Article

Project Management Journal

Vol. 50(2) 1–16
Critical Success Factors for Project ª 2019 Project Management Institute, Inc.
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Manufacturing Environments DOI: 10.1177/8756972819827670
journals.sagepub.com/home/pmx

Antônio Carlos Pacagnella Jr.1, Sérgio Luis da Silva2, Ornella Pacı́fico3,

Paulo Sergio de Arruda Ignacio1, and Alessandro Lucas da Silva1

Abstract
The goal of this article is to identify and understand the relationship between the critical success factors (CSFs) of project
manufacturing environments and project performance. This article explores those relationships through the logistic regression
method, using a sample of 182 respondents and quantifying the influence of CSFs on success achievement in four dimensions
(efficiency, impact on consumers, impact on the team, and preparation for the future). The results show that not all CSFs are
significant in explaining project success. Thus, project managers must evaluate the influence of each one and consider it in their
decisions.

Keywords
critical success factors, project manufacturing, engineering to order

Introduction According to Rudberg and Wikner (2004), in this environ-

ment, the design, engineering, and production phases do not
Most of the world’s product manufacturing is performed by
start until after a customer order is confirmed. This approach is
systems based on large-scale production, with production lines
largely used to create products that are tailored for each cus-
or manufacturing cells generating a massive amount of a par-
tomer and is used in the manufacturing of several types of
ticular type of product. However, complex products for specific
products, especially capital goods.
purposes and of high levels of customization cannot be pro-
Project manufacturing often involves the execution of several
duced in this way. Instead, they require a different approach
projects at the same time, with each at a different stage, and
known as project manufacturing.
sharing resources in interactions that involve multiple parallel
According to Yang (2013), project manufacturing, also
and sequential activities in an environment of relative instability,
known as engineering to order (ETO), is associated with
where reality is complex and there is a low level of predictability
non-standardized production in highly complex and uncertain
(Fox, Jokinen, Lindfors, & Ylén, 2009). Typically, projects in
situations in which each product is the final result of a pro-
this environment involve activities of design, engineering, pro-
ject. Generally, ETO involves the production of fully custo-
curement, manufacturing, assembly, and commissioning, result-
mized items, usually in a few units or a single unit, through a
ing in products such as heavy machinery, ships, oil rigs, and
product project developed exclusively based on customer
others. However, each project presents a unique context, with
specifications.
specific objectives, actors, and restrictions (Mello, Strandhagen,
According to Hayes and Wheelwright (1979), project man-
& Alfnes, 2015). Therefore, it is a challenging environment in
ufacturing involves the production of large individual goods
terms of the complexity of products, with irregular demand for
such as production lines, submarines, cruise ships, aircraft car-
different items that require different production methods, and
riers, and space crafts. Project manufacturing is a production
manufacturing mode that takes development and production of
large and complex systems using project management for plan- 1
School of Applied Sciences - State University of Campinas, AL, USA
ning and execution. 2
Federal University of São Carlos - UFSCAR
3
To Rahim and Baksh (2003), this environment is character- University of São Paulo, Brazil
ized by a high level of customization, small batches (or even
Corresponding Author:
unitary ones), unusual work routines, non-dedicated production Antônio Carlos Pacagnella Jr., Pedro Zaccaria st., 1300, Limeira - SP,
resources, highly qualified personnel, and typically complex 13484-350.
and large products that are obtained by projects. Email: antonio.junior@fca.unicamp.br
2 Project Management Journal 50(2)
overlap between engineering and production activities (McGo-
vern, Hicks, & Earl, 1999). Moreover, projects developed in this
environment are subject to various risks and constraints in terms
of time, resources, and levels of quality.
To Fox et al. (2009), ETO is a complex, dynamic and multi-
project environment, with several projects executed to achieve
complicated products with unpredictable specifications and
constant changes of priorities. Thus, the endeavor to achieve
success in these enterprises demands knowledge of any ele-
ments that may influence it.
According to Carvalho, Oliveira, and Scavarda (2015), proj-
ect manufacturing has become increasingly important among
production systems, particularly for the delivery of customized
products. However, according to Gosling and Naim (2009), this
type of manufacturing environment has received less attention
from academia than productive systems for high volumes of
standardized products, such as make to stock (MTS).
Accordingly, the literature on project management has a line
of study that deals with so-called critical success factors
(CSFs), a term that was first used by Rockart (1979) to desig-
nate the “vital elements” for the success of any project. Accord-
ing to Inayat, Melhem, and Esmaeily (2014), there is consensus
among researchers that much of the success of projects rests on
the presence or absence of CSFs, which according to the
authors, should be carefully observed by managers because
of their impact on project performance. However, despite the
recognized relevance of CSFs, there are few studies aiming to
provide sets of CSFs for specific projects, and even fewer
studies that have sought to identify empirically the relation
between these factors and the success of projects (Ika, Diallo,
& Thullier, 2012). Specifically, in project manufacturing, the
scientific literature presents a lacuna on the subject, with no
works demonstrating the CSFs that can influence the perfor-
mance of projects carried out in this environment.
Considering this context, the general objective of this work is
to provide a framework that makes it possible to determine the
CSFs that influence the success of project manufacturing envir-
onments. More specifically, the objectives of the article are:
1. To identify in the literature the CSFs consistent with
project manufacturing environments; and
2. To analyze the level of influence of CSFs that exert a
statistically significant effect on the chances of achiev-
ing success.
This article is structured as follows: The introduction is
followed by a review of the literature on CSFs. The research
methods employed are then described, before the presentation
and analysis of the results. The final section summarizes the
considerations of this work and draws conclusions.
Literature Review
This section presents, concisely, the main CSFs identified after
an extensive search of the scientific literature. The CSFs pre-
sented were considered the most consistent with the project
Table 1. Factors Related to Human Resources
CSF Publications
Empowerment Iyer and Jha (2005), Jin and Ling (2006), Rezaiea
et al. (2009)
Project manager Damodara (2002), Pheng and Chuan (2006),
leadership Yang et al. (2011)
Project team Ferriani et al. (2009), Zhang and He (2015)
integration
Project team Mccomb, Green, and Compton (2007)
flexibility
