We often hear or read about various successes. But what is success and what should be the use of organizations to identify performance? What factors lead to a successful project? The purpose of this article is to define the effectiveness of project tasks, clarify their differences with performance factors and analyze their importance in project management systems.
One of the most ambiguous concepts of project management is the success of the project. As each person or group of people participating in the project has different needs and expectations, it is highly unexpected that they interpret the project's performance in its own right (Cleland & Ireland, 2004, p2). "For those involved in the project, the thought of the project is usually considered successful in certain project objectives" (Lim & Mohamed, 1999, p244), but the public has different views, which are generally based on user satisfaction. The classic example of different project perspectives is the Sydney Opera House project (Thomsett, 2002), which went over the budget 16 times and took 4 times to finish than originally planned. But the ultimate effect of the opera house was so great that no one remembered the original lost goals. The project was a great success for the people and at the same time a major failure from project management issues. The Millennium Dome in London, however, was a timely and budget project, but in British people it was considered a failure because it did not release the fear and glamor it was supposed to create (Cammack, 2005). "Just as quality demands both compliance with specifications and ability to use, the success of the project needs to be composed of a successful product (service, performance, or revenue) and performance of the project management" (Duncan, 2004).
The difference between criteria and factors is fuzzy for many. Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary describes the criterion as "the standard in which you judge, decide or treat something" while an element is explained as a "fact or condition that affects the outcome of something". Lim and Mohamed applied these definitions to success and showed the difference as shown in Figure 1. It is clear that important factors can lead to many events that ultimately satisfy the overall performance criteria of the project, so they should not be used as synonyms.
Many performance critics have been introduced in recent decades by various scientists. The main performance criteria have been integrated with project management teaching that provided early project management definitions with the so-called Iron Triangle & # 39; performance criteria – cost, time and quality. (Atkinson, 1999, p338)
Atkinson continues that "project management has not really changed or developed success metrics in nearly 50 years". To address the urgent need to modernize the performance criteria for the date, he points to the "Square Route" (Figure 3) success criteria instead of the "Iron Triangle", where he categorizes the criteria proposed by other academies. Adding qualitative goals rather than quantitative, before gaining the benefits of a different group of people from the project, seen from two perspectives, one of the organizational charts and one of the stakeholders, it is evident that each part will benefit from projects. For example, one organization can achieve a profit by achieving strategic goals when a project is completed, while at the same time achieving a serious environmental impact on stakeholders & # 39; community, this means that a successful venture must be shared between the benefits of the end-user and end-user satisfaction. The fourth corner of the & r; fourth root & # 39; is the information system that includes the subject of maintenance, reliability, and value of the project.
One of the "roots" of the root, organizational benefits, drew much attention because it was important and it was further analyzed. Kerzner (2001, p. 6) suggests three organizational criteria for the project to be successful. Firstly, it must complete "with a minimum or parallel consent for change in scope", even though stakeholders often have different views on projects and "Results (Maylor, 2005, p288). Second," without disturbing the organization's main flow "because projects need to help organize day-to-day operations and try to make them more efficient and effective. Finally, it should be completed" without changing the corporate culture "despite the fact that projects are" almost exclusively " worried about change – by knocking down old and building new ones "(Baguley, 1995, p8) Project Manager is to make sure that he only changes where necessary, otherwise he is sentenced to find strong resistance from almost every organization (Kerzner, 2001, p. 158) that could potentially lead to project failure.
More Coherent Approach to Project Success Wideman (1996, p. 4) describes four groups, the time dependent on: "Internal project management (project effectiveness), benefit to customers (short-term efficiency), direct contribution (long-term ) and future opportunities (in the long run) ". Characteristics of time dependent on & # 39; is based on the fact that success varies over time. Looking to the future, the agency's benefits can be very difficult because in some cases they do not even know what they want, but it is important to know what the project is trying to achieve after the end of time so that the success criteria are clearly defined in the early stages. This is a somewhat different approach, as the emphasis is on the current performance criteria in the future, so the project cannot cope with implementation if it is judged by criteria such as cost and quality, but in the long run it may be a thriving story. A good example of this hypothesis is the hosting of the Olympics in Athens, Greece, which received a lot of criticism both during the schedule due to delays in construction and when it was completed due to high costs. But the benefits that Greece will receive from the Olympics can be fully understood after 5 or maybe 10 years from the hosting year (Athens2004.com).
