal and external communication of a project is a top priority and
intention by all project stakeholders during all its lifecycle. On the contrary the project manager/leader competence
and experience refers to the so-called human factor of project management. The human element tends to be a very
decisive parameter for the achievement of project success. It is also noted that the project manager is proved to
have a greater impact on project success compared to the traditional technical success factors.
Technological environment (CSF6), project funding/economics (CSF7), political environment (CSF8), social
environment (CSF9) and economic environment (CSF13) occupy relatively high positions in the table and consist the
concept of the external environment that surrounds every project (e.g. Alias et al., 2014; Montequin et al., 2014;

281
 REAL ESTATE AND LAND PLANNING 2018
Available online at https://ejournals.lib.auth.gr/reland

Osei-Kyei, 2015; Silva et al., 2016b; Yong and Mustaffa, 2017). The external environment is separated by the majority
of researchers for many years, because it reflects the general conditions in which every project should be adapted
and continuously develop. As a consequence, such factors can dramatically influence the performance of a project
at all stages of its lifecycle.
A particular reference is made for the project team (project team competence, project personnel), to which the
successful or not completion of a project is mainly attributed (e.g. Ofori, 2013; Wai et al., 2013; Montequin et al.,
2014; Silva et al., 2016b).The members of the project team should have the proper managerial and technical
competencies in order to carry out the project as it was planned and designed.
The other ranked success factors presented in Table 2, such as monitoring and feedback (CSF10), project risk
management (CSF11), project organization structure (CSF12), and project characteristics (CSF16) refer to main
internal processes and the general structure of a project (e.g. Khan et al., 2013; Ofori, 2013; Wai et al., 2013; Alias
et al., 2014; Silva et al., 2016b; Yong and Mustaffa, 2017). It should also be highlighted that project risk management
tends to be one of the most contemporary issues concerning the construction field and modern project
management.
In general context, project definition, top/senior management support and project communication constitute the
most cited and significant factors that can influence the success of a project. Furthermore, the external environment
is a critical success factor distinguished by the literature many decades ago, which should be carefully examined
before and during project development.

4. Conclusions
Project success is undoubtedly one of the most discussed issues with intensive research activity in the modern
academic field of project management. However, a commonly acceptable definition of project success has not been
detected until nowadays. Project success criteria and critical success factors constitute the two fundamental
components of project success. Success criteria are the dependent variables that measure and evaluate project
success, whilst critical success factors are the independent variables that can influence and increase the likelihood
of project success respectively. The present paper attempts to systematically study and record the project success
criteria and critical success factors through an extensive academic research in the project management literature.
The first finding of the detailed research is that time – schedule, cost – budget and quality – performance are the
three most cited and significant success criteria in the considered literature followed by the relatively contemporary
criterion of client/user satisfaction. It is also noted that these criteria constitute the traditional framework of project
success evaluation. Furthermore, the most important critical success factors from the literature review are project
definition, top/senior management support and project communication, while special attention should also be paid
to the external environment of a project. Finally, the quantitative index of reference/occurrence frequency was used
as a means of the evaluation of the significance of the examined success criteria and factors.

Acknowledgements

This research has been financially supported by General Secretariat for Research and Technology (GSRT) and the
Hellenic Foundation for Research and Innovation (HFRI) (Scholarship Code: 2343).

