Effect of project management tools and techniques on project success

Yacoub Petro1

1
Director of Project Management MWH Middle East, email: yacoub.petro@mwhglobal.com,
P.O. Box 3020 Dubai

Abstract
The pressure on organizations to achieve a minimum level of success and growth in a very competitive
market is high. In this regards, this research studies the direct relationship between the usage of those
appropriate project management tools and techniques (practices) and the success of projects taking into
account the engineering and construction industry. The study concludes that the project managers and
the organization should be aware of the project success criteria, determine the appropriate tools and
techniques for it, and then have them imbedded into the project documents/specifications and
requirements, whether these documents were internal or external to the organization. A PMC can assume
the responsibility of monitoring the implementation of these practices. The research also concludes that
the organizational support for these practices breeds consistency in the subsystems and enhances
success. A qualitative approach was used to determine the most commonly perceived tools as important
for success, the following came into play: (1) Gantt chart, (2) work breakdown structures, (3) bottom up
estimating, (4) contingency plans, (5) change requests, (6) progress report, (7) quality plan/ inspection,
(8) kick-off meeting and (9) activity list.
KEYWORDS: Project Management Company, tools and techniques, project success

Background
Projects reflect the organizations’ means to achieve strategy and set path to progress
towards their strategic direction (Morris & Pinto 2007). They are key for the organization
to compete in the market, survive and grow. Projects constitute the “building blocks” for
the project-based organization (Grundy 2000). Therefore, ensuring their successful
delivery will comfort owners, stakeholders and shareholders and infuse trust into the
delivery body. The delivery body in this case could be the organization itself or a Project
Management Company (PMC) hired for this purpose. Such success, along with the
ongoing good performance of projects, does not only stimulate the organization’s
growth and comfort owners, it well permeates that required level of confidence amongst
the public.
Scholars pursued to define, analyze and breakdown success as a construct into several
components to facilitate its understanding, understand its constituents, and the factors
which could influence them. This pursuit may not be possible in a practical life cycle of a
project for there are plenty of factors and sudden unplanned events that may subvert
the hard work of the team. An ongoing study, and a project on case by case basis may
need to be taken into account. Therefore, and to respond on the continuous quest for
project success, this paper aims to research the usage of tools and techniques and their
importance and relation to the project success in the engineering industry.
A rich array of tools and techniques used to manage projects has recently emerged
from various research studies and project needs. The number of those tools exceeded

1
Yacoub.petro@mwhglobal.com
70 by far since the publication of the first few editions of the PMBOK Guide. It becomes
imperative to identify those tools and techniques that positively affect project
performance, set KPI’s at the outset of the project to use them, and advise the
organization to insert them into any project document – whether this document was for
internal use such as a policy, or external use such as a tender or a contract document.
The project success definition varies between organizations, but they all converge into
one; implementing strategy. The organization itself, or a PMC working on the behalf of
the organization, may need to work very closely with the organization to define what
success means for them. After which, some more research could go into how this
success could be achieved. This may end up by having special types of carefully
selected tools to be embedded into the project specification with a dashboard linked to
key stakeholders and project sponsors with the appropriate levels of access.

Previous research on project success

Plenty of studies and research materials were produced on the subject of success with
a scope to examine the empirical correlation between success and the influencers of
success. For example, a relationship was established between project success and the
organizational structure of the organization delivering the project (Grey et al 1990) – i.e.
functional, matrix, projectized (Gobeli & Larson 1985). Project success has also been
tested against the existence of some certain governance structures within the
organization, such as the existence of a steering committee that takes care of the
strategy and align resources to projects accordingly (Lechler & Dvir 2010). Other
studies linked success to the proficiency of the organizational procurement strategies
(Morledge et al 2006). And some others, similar to the scope of this paper, linked it to
the successful usage, and the organizational support, for the proper project
management tools and techniques (White & Fortune 2002; Besner & Hobbs 2006;
Besner & Hobbs 2008).

Problem
In order to enhance the chances of success, organizations tend to invest heavily in
some project management tools. They consider that this investment goes towards
ensuring sustainability and assisted growth for the organization. Project managers on
the other hand, may not apply these tools appropriately and use these practices (when
combined with techniques) on ad hoc basis. They seem to not fully realize the
relationship between tools and success. As a result project managers waste their – and
their resources’ – time and direct the organization into placing their investments in the
wrong pockets of tools. A dashboard that is usually presented to management may
assist in ensuring the proper and timely application of the relevant and selected tools.