Conflict handling Cheung and Chuah (1999), Laslo and Goldberg
(2008)
Project manager González et al. (2013)
experience
Team experience Fricke and Shenhar (2000), Lee et al. (2013),
Tishler, Dvir, Shenhar, and Lipovetsky (1996)
manufacturing environment. To facilitate comprehension, the
factors selected were grouped into categories: human
resources, technical aspects, project management, organiza-
tional factors, and relationships with stakeholders.
Factors Related to Human Resources
In the literature on project management, there are several stud-
ies that indicate a relation between human resources and the
level of success achieved by projects. Table 1 presents a list of
these factors.
The first CSF presented in Table 1 is empowerment, which
entails enhancing the decision power of project team members,
making the work more agile and the team more motivated, and
increasing the likelihood of achieving success in the project
(Rezaiea, Ostadib, Tadayoun, & Aghdasi, 2009).
According to Yang, Huang, and Wu (2011), team motiva-
tion can also occur through the leadership exercised by the
project manager. Motivated teams tend to be more productive,
thus having a positive effect on performance and the level
of success.
In addition to the issue of leadership, the literature points to
the project manager’s experience as another relevant CSF.
Regarding this aspect, González, Pulido Casas, and Leal Cor-
onado (2013) emphasize that to conduct a successful project, a
project manager should have the required experience and
knowledge in the area in which the project is developed.
Regarding the project team, three characteristics can be
highlighted as CSFs. The first is its level of flexibility—that
is, its ability to respond to changes effectively and efficiently,
which according to Zhang, He, and Zhou (2013), is critical to
the success of the project. The second is its level of experi-
ence, which according to Lee, Anderson, Kim, and Ballard
(2013), is extremely relevant for performance in complex and
integrated projects. The last characteristic is its integration
capacity, which involves the sharing of tacit knowledge dur-
ing problem solving and improving project performance
(Zhang & He, 2015).
Pacagnella et al.
Table 2. Organizational Factors
CSF Publications
Project manager Belout and Gauvreau (2004), Might and Fischer
authority (1985)
Organizational Creasy and Anantatmula (2013), Laslo and
structure Goldberg (2008)
Change Forsman (2008), Wang, Ju, Jiang, and Klein
management (2008)
Top management Ahmed et al. (2016), Cooke-Davies (2002),
support Rezaiea et al. (2009)
Project Ko, Park, and Kim (2015), Scott-Young and
management Samson (2008)
office
The last critical success factor in this category is conflict
handling, which involves the resolution of disputes that occur
among the stakeholders during the project life cycle. Conflicts
reduce team motivation and delay work activities. Wei, Liu,
Skibniewski, and Balali (2016) point out that inappropriate
conflict handling in a project can lead to failure. Thus, it is
essential to manage conflict for the project to be successful.
Organizational Factors
Organizational factors are those related to the characteristics of
the business environment in which the projects are carried out.
Table 2 presents the main factors in this category.
The first item in Table 2 is the authority delegated to the
project manager, which can lead to independence from the
organizational structure, providing the capacity to obtain orga-
nizational resources for the project autonomously and acceler-
ating decision making and the solution of possible problems.
Belout and Gauvreau (2004) argue that the level of authority
assigned to the manager is a significant element associated with
the success of the project.
Another important element for project success is the orga-
nizational structure, which influences many aspects, such as
ease of allocating resources and agility in decision making. The
organizational structure can range from a traditional functional
structure, geared to continued activities, to a totally projectized
structure, in which the ability to adapt to the project’s require-
ments is optimal. According to Creasy and Anantatmula
(2013), the organizational structure is one of the most impor-
tant CSFs because successful projects are supported by struc-
tures focused on their success.
Regarding change management, the next item in Table 2,
properly conducted, it can enable the organization to deal better
with risks and confers flexibility in addressing situations with
unstable scope, being conducive to a more harmonious rela-
tionship with clients and improving the likelihood of achieving
success (Wang et al., 2008).
Support from top management is another critical element for
the results of projects (and one of the most mentioned CSFs in
the literature). With this support, which is individualized in the
3
Table 3. Factors Related to the Relationship With Stakeholders
CSF Publications
Effective Cervone (2014), Fortune and White (2006)
communication
Incentive Bower, Ashby, Gerald, and Smyk (2002), Meng
mechanisms and Gallagher (2012)
Disincentive Bubshait (2003), Meng and Gallagher (2012)
mechanisms
Integration with Horn et al. (2014), Schoenherr and Swink (2012)
suppliers
Selection of Luzon and El-Sayegh (2016)
suppliers
Client Ribeiro et al. (2013)
engagement
figure of a chief executive officer (CEO), chairman, president,
or director of the company, it is possible to obtain resources and
avoid conflicts more easily; the presence of supportive top
managers is thus fundamental to the success of the project
(Ahmed, Mohamad, & Ahmad, 2016).
The last factor in this category is the presence of a project
management office (PMO), which consists of an organizational
unit dedicated to providing support for projects carried out in
the company through the organization of documents, allocation
of resources, training, storage and provision of knowledge from
lessons learned from previous projects, and the management
and control of the projects. According to Ko et al. (2015), PMO
activities tend to increase organizational competence in project
management and consequently improve performance.
Factors Related to the Relationship with Stakeholders
Stakeholders play a key role in achieving success, based on the
relationships between them and the project. Table 3 presents a
summary of the CSFs in this category mentioned in the
literature.
The first factor to be highlighted in Table 3 is effective
communication. According to Cervone (2014), maintaining
effective communication has various impacts on projects, such
as increasing the interaction with stakeholders, keeping them
engaged, avoiding mistakes in the work, generating better
results, and consequently increasing the probability of success.
Another aspect that is relevant for project success is the
inclusion of incentive and disincentive mechanisms (bonuses
and fines) in contracts with suppliers, which according to Bub-
shait (2003), has the objective of rewarding or penalizing sup-
pliers based on their performance. The use of these
mechanisms can reduce delivery times and costs, and improve
the quality of the items delivered (Meng & Gallagher, 2012).
Still, with regard to relationships with suppliers, Schoenherr
and Swink (2012) point out that integration with these stake-
holders promotes positive results in terms of flexibility and the
reliability of supplies delivered. On this subject, Horn, Schef-
fler, and Schiele (2014) point out that companies with high
4 Project Management Journal 50(2)