All of the above performance criteria "should be simple and accurate and when defined, they should also be ranked by priority" (Right Track Associates, 2003). Easy assumptions are easy to understand by everyone involved in the project and therefore commitment is guaranteed. Unrealistic criteria can set "failure" and # 39; evidence of many projects due to unreachable standards, can create low team views and team achievements in future projects and ultimately create unfair disappointment among owners. In terms of priorities, things are inevitable, and the project manager will be in a difficult situation as he has to make the right decisions bearing in mind that he has to sacrifice the least important performance criteria.
As mentioned earlier, "success factors of the entry into a management system that lead directly or indirectly to the success of the project or business" (Cooke-Davies, 2002, p.). Some promoters "determine their intuitive and informal success of their own. If these factors are not defined and recorded, they are not part of the project management's formal reporting process or that they become part of the historical project data" (Rad & Levin, 2002, p. 18). Belassi & Tukel (1996, p144) categorized these elements into 5 different groups according to the factors they refer to:
1. Project Manager
Having a promoter is not to ensure that the success of the project is successful . He must have a number of skills to use in the project to guide the other team to complete all the goals. The 2001 CHAOS report (The Standish Group International, 2001, p. 6) identifies business, communication, responsiveness, processes, performance, operations, pragmatism, and technology as some of the most important talents the promoter should deliver. However, studies by Turner and Muller (2005, p. 59) have come to the conclusion that "managerial style and competence of the promoter has no impact on the performance of the project". It is very interesting to find out why a highly respected project manager body presents such a contrast. It is possible to find an answer that the project manager is difficult to prove and difficult to measure. If the project is successful, senior executives will probably argue that all external factors are favurable. On the contrary, if it relates to failure, the project manager will be easily flexible.
2. Project Manager
Project managers are very fortunate if they have the opportunity to choose their project team. More often, their team is inherited from the project from various areas of the organization. It is important to have a good project team to work with, core competencies that can be developed into core competencies and capabilities for the entire organization. All project members must strive for the success of the project and the overall role of the company. Regardless of their abilities and commitments, the project participants should have clear communication channels to access "both the executive director and the project manager within the federal agency." Effective management of this dual reporting is often an important success factor for the project "(PMBOK Guide, 2004, p215).
3. The project itself
Type of project suggests several factors It is important to succeed, For example, if the task is urgent, then an important factor in that case is that Wembley is expected to be the perfect operation for the month of the FA Cup in 2006 and that is the main goal, however, the cost "which has led managers calculations from the cold" (Evans, 2005) not been a major issue at that time. The size, value of the project and the uniqueness of the projects can be a mystery to the promoter used to plan and coordinate common and simple activities (Belassi & Tukel, 1996, p144).  4. Agency
Top Support for management is the main focus of participants in many independent races strangers groups (Tukel & Rom, 1998, p. 48) (CHAOS Report, 2001, p4) (Cleland and Ireland, 2002, p210) (Tinnirello, 2002, p. 14), which means that no project can be completed without the project manager ensuring true support from senior or business management. Working in a hostile environment is extremely difficult as no one understands the benefits that the project will bring to the organization. "Corporate governance and contractual practices (number and size of contracts, links between different contracts and contract management) are separate success factors that are also part of organizational issues" (Torp, Austeng & Mengesha, 2004, p. 4).
5. External environment
External environment can be a political, economic, social, and technical (PEST) context in which the project is conducted. Factors such as weather, work accidents or favorable or unfavorable government legislation can affect the project in all its forms. "Note that if a client is outside the company, he should also consider it an external factor affecting the performance of the project" (Belassi & Tukel, 1996, p. 145). Competitors should also be accountable as external factors that can ensure the success of the project because the original project could have overshadowed a more glamorous and effective project created by another agency.