Aim
The aim of this research is to understand how project management tools and
techniques are vital to, and could enhance the performance and ensure project
success. This research is proposed to target the engineering and construction industry.

Objectives and Scope

In order to achieve the research aim, the following objectives were identified:

2|Page
 - Identify the criteria used for defining the project success factors;
- Explore the variety of project management tools and techniques in use;
- Identify which of the explored tools and techniques have the most potential for
enhancing project performance in the engineering industry;
- Identify which is the best set of tools and techniques that yields to an attractive
return on investment for the organization.
Research Question
In order to direct organizations towards the best project management tools and
techniques; this research will try to answer on the following question: how does project
management tools and techniques affect project success in the engineering
industry? The research will further explore the best tools and techniques that should be
utilized in the engineering industry. Those tools presented here could well be open for
further interpretation, debate, and more discussions as each project (being unique per
definition – PMBOK) may require a different set of tools to apply to.

Tools and Techniques

Plenty of Researchers have proven that good project management practices should
enhance project success (White & Fortune 2002; Besner & Hobbs 2006; Besner &
Hobbs 2008; Raz & Michael 2001; Thamhain 1998). PMBOK Guide contains several,
agreed on, project management practices, tools and techniques, but clearly states that
the existence of such practices does not imply that they “should always be applied
uniformly to all projects; the project management team [should be] responsible for
determining [the appropriate tools] for any given project” PMI (2004, p.3).
It becomes important at this point to set a demarcation line and define what a “tool” is
and what a “technique” could be. Tools of project management are those tangible, able
to touch, tools, software, forms and templates which assist in defining, codifying and
logging and monitoring the necessary project management practices. Such tools could
be a change order form, a Gantt chart or a WBS monitoring software. A technique, on
the other hand, is an intangible production of a practice such as a methodology, or a
way of applying a tool or a practice. Techniques could be in the form of having a
methodology of applying changes to projects, the communication protocols via either
reporting or meeting stakeholders. For the purpose of this research, both “tools” and
“techniques” were combined and used together in the entire paper as they are
intertwined per definition.
Many tools and techniques are being used to enhance the value delivery for projects;
such as the value analysis tools and value engineering techniques. Some other tools
allow the project manager to measure and monitor cost and time efficiencies, such as
the earned value management tools and techniques. Those tools, and the like, provide
project managers with the appropriate information for better decision making – i.e.
perceived by project managers to be decision making tools (Benser & Hobbs 2006).
Beside these decision making tools, there are other tools and techniques which are
perceived by project managers to have a direct value and a great potential in
contributing to and enhancing the project success, such as the risk management tools

3|Page
(Raz & Michael 2001), and plenty of other tools mentioned in Thamhain (1998).
However, Thamhain (1998) concluded that the participation those tools have towards
project success depends on the experience of practitioners in using the assigned tools
plus the team-buy into those tools.
The framework of this literature review follows on Besner & Hobbs (2006) research,
which surveyed and investigated a large sample of project managers and the perceived
value of project management practices to project success. The sample of his research
included 753 project managers working in various industries and of a various project
sizes. Table 1 summarizes the 70 tools and techniques used in Benser & Hobbs (2006)
study in a descending order depending on their average usage and perception of their
importance. These 70 items have been mostly collected from the PMBOK Guide in its
various editions.
The PMBOK Guide advices on the usage of certain tools and techniques, but it does not
specify which of those tools would enhance project performance to be considered as
the most valuable amongst the rest in different sectors. Thamhain (1998) concluded that
the project manager’s experience in utilizing such tools should enhance the project
performance towards success. Besner & Hobbs (2006) called them the organization’s
“strategic valuable assets”, Nonaka (1994) and Koskinen (2003) emphasized on their
importance, when properly understood and integrated into the business, and claimed
that they assist in the buildup of the business’s tacit knowledge. Such knowledge,
combined with the operational complexity of the organization creates a subsystem that
is hard to imitate by competitors.
Organizational support for the selection and usage of a proper set of a “mutually
compatible” tools and techniques is required. Project managers’ training and guidance
for the less experienced managers is required to guarantee the proper usage of those
tools (Milosevic & Patanakul 2005). Besner & Hobbs (2008) concluded that there is a
balance between what practitioners want in terms of project management tools, and
what the organization does support especially in mature organizations. Their research
revealed that there is a “very significant difference in the practice of project
management in mature and less mature organizations” (Besner & Hobbs 2008, p.25),
and that there will always be some desired tools and techniques in the less mature
organizations that are not supported by the organization in any form, but still
experienced project managers in that organization use them anyway provided that the
sole support for such tools wouldn’t impose extra burden to the project. They also
concluded that more mature organizations tend to have more support, frequency and
usage for the project management tools and techniques than less mature organizations
with small projects on board.
Other factors that affect the perceived value of tools and techniques are the project size,
duration and type. It has been claimed by various researchers (White & Fortune 2002;
Besner & Hobbs 2006; Besner & Hobbs 2008) that the smaller the size of the project
the lesser the frequency of usage, and the lesser the perceived importance of project
management tools and techniques contribution to project success would be.