Table 4. Factors Related to Project Management parties involved to avoid errors of execution. Moreover, as the
documentation of a project increases in size over the project
CSF Publications
life cycle and is consulted by various stakeholders, it must
Clear objectives Ahmad and Cuenca (2013) therefore be built in a structured and unambiguous way.
Clear documentation Van Der Velde and Van Donk (2002) The project planning process, which consists of structuring
Project planning Iyer and Jha (2005), O’Connor et al. and preparing for the work activities that will be carried out, is
(2016)
also essential for performance. According to O’Connor, Choi,
Management of requirements Karim et al. (2014)
Prevention of multitasking Yeo and Ning (2002) and Winkler (2016), planning has direct influence on project
Analysis of critical resources Zhang and Jin (2014) performance in terms of cost, quality, and safety; therefore, it
Interdependencies between Gustavsson (2016) should be conducted carefully, taking into consideration the
projects project’s environment and characteristics. Specifically, in proj-
Analysis of limiting factors Ash (2009) ect manufacturing environments, which usually comprise mul-
Register of lessons learned Chronéer and Backlund (2015) tiple concurrent projects with high levels of customization,
Risk identification Hwang and Lim (2012)
interrelations, and potential disputes over resources, there is
Risk analysis Yet et al. (2016)
Responses to risks Zhang and Fan (2014) the need for prevention of multitasking, management of
Reserves of time and money Zhang et al. (2015) requirements, analysis of critical resources, interdependencies
Risk control Wang, Lin, and Huang (2010) between projects, and analysis of limiting factors.
Control of baselines Lechler et al. (2012) According to Karim, Demian, Baldwin, and Anumba
(2014), management of requirements enables more accurate
estimates of time and cost, and avoids unnecessary expenses
levels of integration with suppliers are particularly successful resulting from reworking and changes, being a crucial process
in their projects. to ensure client satisfaction and perceived project value.
Thus, because suppliers have a very important role in proj- Another common element in this type of environment is the
ects, another critical factor that should be highlighted is the occurrence of multitasking. This occurs because resources are
process of selecting them, which will have a direct influence used on multiple projects carried out simultaneously, leading to
on the level of success achieved. This process must be con- delays in activities and reducing efficiency in performing the
ducted carefully, considering aspects such as quality, price, work; hence, it is essential to organize the resources in order to
delivery, service level, warranty, technical capacity, productive curb this phenomenon (Tromp & Homan, 2015).
capacity, historical performance, and even geographic location Zhang and Jin (2011) highlight that it is important to analyze
(Luzon & El-Sayegh, 2016). the characteristics of the resources used in projects as some of
In addition to relationships with suppliers, project success is these resources are critical for performance. Such resources can
also highly dependent on the level of client engagement. The be related to technology, such as cutting-edge equipment, or to
higher the clients’ level of participation in a project, the greater human resources, such as high-level professionals. Thus, if
the ease of identifying requirements, establishing quality cri- project execution is conditioned on these elements, it is essen-
teria, and reducing the need for changes, hence improving per- tial to determine their availability and optimize their use among
formance. Thus, the clients’ active participation in projects projects.
must be stimulated from the beginning of the project life cycle A further important aspect to be considered is that projects
(Ribeiro, Paiva, Varajão, & Dominguez, 2013). conducted in this environment are not independent from one
another. The uncertainty, complexity, and risks of projects are
amplified as a result of relations between resources, technical
Factors Related to Project Management similarities, objectives, and other factors, all of which should
Activities related to project management exert great influence be considered in each projects to increase the chances of suc-
on the final success of the project. Table 4 below presents the cess (Gustavsson, 2016).
main CSFs found in the literature in this category. Because of interdependencies, projects often start to com-
The first element to be highlighted in this category is the pete for resources, whether financial, human, or technological,
clear establishment of objectives. According to Ahmad and and those sought most frequently become scarce. Some of these
Cuenca (2013), this is a fundamental practice for guiding the resources are divided among existing projects, becoming fac-
team, avoiding unnecessary work activities and sources of tors that limit project development, leading to delays and
conflict. increased costs. Thus, their identification and appropriate allo-
Another important aspect is the construction of the project cation are key for better performance (Ash, 2009).
documentation. According to Van Der Velde and Van Donk Chronéer and Backlund (2015) highlight another element
(2002), having a good structure for key project documents for- often mentioned in the literature: the register of lessons learned.
malizes important aspects related to crucial moments of the This CSF involves the generation of knowledge through the
timeline. In general, these documents involve technical aspects, project and its subsequent absorption by the organization for
such as size and specifications, and should be available to the later utilization. According to the authors, this knowledge can
Pacagnella et al.
be used within the project in which it was generated, and also
among other projects, preventing the occurrence of known
issues or accelerating their resolution.
Among the studies that address success in projects, many
factors related to risk management can be found, the first of
which to be highlighted is the identification process. This con-
sists of mapping potential threats to or opportunities for the
project with the objective of aiding in the employment of stra-
tegies. According to Hwang and Lim (2012), risk identification
is important because it significantly reduces uncertainty, mak-
ing the project team more aware of events that can occur,
enabling them to create better specifications, providing better
knowledge to analyze technical proposals, improving project
communications, and establishing better contractual practices.
The second CSF related to this theme is risk analysis, which
involves the assessment of the likelihood of occurrence and the
impact caused by adverse events. According to Yet et al.
(2016), project success requires careful management of uncer-
tainty and risk, and the use of analytical tools is crucial in
conducting a proper assessment of the potential impacts of
certain events on costs and scheduling.
Another element connected to risk management mentioned
in the literature is the response to risks. Zhang and Fan (2013)
state that this consists of the identification, evaluation, selec-
tion, and implementation of actions aiming to reduce the prob-
ability of occurrence of risks or to reduce their negative
impacts. According to the authors, project managers must focus
their efforts on this activity to improve project performance and
their likelihood of achieving success.
Wang et al. (2010) highlight risk control as essential for
project performance, stating that this is the stage in which
previously identified risks are monitored and additional risks
are identified. It is also an especially useful activity for mon-
itoring project performance during execution.
With regard to project risks, depending on their severity,
Lechler, Edington, and Gao (2012) argue that time and money
reserves can be employed to mitigate their effects and protect
the work activities, which can thus be completed within the
planned baselines. Zhang, Jia, and Diaz (2015) point out that
this is an important strategy because generally the project plan
is full of uncertainties arising from the unpredictability of
external elements and changes requested by clients.
Factors Related to Structure and Technical Aspects
This category comprises the factors highlighted in the literature
that involve both the structural elements of support for projects
and the technical aspects related to the type of projects consid-
ered in this work. Table 5 presents a summary of these factors
and references.
In Table 5, the first CSF presented is communication infra-
structure, which refers to the elements that serve to support
communications in a project. According to Whyte, Stasis, and
Lindkvist (2016), especially in complex projects in which a
large volume of information must be managed, a system that
5
Table 5. Factors Related to Structure and Technical Aspects
CSF Publications
Communications infrastructure Whyte et al. (2016)
Information systems for projects Pandit and Zhu (2007)
Technical performance control Pinto and Slevin (1987)
Proper execution of commissioning O’Connor et al. (2016)
Use of previous technologies Li et al. (2011)
enables the organization to maintain data integrity and consis-
tency is required, transmitting and storing such data in order to
facilitate the processing of change requests, control mechan-
isms, lessons learned, and configuration management.
As with the previous CSF, Pandit and Zhu (2007) emphasize
the use of information systems as an important factor in project
manufacturing environments. According to the authors, the use
of these systems assists in determining lead times and delivery
dates, improves information exchange among stakeholders,
and reduces rework, thus making the projects more efficient.
Another CSF in this category is control of technical perfor-
mance, which involves actions to assess and correct noncon-
formities in relation to the work being done on the project, and
especially at the level of performance of the resulting product,
which must usually meet the specifications established by rules
and by clients. Thus, the level of project success will depend
not only on the assessment of costs, scheduling, and other
managerial criteria, but also on sustaining an acceptable level
of technical performance (Pinto & Slevin, 1987).
In projects entailing the use of large customized equipment,
typical of project manufacturing environments, a step known as
commissioning is common; in this step, the product is installed
at the client’s plant and its operation is monitored until it
reaches the expected performance. This step is critical to proj-
ect success, and must be conducted with appropriate engineer-
ing support and with the direct involvement of the clients
(O’Connor et al., 2016).
Finally, there is the utilization of technologies generated in
previous projects—that is, applied knowledge, such as engi-
neering solutions, specifications, and prototypes, which comes
from successful and unsuccessful experiments generating orga-
nizational learning. The use of such knowledge (drawings,
assembly instructions, manufacturing processes, and experi-
ences from decisions made) accelerates the schedule of projects
and prevents previous errors from being committed again,
reducing costs and boosting the success rate of projects (Li,
Xie, & Xu, 2011).
Research Methods
This work can be considered descriptive and explanatory in
nature. It follows a quantitative approach, being implemented
through the survey method. Details of the implementation of
the research are presented in the following subsections.
6 Project Management Journal 50(2)

