Understanding and aligning different stakeholder perspectives is crucial for achieving project success. This study explores how varying interpretations of project success criteria among senior management, project teams, and recipients can lead to project failure. A multiple stakeholder model is proposed to enhance collaboration and reduce the risk of unsuccessful outcomes.
Project management is a critical operational tool that organizations use to handle customized, one-off events across various functions. The effectiveness of project management lies in its ability to manage resources, tasks, activities, and associated timelines. However, project success is not uniformly defined, which has led to a high rate of perceived project failures. A study published in the International Journal of Project Management highlights that project failure often results from differing interpretations of success criteria among multiple stakeholder groups. This article aims to delve into these perceptions, examining how aligning stakeholder views can minimize project failure and enhance successful project outcomes.
Historically, project success has been measured using various instruments and methods, with Pinto and Slevin’s (1987) ‘diagnostic behavioral instrument’ being one of the most cited tools. However, this tool and others like it primarily focus on the project manager’s perspective, often neglecting the views of other key stakeholders such as senior management, the project core team, and project recipients. This oversight can lead to a misalignment in expectations and outcomes, contributing to the perception of project failure.
The failure of projects is a common concern in project management. For instance, the Standish Group (2012) found that 18% of projects fail outright, while 43% are challenged. KPMG (2013) reported similar findings, noting that only 33% of projects were completed on budget, 29% on time, and 35% to scope. These statistics highlight the need for a more inclusive approach to defining project success—one that incorporates the perspectives of all relevant stakeholder groups. By understanding and aligning the different views on what constitutes project success, organizations can reduce the likelihood of project failure.
The study identified communication as a common theme across five stakeholder groups (project manager, client, owner, user, and project team). However, the emphasis on other success dimensions varied among these groups. For example, project managers and users valued time, cost, and stakeholder satisfaction, while senior management focused on strategic benefits and top management support.
The absence of shared success dimensions among certain stakeholder groups, particularly between senior management and project recipients, was a significant finding. This lack of commonality suggests that different stakeholders may prioritize different project outcomes, leading to misaligned expectations and perceptions of success.
Stakeholders’ perceptions of success change throughout the project lifecycle. Clients, for instance, become more aware of their needs as the project progresses, which can result in conflicting requirements between them and project sponsors who set the initial project scope.
The study proposed new dimensions to measure project success, taking into account benefits to the stakeholder group, client/customer-specific issues, and the traditional metrics of time, cost, and quality.
%
According to the Standish Group’s 2012 CHAOS Report, only 39% of projects are considered successful, 43% challenged, 18% failing. Source: Standish Group, 2012 CHAOS Report
%
A McKinsey & Company report found that large IT projects run 45% over budget and 7% over time, while delivering 56% less value than predicted. Source: McKinsey & Company, 2012
The study emphasized the critical role of senior management in defining and supporting project success. Senior management’s involvement is crucial in setting realistic goals, allocating resources, and providing top management support. Similarly, the project core team’s engagement ensures that the project is executed effectively, with attention to detail and a focus on meeting project objectives.
A key outcome of the study was the proposal of a multiple stakeholder model that considers the diverse views of different stakeholder groups. This model aims to enhance the dynamic engagement of stakeholders, allowing for continuous collaboration, capturing changing priorities, and facilitating effective communication. By doing so, organizations can ensure that project success criteria are aligned with the expectations of all stakeholders, leading to more successful project outcomes.
Future research should continue to explore the perceptions of project success across a broader range of industries and project types. Additionally, empirical studies should be conducted to validate the proposed multiple stakeholder model and to refine the success dimensions identified. By doing so, project management as a discipline can develop more inclusive and effective strategies for managing complex projects, ultimately leading to higher rates of success and satisfaction among all stakeholders.
The study’s findings underline the need for a more holistic approach to project management—one that incorporates the perspectives of all relevant stakeholders. By understanding and addressing the different success dimensions valued by various stakeholder groups, organizations can minimize project failure rates and achieve more consistent project success. This approach not only aligns project outcomes with stakeholder expectations but also fosters a more collaborative and motivated project environment.
Our mastermind meetings are designed to provide a supportive and empowering space for female entrepreneurs to connect, collaborate, and overcome challenges together. As facilitators, we believe in fostering a culture of confidence, accountability, and growth.
Agile auditing transforms traditional audit processes by incorporating flexibility, collaboration, and continuous feedback. By working in short, iterative cycles called Sprints, audit teams can quickly adapt to changing risks, deliver timely insights, and align more closely with organizational priorities, enhancing both audit efficiency and value.
Agile Auditing blends speed and flexibility into traditional auditing, making the process more efficient and responsive. By breaking projects into small, manageable tasks, using roles like Scrum Master and Product Owner, and focusing on constant feedback, Agile ensures better communication, faster results, and continuous improvement in auditing practices.
Level Up Your QA Game: Mentoring Circles Empowering Quality Assurance ProfessionalsDiscover the Power of Collaboration, Knowledge Sharing, and Career GrowthOur mentoring program aims to foster a supportive and collaborative environment where QA professionals can learn...
Sustainable supply chain management integrates environmental and social considerations into operations, reducing negative impacts while enhancing business performance. It involves tools like supplier codes, audits, and collaboration, with companies such as Unilever, Coca-Cola, and IKEA leading by example. This approach is vital for mitigating risks and achieving long-term profitability.
Product safety and security in global supply chains face significant challenges due to their complexity, including risks of contamination, counterfeiting, and regulatory disparities. Industries such as food, pharmaceuticals, and medical devices are particularly vulnerable. Addressing these issues presents opportunities for research in regulation, traceability systems, and supplier management strategies.
Supplier audits are essential for ensuring quality, managing risks, and maintaining compliance in the supply chain. By conducting systematic evaluations of suppliers’ processes, products, and compliance with standards, organizations can mitigate potential disruptions, ensure product quality, and build stronger, collaborative relationships for long-term success.
The Innovation Compass is a self-audit tool designed to enhance new product development by assessing five key themes: structure, leadership, outputs, teams, and context. By identifying gaps between current and desired performance, it offers a flexible, context-driven framework for improving innovation capabilities in diverse organizational environments.
Product audits ensure product quality, consistency, and regulatory compliance across industries. Key standards influencing product audits include ISO 9001, IATF 16949, VDA 6.5, FDA regulations, and CE marking requirements. These frameworks establish guidelines for verifying product conformity, managing non-conformities, and maintaining high-quality standards in sectors like automotive, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and more.
We explore various types of product audits, including functional, quality, safety, regulatory compliance, customer satisfaction, environmental impact, ethical sourcing, product recall, and end-of-life audits. Each audit type assesses different aspects of a product’s lifecycle, ensuring performance, compliance, and sustainability while aligning with customer expectations and legal standards.
Process audits are evolving with trends like automation, AI, blockchain, and data analytics, enhancing accuracy and efficiency. Future audits will focus on continuous monitoring, risk-based approaches, and real-time insights. However, challenges in cybersecurity, data privacy, and auditor skill development will also shape the future of the field.
Process audits commonly reveal issues such as inadequate documentation, inconsistent procedures, resource inefficiency, and poor communication. Addressing these findings requires robust corrective actions, risk management, and continuous improvement efforts. Implementing effective corrective and preventive actions (CAPA) ensures compliance, reduces recurring issues, and enhances overall process performance.