4|Page
Table 1: Tools & tech. in decreasing order in average use, Besner & Hobbs (2006)
From Limite d to Exte n sive Use
Progress report
Kick-off meeting
PM software for task scheduling
Gantt chart
Scope stat ement
Milestone planning
Change request
Requirement analysis
Work Breakdown Structure
St at ement of work
Activity list
PM software for monit oring of
schedule
Lesson learned/ post -mortem
Baseline plan
Client acceptance form
Qualit y inspection
PM software for resource scheduling
Project charter
Responsibility assignment matrix
Customer satisfact ion survey
Communication plan
T op-down estimat ing
Risk management documents
From Ve ry Limi te d to Limite d Use Le ss than Ve ry Limi te d Use
Cont ingency plans Life Cycle Cost (“ LCC”)
Database of cont ractual commitment
Re-baselining
data
Cost/ benefit analysis Probabilist ic duration estimate (PERT )
Critical path method and analysis Quality function deployment
Bottom up estimating Value analysis
T eam member performance appraisal Database of risks
T eam building event T rend chart of S-Curve
Work authorization Control charts
Self-directed work teams Decision tree
Ranking of risks Cause and effect diagram
Financial measurement tools Critical chain method and analysis
Quality plan Pareto diagram
Bid documents PM software for simulat ion
Feasibility study Monte-Carlo analysis
Configuration review
Stakeholder analysis
P M software for resource leveling
P M software for monitoring of cost
Network diagram
P roject communication room (war
room)
P roject website
Bid/seller evaluation
Database of historical dat a
P M software mult i project
scheduling/leveling
Earned value
P M software for cost est imating
Database for cost estimat ing
Database for lessons learned
P roduct Breakdown Structure
Bidders conferences
Learning curve
P arametric est imating
Graphic presentation of risk
information
5|Page
Project Success
Having discussed the importance of project tools and their influence on project success,
it is imperative to understand how scholars and practitioners defined project success.
Project success has been an ongoing subject of research since long time; researchers
identified plenty of its criteria, and researched and tested the external and internal
variables that can affect it in different contextual perceptions (Lim & Mohamed 1999).
White & Fortune (2002) research concluded that project success criteria should be
measured against the satisfaction of the agreed on scope, cost and time – the “golden
triangle” as describe by Gardiner (2000, p.251). This measure, however, has been
described by Graham and Cohen (2005) by the old approach. Other newer approaches
relate projects success to their contribution to the business.
Other project success criteria as defined by White & Fortune (2002) calls for: meeting
the objectives of the organization, yielding to other business benefits, minimizing
disruption to the business, satisfying quality and meeting health and safety
requirements. PMBOK latest edition added few more such as the stakeholders’
satisfaction. Grey et al (1990), in their research, which linked project success to the
organizational structure, used the triple constraint as a criteria to measure project
success and added to that the technical and commercial performances of the project.
Lechler & Dvir (2010), similar to Shenhar et al (1997) and Shenhar et al (2001), followed
lead but included criteria related to business and economic growth, defying the old
school of project success approach.
With the proliferation of research that discusses project success and its criteria, Munns
& Bjeirmi (1996) differentiated between two major categories of project success. These
categories encompass most of the approaches to project success so far: (1) the short
term project success criteria target the success of the project in terms of meeting
budget, scope and time but excludes the success of the business or the organization
itself, (2) the long term success criteria on the other hand measure the growth of the
business and the achievement of the organizational strategy. Cooke-Davis (2004)
further created three levels for project success, which coincided nicely with the previous
categories of success, those are as follows: (1) doing projects right (similar to short term
success), (2) doing the right projects for the business (similar to long term success), and
(3) doing them right time after time (similar to long term success).
Serrador & Turner (2015) distinguished between a project efficiency, which is the
efficient delivery of a project in terms of the “golden triangle” and the newly added
criteria to it (short term success), and project effectiveness, which relates to the
effectiveness of the project in achieving the strategic intent of the organization (long
term success). In their study they surveyed 1,386 projects, and their analysis
established a relationship between the project efficiency and effectiveness. The analysis
showed that 36% of the change that occur in effectiveness (long term strategic success)
is attributed to the project efficiency (short term success).
This research concerns linking tools and techniques with the short terms success only.
Considering Serrador & Turner’s research, it can be posited in this research that those
tools and techniques which help in stimulating the short term project success (project