Organizational Factors (OF)

• Empowerment Project Management (PM)
• Project manager authority • Clear objectives
• Organizational structure • Clear documentation
• Change management • Project planning
• Top management support • Requirements management
• Project Management Office • Prevention of multitasking
• Analysis of critical resources
• Interdependence of projects
Human Resources (HR) • Analysis of limiting factors
Success in Projects • Register of lessons learned
• Project manager leadership
• Efficiency • Risk identification
• Team integration
• Impact on consumers • Risk analysis
• Team flexibility
• Impact on the team • Response to risks
• Conflict handling
• Preparation for the future • Reserves of time and money
• Project manager experience
• Risk control
• Team experience
• Control of baselines

Relationship with
Stakeholders (RS) Technical Aspects (TA)
• Effective communication • Communications infrastructure
• Incentive mechanisms • Communication systems
• Disincentive mechanisms • Technical performance control
• Integration with suppliers • Commissioning
• Selection of suppliers • Previous technologies
• Client engagement

Figure 1. Conceptual model of research.

Research Model It is important to highlight that in order to select the CSFs

With the objective of structuring the research, a conceptual
model was built based on the literature review presented in the
previous section. In addition, because project success is now
considered multidimensional, we decided to analyze it using
four dimensions, drawing on the work of Shenhar, Dvir, Levy,
and Maltz (2001) and Shenhar and Dvir (2010):
 Efficiency: involves the project’s capacity to achieve
the objectives established related to the so-called “triple
constraint”—that is, the scope (requirements), the time
(schedule), and the costs (budget)
 Impact on the consumer: related to client satisfaction
and loyalty, in addition to brand recognition based on
the benefits generated by the project
 Impact on the team: associated with team satisfaction
and morale, in addition to skill development and orga-
nizational learning
 Preparation for the future: comprises the creation of
new technologies, entry into new markets, new product
lines, or achievement of strategic goals
Thus, founded on the assumption that the factors men-
tioned in the literature may explain success in project
manufacturing environments, the conceptual model shown
in Figure 1 was created.
used in this work, broad but not exhaustive research was carried
out. For this task, a search of the following databases was
performed: Wiley Online Library (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.
com), ScienceDirect (http://www.sciencedirect.com), Springer
Link (https://link.springer.com), Emerald Insight (http://emer
aldinsight.com), ASCE Library (http://ascelibrary.ogr), Sage
Journals (http://journals.sagepub.com), and IEEExplore Digital
Library (https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore).
The search for articles used the following keywords:
“critical success factors” AND “project manufacturing,”
“critical success factors” AND “engineering to order,” “critical
success factors” AND “ETO,” “critical success factors” AND
“project.”
The selection of the articles was done in a structured manner
based on their adherence to the research topic. First, the articles
were analyzed by title, then those selected were analyzed by
abstract, and finally an in-depth analysis was carried out of the
complete text. Only those that showed important indications of
what factors could compose the conceptual model serving as
the basis for this research were selected to compose the
references.
The analysis of the selected articles verified the very large
number of CSFs cited in the specialized literature. The factors
that were cited by studies conducted in project manufacturing
environments were prioritized, yielding a total of 19 factors.
Pacagnella et al.
Table 6. Sample Description
Enterprise size (number of employees)
< 100 100–499 > 499
11.54% 61.54% 26.92%
Formation
Business administration Engineering Economics
11.94% 85.07% 2.99%
Project experience of respondents (years)
0–5 6–10 10–15 15–20 > 20
14.93% 43.28% 20.90% 8.96% 26.92%
However, the analysis also showed several factors to be associated
with different types of project, such as construction, software devel-
opment, and others (e.g., top management support), and thus the
choice was based on those most frequently cited.
Data Collection
Data collection began with a pilot test, in the form of a “test–
retest,” which involved in situ application of the survey instru-
ment with 30 professionals representing companies operating
in project manufacturing environments. The instrument com-
prised a structured questionnaire with statements concerning
the presence of the 38 factors identified from the literature,
measured on a five-point Likert-type scale (ranging from
“strongly disagree” to “totally agree”). In addition, the ques-
tionnaire contained four items regarding success dimensions
with only two response options: successful or unsuccessful.
The feedback from the professionals enabled minor changes
to be made to the questionnaire. The improved survey instru-
ment was subsequently submitted (this time electronically) to
the same respondents, and its internal reliability was then
checked in the program Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS), yielding a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.874, suffi-
cient to ensure its consistency. At the end of data collection,
Cronbach’s alpha was calculated again and the value obtained
was 0.892.
After the pilot test, the survey was conducted by two means:
(1) new in situ applications, with visits to companies, and (2)
electronic submission after profile analysis and prior contact
with candidates identified through project management forums
on the social network LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com). In both
cases, the curriculum vitae of the candidates were analyzed,
and only those who had training and previous experience in
project management in the environment of interest in this study
were considered fit to answer the questionnaire.
In total, 78 responses were obtained from the questionnaires
applied within companies and 104 responses from those sent
electronically, resulting in 182 valid questionnaires out of a
total of 823, a response rate of 22.11%. The profile of the
respondents is shown in Table 6.
7
As can be seen from Table 6, the sample predominantly
comprised respondents from companies of between 100 and
499 employees (61.54%), considered of medium size; however,
it should also be noted that among the large companies
(26.92%), the majority had more than 5,000 employees and a
turnover of more than US$1 billion. In terms of the field of
operations, most of the respondents were engineers (85.07%).
Regarding the level of experience related to project manufac-
turing environments, the largest proportion (43.28%) had
between 6 and 10 years, but more than one quarter of the
sample (26.92%) had more than 20 years’ experience.
Data Analysis Technique
The technique employed in data analysis was logistic regres-
sion that aims to discriminate between two groups of observa-
tions in a sample, which differs from linear regression due to
the use of a dichotomous or binary dependent variable, which
in this study is related to success in the projects or lack of it in
terms of each of the dimensions presented above. According to
Hosmer and Lemeshow (2001), logistic regression has become
a standard method in regression analysis for binary variables,
being widely used in situations in which data analysis involves
predicting the value of a categorical outcome variable. Hair,
Anderson, Tatham, and Black (2005) note that the name of this
technique is derived from the logistic transformation used with
the dependent variable, which enables direct calculation of the
probability of the phenomenon analyzed occurring. Drawing
on Johnson and Wichern (1998), the logistic regression model
is based on the logistic function:
1
f ðzÞ ¼ ð1Þ
1 þ eðzÞ
 