It is important for the project manager to understand what the owners consider to be a successful project. In order to avoid a surprise at the end of the project, it is important to disclose different viewpoints of what the results mean before the project takes place. It is also important to keep in mind that the success criteria are the standard that the project will be judged while success is the facts that shape the performance of projects. Success criteria have changed dramatically over time and moved from the perspective of the classic iron ring for time, cost, and quality into a platformer framework that includes benefits for organization and user satisfaction. An additional framework was also described to achieve success criteria by time. In terms of success, they were categorized into five different sets and scientific considerations contradicted how important the project manager is to the final success of the project. A common feature mentioned by many authors is support for the project and is recognized as one of the most important elements of all. Finally, early definition of performance criteria can provide a clear view of how the project will be judged and early detection of performance factors will ensure a safe way to succeed.
1. Project Management Center Guide, 2004, 3rd Edition, Project Management, USA
2. Atkinson, 1999, Project Management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and phenomena, time to accept other performance requirements, the International Journal of Project Management Vol. 17, no. 6, p. 337-342, [Electronic]
3. Baguley, 1995, Management of Successful Projects: Guidelines for All Managing Directors, Pitman Publishing, London UK, p8
4. Belas & Tukel, 1996, New Framework for Determining Critical Performance Responses in Projects, International Journal of Project Management Vol. 14, no. 3, p. 141-151, [Electronic]
5. Cambridge University, Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary, 2005, 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press, UK
6. Cammack, 2005, Principles of Project Management – 1st Meeting, MSc in Project Management, Lancaster University
7. Cleland and Ireland, 2002, p210, Project Management: Strategic Design and Implementation, McGraw-Hill Professional, USA
8. Cleland & Ireland, 2004, Portable Handbook Project Manager, 2nd Edition, McGraw-Hill, USA, p. 210
9. Cooke-Davies, The "virtual" success factor in the projects, the International Journal of Project Management vol. 185-190, [Electronic]
10. Duncan, 2004, project definition and tracking, project management partners, [Online] Available: http://www.pmpartners.com/resources/defmeas_success.html [2005, Nov.4]
11. Evans, 2005, overdue and over budget, over and over again, The Economist, June 9, 2005, [Electronic]
12. Kerzner, 2001, Project Management – Methods of Planning, Planning and Control, 7th Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York
13. Kerzner, 2001, Project Management Project Management Strategy Program, Wiley & Sons, New York, p. 158
14. Lim & Mohamed, 1999, Project Performance Requirements: Research Experience Review, International Journal of Project Management Vol. 17, no. 4, p. 243-248, [Electronic]
15. Maylor, 2005, Project Management, Third Edition with CD Microsoft Project, Prentice Hall, UK, p288
16. Rad & Levin, 2002, Advanced Project Management Office, St.Lucie Press, USA, page 18
17. Right Track Associates, 2003, define project performance, [Online] Available: http://www.ittoolkit.com/cgi-bin/itmember/itmember.cgi?file=assess_pmsuccess.htm [2005, Nov.5 ]  18. The Official Website of the Olympic Games in Athens 2004, [Online] Available: [http://www.athens2004.com/en/Legacy] [2005, Nov.6]
19. The Standish Group International, 2001, Extreme CHAOS: The Standish Group International, [Electronic]
20. Thomsett, 2002, Radical Project Management, Prentice Hall, USA, p. 16
21. Tinnirello, 2002, New Project Management Guidelines, Auerbach, USA, p. 14
22. Torp, Austeng & Mengesha, 2004, Important success factors for project performance: A study from the final evaluation of large public projects in Norway
23. Tukel & Rom, 1998, Analysis of the Characteristics of a Variety of Industries, Journal of Operations Management, Vol 16, p. 43-61
24. Turner & Muller, 2005, project manager project manager as project success, project management, Vol. 36, no. 1, p. 49-61
25. Wideman, 1996, Improving PM: Linking Performance Criteria for Project Making, Paper Introduced in the South Alberta Section, Project Management Institute, Calgary Symposium