6|Page
efficiency), will have a slight – but a significant – effect on the strategic success of the
organization.

Conceptual Framework and Propositions

The framework of this research includes tools and techniques of project management
on the one hand and the project success on the other hand. The relationship between
those two ends are affected by variables such as: organizational maturity, project size,
project duration, project type, project manager experience, awareness to the concept of
success and the organizational support to the important tools and technique. Figure 1
portrays the conceptual framework in a schematic format for ease of conceptualization.
Figure 1: Conceptual framework
Project
Project Success Management Tools
and Techniques

Methodology
The methodological strategy of this research is based on a constructivist epistemology
viewed from an idealistic ontological stance; i.e. the research intends to explore project
managers’ level of understanding of project success and its relation to tools and
techniques by constructing meanings and interpretations based on the participants’
views. The ontological stance calls for idealism, which relates the subject of research to
the representations constructed and shared by the research participants and allowed
generalizability. An induction to the theory of research is used to generalize participants’
views and produce a theory backed up by a qualitative model. A plenty of room was left
for participants to this research to comment and provide their set of beliefs and actual
practices into the proposed theory. The qualitative approach assisted in conceptualizing
the theory that helped on spotting the alignment of those propositions in the literature.

7|Page
A set of semi-structured questionnaire was prepared to satisfy the selected approach.
This questionnaire was in full alignment with the conceptual framework and the
research proposition – Appendix A. To ensure, and to enhance the consistency and
proficiency of the research, five very experienced project managers were identified and
interviewed as part of this research.
The unit of analysis of this research was the project managers backed up with their
experience in executing large and mega projects. The intention behind the
questionnaire was to test the knowledge and experience of each of those research
participants and relate them to the conceptual framework.
The questions presented to the participants covered items which test the project
manager’s level of understanding and awareness in relation to project success, it also
involved items which covered the other parts of the framework relevant to project
success. There were questions which targeted the perception of organizational maturity
and organizational support for using those tools of project management as well. The
selected project managers were also asked to pick up on a failed project, elaborate on
it, and identify which project tools and techniques could have been used in the hindsight
that could have prevented it from failure.

Data Analysis, Findings and Discussions

Five PMP certified project managers with 15 years of experience, as a minimum
criterion, in managing engineering projects were interviewed. The set of semi-structured
questions which was developed as part of the literature and the methodological
framework was used during the interviews. Each interview lasted for one to one and a
half hours. The interviewees were given the full freedom to elaborate on the subject
questions, provide examples and express their own feelings based on their experience
towards any question item.
All Project Managers expressed a professional degree of understanding in relation to
the various levels and definitions of project success and its criteria with most of the
received answers coincided with the literature review.
Project Manager PM2 had an interesting definition for project success, which emanated
from his “knowledge management” background. He measured the development in the
team capabilities and competencies during and after achieving the project outcomes,
considering it as a part of project success. Such knowledge, as he claims, will assist the
team in executing future similar projects and will strengthen the organization’s strategic
position in the marketplace, and will guarantee future successes and return clients.
The triple constraints of cost, time and scope have been agreed on by all research
participants as the prime measures of the short term project success. As for the long
term project success; most of the project managers linked it with the overall success of
the organization, its growth and development. Project Manager PM1 added that project
success criteria should be determined at the onset of the project, he emphasized that
such criteria should be brainstormed with the project team and stakeholders. The
outcome of this brainstorming session “will determine the proper success criteria for the