p
z ¼ ln ¼ a þ b1 X1 þ b2 X2 þ . . . þ b3 X3 ð2Þ
1p
where:
p ¼ probability of response for the ith factor (or covariant)
a ¼ constant
bi ¼ coefficients of the independent variables
Xi ¼ independent variables
It is important to highlight that logistic regression requires
that certain conditions are met, such as the dependent variable
being dichotomous, the inclusion of all relevant variables in the
model, the exclusion of all irrelevant variables from the model,
and ensuring the absence of multicollinearity and the proper fit
of the model. To apply the technique, the conceptual model in
Figure 1 generated submodels in which the variables (or CSFs)
that did not contribute to explanatory power were removed,
thus generating customizations of the initial model for each
of the success dimensions. This procedure was performed in
the IBM SPSS program using the backwards logistic regression
procedure.
It is important to highlight that during the data preparation to
the logistic regression, the independent variables were recoded
8 Project Management Journal 50(2)
to improve the interpretation of the results. Thus, all the
responses about the presence of a CSF in the neutral or rejec-
tion zones of Likert scale (answers “1,” “2,” and “3”) were
recoded to “0” and the CSF was considered non-present in the
project. In the same way, all the responses in the acceptance
zone (answers “4” and “5”) were recoded to “1.” This trans-
formation allows a discussion about the effect of every CSF
considered significant on the project success.
Multicollinearity and Adjustment Analysis
Multicollinearity can be defined as interdependencies between
the dependent variables in a regression model (Farrar & Glau-
ber, 1967). This is a major threat, reducing the model’s expla-
natory power and comprehension of the phenomenon under
analysis. To establish the presence or absence of multicolli-
nearity, Garson (2008) suggests using the variance inflation
factor (VIF), which evaluates the increase in variance due to
the presence of multicollinearity. The VIF threshold value
determining that there is no multicollinearity is 4. In this study,
the value obtained for the VIF was 2.979, indicating the
absence of multicollinearity.
Evaluation of model fit aims to assess validity. This was
performed through the Hosmer–Lemeshow (HL) test, which
evaluates the null hypothesis that there are no significant dif-
ferences between the predicted and observed classifications,
and this can be accepted at a significance level of 5%, indicat-
ing that the model is capable of producing reliable estimates
and classifications. According to Hosmer and Lemeshow
(2001), for proper fit there must be a value at least greater than
0.5, and in this work the results obtained exceeded this value
(see the Results and Discussion section), which shows that the
models have good fit for the use of logistic regression.
Sample Description
The data analyzed in this work concern 182 projects, of which
the products are capital goods produced in project manufactur-
ing environments. The composition of the projects (% of sam-
ple) is as follows:
 Power generation (3.3%): wind turbines, water turbines,
and large generators
 Motion transmission (4.9%): reducers for metallurgy,
reducers for mining, reducers for ships, mixers, and
presses
 Mining equipment (5.49%): crushers, dust extractors,
vibrating feeders, and mineral separation systems
 Chemical product processing (6.59%): propylene pro-
cessing columns and industrial reactors
 Metallurgy equipment (6.59%): pelletizers, cooling
towers, feeding systems, and slag handling systems
 Storage systems (6.59%): pressure vessels, soy and corn
silos, acid tanks, vinasse tanks, and fuel tanks
 Food processing (9.34%): fillers, separators, pulpers,
washers, and sterilization machines
Table 7. Budget and Duration of the Sample Projects
Budget (million dollars) (%) Duration (months) (%)
<1 21.4 1–5 14.8
1–10 32.4 6–10 19.2
11–50 25.8 11–15 18.6
51–100 7.1 16–20 16.4
101–500 8.2 21–25 14.3
>500 4.9 26–30 6.6
> 30 9.9
 Lifting and transport (10.44%): cranes, conveyors,
“jack-up” systems, subway trains, ship loaders, agricul-
tural carriers, ore conveyors, grain cleaners, wagon flip-
pers (roundabouts), and gantry cranes
 Power distribution and transmission (10.99%): towers,
processing plants, and distribution networks
 Turnkey systems (10.99%): plants for cellulose pulp
processing, energy cogeneration, biodiesel production,
waste treatment, gas treatment, nitrocellulose, process-
ing, on-shore oil extraction wells and storage terminals,
natural gas compression stations, small hydroelectric
plants (SHPs)
 Automation systems (11.54%): systems for boiler con-
trol, milling automation, water treatment automation,
supervision and control of oil and gas, painting robots,
welding robots, sugar batch vacuum pan automation,
and offshore oil pump automation systems
 Thermal machines (13.74%): steam generators, gas tur-
bines, heat exchangers, evaporation towers, distillation
systems, and high furnaces
Table 7 shows the composition of the sample projects
according to their duration and budget.
Table 7 shows that the sample projects have sizable budgets,
with projects ranging from a few thousand dollars to some that
are close to a billion dollars: The most common category is
US$1–10 million dollars (32.4%), followed by US$11–50 mil-
lion dollars (25.8%), and less than US$1 million (21.4%).
In terms of schedule, the sample shows considerable
homogeneity, ranging from one month to projects longer
than 30 months; the most frequent category is 6–10 months
(19.2%), followed by 11–15 months (18.6%) and 16–20
months (16.4%).
Results and Discussion
The results found by the survey are presented in this section in
four tables, one for each success dimension, with the CSFs that
are statistically significant at 1% (***), 5% (**), and 10% (*).
The items presented include the odds ratio (OR; calculated as
the exponentiation of the B coefficient [exp(B)]), which repre-
sents the variation in chances of achieving project success in
projects with a CSF compared to projects that have none.
The presented results are based on the perception about the
presence or not of the CSFs on the project by the respondents;
Pacagnella et al. 9