282
 REAL ESTATE AND LAND PLANNING 2018
Available online at https://ejournals.lib.auth.gr/reland

References
Alias, Z., Zawawi, E.M.A., Yusof, K., Aris, N.M., (2014) ‘Determining critical success factors of project management practice: A
conceptual framework’, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 153, p.61-69.
Al-Tmeemy, S.M.H.M., Abdul-Rahman, H., Harun, Z., (2011) ‘Future criteria for success of building projects in Malaysia’,
International Journal of Project Management, 29(3), p.337-348.
Atkinson, R., (1999) ’Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it’s time to accept other
success criteria’, International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), p.337-342.
Baccarini, D., (1999) ’The logical framework method for defining project success’, Project Management Journal, 30(4), p.25-32.
Baker, B.N., Murphy, D.C., Fisher, D., (1983) ‘Factors affecting project success’ in. Cleland, D.I., King, W.R., (ed.) Project
Management Handbook, New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, pp.669-685.
Belassi, W., Tukel, O.I., (1996) ‘A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in projects’, International Journal
of Project Management, 14(3), p.141-152.
De Wit, A., (1988) ‘Measurement of project success’, Project Management Journal, 6(3), p.164-170.
Freeman, M., Beale, P, (1992) ‘Measuring project success’, Project Management Journal, 23(1), p.8-18.
Ika, L.A., (2009), ‘Project success as a topic in project management journals’, Project Management Journal, 40(4), p.6-19.
Khan, K., Turner, J.R., Maqsood, T., (2013) ‘Factors that influence the success of public sector projects in Pakistan’, Eleventh
International Research Network on Organizing by Projects (IRNOP 2013) Conference, “Innovative Approaches in Project
Management”, June 17-19, Oslo, Norway, (p.1-25).
Lim, C.S., Mohamed, M.Z., (1999) ‘Criteria for project success: an exploratory re-examination’, International Journal of Project
Management, 17(4), p.243-248.
Montequin, V.R., Cousillas, S., Ortega, F., Villanueva, J., (2014) ‘Analysis of the success factors and failure causes in Information
& Communication Technology (ICT) projects in Spain’, Procedia Technology, 16, p.992-999.
Mukhtar, M.M., Amirudin, R., (2016) ‘The Success Criteria of Public Housing Project in Nigeria’, International Journal of Built
Environment and Sustainability, 3(2), p.102-110.
Müller, R., Jugdev, K., (2012) ’Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin, and Prescott - the elucidation of project success’,
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(4), p.757-775.
Munns, A. K., Bjeirmi, B. F., (1996) ‘The role of project management in achieving project success’, International Journal of Project
Management, 14(2), p.81-87.
Nguyen, T.A., Chovichien, V., Takano, S.E., (2013) ‘Quantitative Weighting for Evaluation Indexes of Construction Project Success
by Application of Structural Equation Modeling’, International Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2(3), p.70-
84.
Ofori, D.F., (2013) ‘Project management practices and critical success factors - a developing country perspective’, International
Journal of Business and Management, 8(21), p.14-31.
Osei-Kyei, R., Chan, A.P.C., (2015) ‘Review of studies on the Critical Success Factors for Public-Private Partnership (PPP) projects
from 1990 to 2013’, International Journal of Project Management, 33(6), p.1335-1346.
Pinto, J.K., Slevin, D.P., (1988a) ‘Project success: definitions and measurement techniques’, Project Management Journal, 19(1),
p.67-73.
Project Management Institute – PMI, (2013) A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK). 5th ed. Newtown
Square: Project Management Institute.

283
 REAL ESTATE AND LAND PLANNING 2018
Available online at https://ejournals.lib.auth.gr/reland

Serrador, P., Turner, J.R., (2014) ‘The relationship between project success and project efficiency’, Procedia - Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 119, p.75-84.
Silva, G.A.S.K., Warnakulasuriya, B.N.F., Arachchige, B.J.H., (2016a) ‘Criteria for Construction Project Success: A Literature Review’,
Thirteenth International Conference on Business Management (ICBM), December 07-08, Colombo, Sri Lanka (13, p.697-717).
Silva, G.A.S.K., Warnakulasuriya, B.N.F., Arachchige, B.J.H., (2016b) ‘Critical Success Factors: En Route for success of construction
projects’, International Journal of Business & Social Science, 7(3), p.27-37.
Thomas, G., Fernández, W., (2008) ‘Success in IT projects: A matter of definition?’, International journal of Project Management,
26(7), p.733-742.
Turner, J.R., (2009) The Handbook of Project Based Management: Leading Strategic Change in Organizations. 3rd ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Turner, J.R., Müller, R., (2006) Choosing Appropriate Project Managers: Matching their Leadership Style to the Type of Project.
Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.
Wai, S.H., Yusof, A.M., Ismail, S., Ng, C.A., (2013) ‘Exploring success factors of social infrastructure projects in Malaysia’,
International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 5(2), p.1-9.
Wai, S.H., Yusof, A.M., Ismail, S., Ng, C.A., (2013) ‘Exploring success factors of social infrastructure projects in Malaysia’,
International Journal of Engineering Business Management, 5(2), p.1-9.
Wai, S.H., Yusof, A.M., Ismail, S., (2012) ‘Exploring success criteria from the developers' perspective in Malaysia’, International
Journal of Engineering Business Management, 4, p.1-9.
Westerveld, E., (2003) ‘The project excellence model: Linking success criteria and critical success factors’, International Journal of
Project Management, 21(6), p.411-418.
Yong, Y.C., Mustaffa, N.E., (2017) ‘Critical Success Factors for Malaysian Construction Projects: An Investigative Review’,
International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability, 4(2), p.93-104.

284