8|Page
project under discussion, the project manager will then have to comply with it whether it
should include long term benefits for the organization or not”.
Most of the project managers agreed that project success relates to the usage of proper
tools and techniques. However, they imposed few conditions which may hamper this
relation if not complied with. Such as securing the team buy-in to the process of using
those tools; the team’s commitment and appropriate usage of the selected tools is of an
utmost importance to guarantee the best project performance. The interviewees also
stressed on the point that each project is in the matter of fact a unique endeavor, such
feature of the project grants the project its exclusivity when it comes to selecting the
proper tools and techniques that goes with it – an agreement was established that not
all projects are alike.
Project Manager PM1, trying to elaborate on the above, provided the following example:
When you are managing a project with global teams – a team located in Australia,
Canada and UK for example – the usage of a project website as a tool becomes of an
utmost importance to guarantee, or at least enhance the success of the project. In other
circumstances, having a website specially constructed for a project with a local team and
some normal construction site is just a waste of time and money and will guarantee you
nothing.

Short term and long term project success criteria are not mutually exclusive, as claimed
by Project Manager PM4. Although each has different tools and techniques to achieve,
it has been asserted by this participant that project short term success may affect the
long term success and vice versa. The tools and techniques that can affect project
performance in the long run are: stakeholder analysis, project charter, data base of
estimates and feasibility study as agreed between PM2, 3 and 4. PM 5 added to them
lessons learned and client acceptance forms as they can be used for marketing
purposes and to leverage the relationship with other prospective clients.
Organizational support for project management tools and techniques is favorable but
not a must to guarantee the success of its projects. Project Manager PM1 however did
not agree with the organization’s necessity to support critical tools to enhance success
claiming that such tools are easy to create, and, as thus, can be supported by any
experienced project manager. Other project managers insisted that a project manager
should sustain a minimum amount of experience in order to support those needed tools
without the support of the organization.
…the experienced project manager can support any tool without the need of the
organization to support it. However, the busy project manager will be better of resolving
conflicts and project issues rather than wasting his time creating and supporting the
needed tools on excel sheets. (The interview with Project Manager PM4)

Project Manager PM3 explicated that the organizational support for those important
tools breeds consistency within the organization, and consistency generates team buy-
in to the process of using those tools and techniques. Such buy-in stimulates the
relation between those important tools and project success as agreed by most of the
research participants in a different earlier analysis.

9|Page
Almost all participants did not relate project size, type and duration to the number,
frequency of usage and value of the tools and techniques. This in fact contradicts with
Besner & Hobbs (2008, p.31) research which concluded that “large projects and
projects in mature organizations make much greater use of traditional project
management tools and techniques … [and that] project management tools are generally
used less on small projects”. Reason could be attributed Besner & Hobbs (2008)
research generalization irrespective of any specific industry. Contrary to their research,
this research is an industry specific.
…we have projects with durations of less than 3 month - such as master plan building -
but so complex that a Gantt chart and other complex tools should be ready on board.
And we have other projects with durations that exceeds 2 years were we provide home
office support to an ongoing mega construction site, in such a case a cost monitoring
tool with quality inspections are sufficient from a design and support consultant point of
view. (The interview with Project Manager PM5)

Table 2 below provides a comparison between the interviewed project managers and
their perceived value for different tools and techniques, their usage and importance in
this type of industry.
of the company resources.
Table 2: Perceived importance and frequency of usage for the various tools and
techniques in the engineering industry.
Manager 1