Table 8. Classification for the Efficiency Dimensiona common to lose focus, so it is very important to establish clear
objectives to reduce this effect.
Predicted
Another statistically significant CSF is the register of les-
Efficiency sons learned. Table 9 shows that projects in which the knowl-
edge obtained is stored in an explicit form have a 1.840 greater
Observed No success Success Percentage correct
chance of success than projects in which this register is not
Step 1 EF No success 30 32 48.4 implemented. Accordingly, lessons learned during a project
Success 17 103 85.8 serve as a repository to which the team can refer when needed,
Overall 73.1 preventing new problems in the several projects of project
percentage manufacturing and consequently improving performance.
a
Cutoff value ¼ 0.500 According to the results in Table 8, use of previous technol-
ogies also increases the likelihood of success. Projects that
employ this practice have a 6.905 greater chance of success
Table 9. Results for the Efficiency Dimension than projects that do not, the greatest effect caused by a CSF
analyzed in this study. This environment sometimes requires
CSF B SE Wald Sig. OR
complex engineering solutions to achieve the specifications
Team integration (HR) 1.064 .519 4.199 0.04** 2.898 and requirements of the clients, so this result can be explained
Establishing clear objectives 1.195 .520 5.278 0.022** 3.302 by the fact that when it is possible to use technologies devel-
(PM) oped previously instead of starting from zero, there is a natural
Lessons learned (PM) .610 .326 3.506 0.061* 1.840 economy of time and resources that greatly affects the perfor-
Use of previous technologies 1.932 .699 7.637 0.006*** 6.905
(TA)
mance of the project.
Time and money reserves (PM) .697 .396 3.102 0.078* 2.008 Regarding the inclusion of time and money reserves, the
Risk identification (PM) 1.051 .622 2.853 0.091* 2.861 results show that this CSF increases the chances of success
by 2.008 times compared with projects in which this CSF is
* ¼ Significant at 10%, ** ¼ Significant at 5% and *** ¼ Significant at 1.
not present. This is a fairly common practice in projects to
compensate for uncertainties during planning, especially in
thus, the values of OR indicate the influence of these elements project manufacturing due to the high level of uncertainty,
on the chances of success when they are present on the project. enabling any cost or schedule variations to be supported by
The first relevant aspect to be discussed here is the result of buffers, and consequently keeping the project within its
0.671 obtained for the HL test, indicating that the model has baselines.
adequate fit for application of logistic regression. Another rel- The last CSF of this success dimension is risk identification,
evant point is highlighted in Table 8, which presents a com- the use of which increases the chances of success by 2.861. As
parison between the values predicted by the regression model mentioned previously, in this environment there is a high level
and the observed values. of uncertainty in the projects, and with higher levels of uncer-
As can be observed in Table 8 for the efficiency dimension, tainty come greater levels of risks, so this CSF allows managers
the model was able to correctly classify 73.1% of the cases to create measures to protect the project from external events
considered in this study. that may have a negative influence in terms of scheduling,
Table 9 presents the results obtained for the efficiency scope, and budget, which tends to improve project performance
dimension based on a model with six CSFs that are statistically and efficiency.
significant in explaining the success of a project. The next dimension to be analyzed is the impact on the
Examining the OR values, it can be observed that projects in team, and the first point to note is that the HL test also showed
which the team is considered to be integrated have a 2.898 greater a good fit, with a value of 0.521. The results for the classifica-
chance of achieving project success than otherwise. This result tion of the model are presented in Table 10.
may indicate that the team’s ability to share tacit knowledge For this dimension, the model presented a sensitivity (prob-
increases the agility of the project, especially in troubleshooting, ability of correct classification of the event) somewhat lower
which is frequent in project manufacturing environments due to when compared with the efficiency dimension, being able to
the level of uncertainty and complexity of the projects, tending to classify correctly 85.7% of the observed cases, which can be
bring it closer to its goals concerning deadlines and costs. considered a very good result. The other results for this dimen-
In addition, projects in which the objectives are clearly sion are presented in Table 11.
established have a 3.302 higher chance of success than projects The OR results show that projects in which the team is
in which they are not. Thus, it is possible that by understanding considered to be experienced have a 1.507 greater chance of
more clearly what is sought with the project, the team can focus success than projects in which the team is inexperienced. This
efforts on activities that add value and bring the project closer result probably indicates that more experienced teams are more
to its target. Because project manufacturing environments usu- capable of producing knowledge for the organization, either by
ally have multiple projects occurring simultaneously, it is socialization among members, or by the solutions employed,
10 Project Management Journal 50(2)

Table 10. Classification for the Impact on the Team Dimensiona Table 12. Classification for the Impact on Consumers Dimensiona

Predicted Predicted

Impact on team Impact on consumers

Observed No success Success Percentage correct Observed No success Success Percentage correct

Step 1 IT No success 32 17 65.3 Step 1 EF No success 28 22 56.0

Success 9 124 93.2 Success 7 125 94.7
Overall 85.7 Overall 84.1
percentage percentage
a a
Cutoff value ¼ 0.500. Cutoff value ¼ 0.500

Table 11. Results for the Impact on the Team Dimension The chance of success in this dimension is also increased
with the implementation of critical resource analysis, with an
CSF B SE Wald Sig. OR OR of 1.669. This result is probably due to the effort under-
Team experience (HR) .410 .229 2.696 .09* 1.507 taken by the team in analyzing the resources (human, financial,
Team integration (HR) .748 .288 6.765 .009*** 2.112 and technological) that are critical to carrying out the project,
Conflict handling (HR) .541 .245 4.890 .027** 1.718 which tends to generate knowledge for the organization. The
Project management office (OF) .355 .170 4.345 .037** 1.427 same reasoning can be applied to the analysis of limiting fac-
Effective communication (OF) .329 .192 2.925 .087* 1.389 tors—that is, elements that can slow the progress of a project or
Analysis of critical resources (PM) .512 .198 6.674 .010*** 1.669
Analysis of limiting factors (PM) .422 .220 3.678 .055* 1.525 lead to cost increases. This CSF increases the chances of suc-
Risk identification (PM) .985 .215 20.914 .000*** 2.678 cess by 1.525 times.
Risk monitoring (PM) .377 .229 2.696 .085* 1.457 These two CSFs (critical resource analysis and analysis of
limiting factors) are particularly important in project manufac-
* ¼ Significant at 10%, ** ¼ Significant at 5% and *** ¼ Significant at 1.
turing because it is an environment with multiple projects
occurring at the same time, leading to a scarcity of resources
especially to attend complex specifications and constant and demanding assertiveness in resource management.
changes that occur in project manufacturing. The last statistically significant CSFs in this dimension are
Another significant CSF is team integration. Projects that related to risk identification and monitoring. Both are very
have integrated teams have a 2.112 greater chance of achieving important in the project manufacturing environment due to its
success than projects with teams that lack this characteristic. level of uncertainty (and consequently the level of risks).
The complexity and the existing pressure make this environ- The identification process increases the chances of success
ment very fertile for conflicts and disputes; however, integrated by 2.678, while the monitoring process increases these chances
teams tend to have better relationships, which leads to less by 1.457. These results are possibly connected to the learning
conflict, and therefore can generate more satisfaction with generated by the team’s effort in trying to determine the poten-
working on the project. tial threats and opportunities that can affect project perfor-
In the same way, conflict handling in this environment also mance, which occurs both in the risk identification process
has a positive influence on success in the impact on the team and in the risk monitoring process.
dimension, increasing the chances of success by 1.718 times. Regarding the impact on the consumer dimension, the result
This result can be explained by the team’s learning when con- of the HL test was 0.611, indicating a good fit. Table 12 pre-
flicts that arise in a project are properly handled and resolved. sents the classification results obtained by the model.
In addition, projects carried out by companies that have a As can be observed from Table 12, the model was able to
PMO have a 1.427 higher chance of success than projects in classify correctly 84.1% of the observed cases, which was the
companies that do not. The PMO contributes in various ways to best result for the phenomenon studied. Table 13 shows the
the project manufacturing environment, including acting as a other results for the impact on the consumer’s dimension.
facilitator in the creation and storage of knowledge in projects; The first statistically significant CSF in this dimension is
thus, its presence is beneficial in terms of impact on the team. team flexibility, which increases the chances of success by
Projects with effective communication processes also have a 1.756 when it is considered present in the project. This result
higher chance of success, as the results show an increase of may be related to a flexible team’s greater capacity for adapta-
1.389 compared with projects in which this CSF is absent. tion, as consumers or clients make new demands during a
Indeed, good communication can prevent potential errors and project (very common in project manufacturing) that can be
conflicts, leading to improvements in the project manufactur- met more easily by teams that have this characteristic.
ing environment and to the consequent satisfaction of those The chances of success in the impact on the consumers
involved. dimension are also increased by 1.499 through the use of time
Pacagnella et al. 11

Table 13. Results for the Impact on the Consumer’s Dimension Table 14. Classification for the Preparation for the Future
Dimensiona
CSF B SE Wald Sig. OR
Predicted
Team flexibility (HR) .563 .174 10.420 .001*** 1.756
Time and money reserves (PM) .405 .162 6.272 .012** 1.499 Preparation for the
Client engagement (RS) .366 .168 4.735 .030** 1.441 future
Disincentive mechanisms (RS) .368 .155 5.650 .017** .692
Risk identification (PM) .390 .151 6.669 .010** 1.477 Observed No success Success Percentage correct

* ¼ Significant at 10%, ** ¼ Significant at 5% and *** ¼ Significant at 1. Step 1 EF No success 24 22 52.2