Manager 2

Manager 3

Manager 4

Manager 5
Project

Project

Project

Project

Project
Gantt Chart x x x
Work breakdown structure x x x x x
Communication plan x x
Bottom up estimating x x x
Risk ranking/risk management x x
Contingency plans x x x
Change requests x x x
Baseline planning x x
Project Charter x
Activity list x x x
KO meeting x x x
Stakeholder analysis x x
Earned value management x
Progress report x x x x
Lessons learned x x
Scope statement x x
Work authorization x
Quality plan/inspection x x x x
Client acceptance forms x

10 | P a g e
Critical path analysis x
Milestone planning x
Responsibility assignment matrix x
Top down estimating x

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions
This study proposes a relationship between project management tools and techniques
and project success. Project managers on the other hand should be custodian of this
relationship for the benefit of the project. If the project manager sees that there is no
relationship of whatsoever behind such tools and success he may not have the best use
Project success was categorized into two major constructs; the short term and the long
term project success. It has been concluded that those two categories of success are
not mutually exclusive and that they in fact affect each other – supporting Serrador &
Turner (2015) quantitative research outcomes. The short term criteria commonly
measured with the known triple constraints of scope cost and time, and the long term
success measures the longer term effect on the organization and its growth and
success. The project success criteria has to be agreed on at the onset of each project
along with the key stakeholders and the project team, the project manager will have to
identify which tools and techniques to be used in order to make sure he meets the
agreed on criteria. Those tools better be imbedded in the project requirements
documents or specifications, whether such documents were internal to the organization,
such as a policy document, or an external document with the intention of tendering and
engaging the services of a contractor. The PMC in this case would take on the
responsibility of managing the implementation of those selected project practicies for
the betterment of the project and the organization.
There was an agreement amongst the research participants that some of the tools could
be relevant to short term success and others to the long term success. Stakeholder
analysis, various data bases and lessons learned could be used, with the support of the
team off course, to enhance the chances of the business growth.
Projects are unique, therefore, it was not possible to identify those tools and techniques
that mostly are relevant to project success for they have to be determined on a project
by project basis and should be aligned with the agreed on success criteria. However,
and by asking the project managers to identify the most frequently used tools in their
most successful projects; the study concluded that the following tools – which were
common in the replies of most the participants – and were perceived as important and
thus the organization should at minimum provide for the required support: (1) Gantt
chart, (2) work breakdown structures, (3) bottom up estimating, (4) contingency plans,
(5) change requests, (6) progress report, (7) quality plan/ inspection, (8) kick-off meeting
and (9) activity list. Other required and important tools could be determined on a project
by project basis.

11 | P a g e
The perceived importance of project tools and techniques, and their frequency of usage,
is not necessarily related to the size or the duration of the project, and as explained
previously, each project is unique, and its uniqueness grants it the exclusivity in using
any number of tools and techniques to stimulate success.
Recommendations
Drawing from the above research and conclusions, the following minimum
recommendations should be taken into consideration by the project-based organizations
and project managers working in the engineering industry:
- The project manager should be aware of how the proper usage of project
management tools and techniques can stimulate its success.
- The project manager should initiate a meeting with the project key stakeholders
and set up the criteria of project success and the tools and techniques that
should be used to achieve this success.
- The project manager should communicate with the project team at the beginning
of the project the agreed on success criteria and tools and techniques to be
used, such communication will guarantee the team buy-in to using those tools
and thus guarantee the agreed on success.
- Organizations working in the engineering industry should at least support the
following minimum tools: (1) Gantt chart, (2) work breakdown structures, (3)
bottom up estimating, (4) contingency plans, (5) change requests, (6) progress
reports, (7) quality plan/ inspection. Other required and important tools should be
determined on a project by project basis.
Areas for Future Research
This research focused on the engineering industry only, and previous research – as
discussed earlier - had a more of a general approach with no industry specific study
offered up to date. Therefore, it is proposed to touch on the same relationship in
different industries involved. The perceived importance of those tools and techniques
could be also studied in comparison between both the public and the private sector.

References
Besner, C. & Hobbs, B. (2006).The perceived value and potential contribution of project
management practices to project success. Project Management Journal, vol. 37(3), pp.
37-48.

Besner, C. & Hobbs, B. (2008).Project management practice, generic or contextual: a

reality check. Project Management Journal, vol. 39(1), pp. 16-33.

Cooke-Davis, T. (2004). Project success. In Morris, P.W.G & Pinto, J.K (Eds.), The
Wiley Guide to Managing Projects (pp.99-121). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Gardiner, P. D. & Stewart, K. (2000). Revisiting the golden triangle of cost, time and
quality: the role of NPV in project control, success and failure. International Journal of
Project Management. Vol. 42 (3), pp. 251-256.

12 | P a g e
Gobeli, D. & Larson, E. (1985). Relative effectiveness of different project structures.
Project management Journal, vol. 18(2), pp. 81-85.

Graham R.J. & Cohen, D. (2005). Beyond the triple constraints: developing a business
venture approach to project management. In Levine, H.A. (2005). Project portfolio
management, Jossey-Bass, pp. 463-473.

Gray, C., Dworatschek, S., Gobeli, D., Knoepfel, H. and Larson, E. (1990). International
comparison of project organization structures: use and effectiveness. Project
Management, vol. 8 (1), pp. 26-32.

Grundy, T. (2000). Strategic project management and strategic behavior, International

Journal of Project Management. Vol. 18(2), pp. 93-104.

Koskinen, K.U., Philatno, P. & Vanharanta, H. (2003). Tacit knowledge acquisition and
sharing in project work context. International Journal of Project Management, vol. 21,
pp. 281-290.

Lechler, T.G. & Dvir, D. (2010). An alternative taxonomy of project management

structure: linking project management structures and project success. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, vol. 57 (2), May, pp. 194-210.

Lim, C.S. & Mohamed, M.Z. (1999). Criteria of project success: an exploratory
examination. International Journal of Project Management. vol. 17(4), pp. 243-248.

Milosevic, D.Z. & Patanakul, P. (2005). Standardized project management may increase
development projects success. International Journal of Project Management, vol. 23,
pp. 181-192.

Morledge, R., Smith, A. & Kashiwagi, D. (2006). Building procurement. UK: Blackwell
Publishing.

Morris, P.G. & Pinto, J.K. (2007). Project program & portfolio management. New Jersey:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Munns, A.K. & Bjeirmi, B.F. (1996). The role of project management in achieving project
success. International Journal of Project Management. vol. 14(2), pp. 81-87.

Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation, Organization

Science, vol. 5(1), pp. 14-37.

Project Management Institute (2004). Project management body of knowledge (3rd

edition). Newton Square, PA: Author.

Serrador, P. & Turner, R. 2015. The relationship between project success and project
efficiency. Project Management Journal, vol. 46(1), 30-39.

13 | P a g e
Shenhar, A.J., Levy, O. & Dvir, D. (1997). Mapping the dimensions of project success.
Project Management Journal, vol. 28(2), pp. 5-13.

Shenhar, A.J., Dvir, D., Levy, O. & Maltz, A.C. (2001). Project success: a
multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Planning, vol. 34(6), pp. 688-725.

Thamhain, H.J. (1998). Integrating project management tools with the project team.
Proceedings of the 29th Annual PMI Seminars and Sympsium, Long Beach, CA.

Thamhain, H.J. (2004). Linkage of project environment to performance: lessons for

team leadership. International Journal of Project Management, vol. 22(7), pp. 533-544.

White, D. & Fortune, J. (2002). Current practice in project management – an empirical

study. Project Management Journal. vol. 20, pp. 1-11.

Appendix
The following questions have been used in this research:
Question 1: what do you think the project success factors are? How do you consider a
project is a failure or a success?
Question 2: do you think that the use of the attached project tools - Table 1 - and
techniques affect the project success? do you think that some of the tools are related to
short term success (level 1) and some other are related to long term success (level 2 &
3)?
Question 3: does the project manager and team experience in using the tools and
technique has any effect on the project success and how?
Question 4: what if the organization does not support some certain project tool that you
were in need for?
Question 5: how does the project size and duration affect the perceived importance of
project tools and techniques?
Question 6: indicate a project in your organization which was a complete failure, and
now, after having the complete knowledge of the project, you realized that a certain tool
should have been used more effectively?
Question 7: list down - of the attached list Table 1 - the applicable tools which you think
are most critical for the success of engineering projects?
Question 8: do you, as a project manager, consider long term success or short term
success in defining your own projects successes? who else helps you in defining these
criteria?

14 | P a g e