Success 9 127 93.4
Overall 83.0
and money reserves. This result can possibly be explained by percentage
the protection that is generated when these reserves are a
Cutoff value ¼ 0.500
included in the budget and schedule, thus preparing the project
for any delays and budget increases, which lead to customer
dissatisfaction when they occur.
Table 13 also shows that customer engagement increases the Table 15. Results for the Preparation for the Future Dimension
chances of success in this dimension by 1.441. The products CSF B SE Wald Sig. OR
obtained in this environment have a high level of customiza-
tion, so this result indicates that the clients’ satisfaction level is Project manager .441 .205 4.647 .031** 1.555
possibly increased when they participate more actively in the experience (HR)
Support from top .439 .178 6.072 .014** 1.551
project, making suggestions and monitoring the evolution of management (OF)
the work, which tends to bring their expectations more in line Lessons learned (PM) .366 .180 4.125 .042** 1.442
with the results eventually achieved by the project. Interdependence between .429 .203 4.446 .035** 1.535
An unexpected result obtained in the study was the OR for projects (PM)
the use of disincentive mechanisms, which reduce the chances Technical performance .636 .244 6.811 .009*** .530
of success by 0.692. This may be related to the fact that such control (TA)
elements are used in contracts as possible penalties for suppli- Previous technologies (TA) .555 .214 6.695 .010** 1.742
Project management .664 .181 13.472 .000*** 1.942
ers (very frequent in project manufacturing), tending to gener- office (OF)
ate friction between the parties involved, and possibly reducing
the client’s satisfaction with the project. On this point, Meng * ¼ Significant at 10%, ** ¼ Significant at 5% and *** ¼ Significant at 1.
(2010) argues that a deterioration in relations between suppliers
and customers is a major reason for a low level of performance.
Indeed, if the relationship between the parties is poor, the prob- The other results for the dimension preparation for the future
ability of delays in the schedule, increases in costs, and quality are presented in Table 15.
defects increases, which will have a direct impact on customer The first significant CSF in Table 15 is project manager
satisfaction; thus, such measures should be substituted by the experience, which increases the chances of success by 1.555.
creation of strategic partnerships in the supply chain. Although This result enables us to suppose that more experienced man-
at first sight, this result may be surprising, it is necessary to agers seek to lead the project not only with a view to achieving
analyze it in greater depth as it arose in the “consumer impact” its goals, but also seeking to align its execution with the orga-
dimension, and its evaluation will depend on the customer’s nization’s strategic objectives, having a broader perspective on
perception of what has occurred throughout the project life the project’s contribution to its core business.
cycle. Therefore, if there is excessive wear among the stake- In project manufacturing, there are a number of projects,
holders, it is possible that this perception will be negative. some of which have paramount importance due to their return
The last statistically significant CSF in this dimension is risk on investment, the client involved, or the project’s relation to
identification, which increases the chances of success by 1.477. strategic objectives, so when these projects are completed suc-
This is a process that provides a means of protecting the project cessfully, they can have a major impact on the organization.
from potential threats that may occur during its life cycle; thus, Support from top management is another CSF that increases
it may help preserve the clients’ interests, which would explain the chances of success in the preparation for the future dimen-
this result. sion, with an OR of 1.551. This result can be explained by the
For the future preparation dimension, the HL test indicated a possibility of greater alignment between the goals of the proj-
good fit, with a value of 0.501 (the limit for the use of logistic ects of the environment studied in this work and the strategic
regression). The values for the classification of the model are goals of the company when there is direct involvement of its
presented in Table 14. executive body, either in supporting or in guiding key project
As can be seen from Table 14, the model was able to classify decisions, tending to generate results that strengthen its market
correctly 83.0% of the observed cases, also a very good result. position.
12
The results in Table 15 also show that the register of lessons
learned increases the chances of success by 1.442. In this case,
it is possible that in making an effort to employ the knowledge
generated empirically during the project (as adaptations and
problem solutions that are common in this environment), the
team identifies opportunities that can be exploited by the orga-
nization—whether related to technology, management, or mar-
keting—that may bring positive results in the future.
Table 15 also shows that analysis of the interdependence
between projects increases the chances of success in this
dimension by 1.535. Assessing the connections between mul-
tiple projects, typical in project manufacturing, is an effort
carried out many times during portfolio management, which
is usually conducted in a strategic framework. This analysis
also identifies projects that will compete for scarce resources,
which enables their sequence of use to be established to reduce
or eliminate conflicts, potentially generating better results for
the set of managed projects.
As in the impact on the consumer dimension, this success
dimension presents an unexpected result, as Pinto and Slevin
(1987) in their classic study pointed to “technical tasks” as a
CSF in projects. However, the results found show that the
control of technical performance reduces the chances of suc-
cess by 0.53, which can be explained by the fact that this is a
dimension in which success involves aspects that are strategic
for the organization. Thus, the effort undertaken in this envi-
ronment to ensure that the project’s technical performance
meets the specifications is possibly too operational and diverts
the team’s focus from project-related opportunities that may be
advantageous to the organization. Moreover, according to
Springer (2016), this CSF may be associated with the need to
control the goods and services delivered by suppliers to the
project, demanding an even greater effort on the part of the
team to attend to certain external stakeholders.
Preparation for the future requires a set of “soft” (beha-
vioral) skills and attitudes, as can be seen in the other statisti-
cally significant CSFs presented in Table 11; it also involves
“hard” (technically focused) activities that compete for
resources, influencing performance in this dimension.
Another statistically significant CSF in this dimension is the
use of previous technologies generated in project manufactur-
ing environment, which raises the chances of success by 1.742.
This result is highly consistent with what might be expected for
this dimension as the objective is to take advantage of techno-
logical opportunities, using applied knowledge developed in
previous projects; therefore, in projects in which this is imple-
mented, the trend for success is greater.
The last statistically significant CSF in this dimension is the
presence of a PMO, which increases the chances of success by
1.942. This is another very consistent result, as part of the
functions of a PMO is to support and guide project teams in
aligning their decisions with the organization’s strategic
objectives.
To end this section, it is important to highlight the practical
implication of the findings. As discussed previously in the
Project Management Journal 50(2)
introduction, the project manufacturing environment is highly
complex and challenging; thus, the search for elements that can
influence the success of projects has paramount importance.
The first relevant aspect to be considered by project man-
agers in this environment is that although several CSFs are
known, very few of them showed to be statistically significant
in influencing project success (in each dimension), so it is
necessary to focus effort and prioritize them depending which
success dimensions want to be achieved. Thus, Tables 9, 11,
13, and 15 provide a list to support managers in allocating time,
human, and financial resources in the CSFs that have a higher
impact on project success, tending to improve the changes of
their occurrence.
Moreover, the results show some CSFs that reduce the
chances of project success, so project managers need to under-
stand that putting effort in technical performance control, for
instance, should reduce the chances of success in preparing for
the future dimension, or that focusing efforts in disincentive
mechanisms might reduce the chances of success in impacting
the consumers dimension.
In this way, the results found allow managers to establish a
“strategy” to conduct their projects, because they can prioritize
the most appropriate CSFs in each situation, considering the
expectations of success of the company and other stakeholders.
In addition, companies themselves can use these results in their
investment policies to foster the occurrence of the selected
CSFs in their project manufacturing environments.
Conclusions, Limitations, and Future
Research
The first aspect to be pointed out in this section is that the
scientific literature in this area features a significant number
of CSFs in several studies conducted in recent decades; thus, to
implement this study, a conceptual model was built using the
CSFs that seemed more consistent with the projects conducted
in the type of environment under analysis. For analytical pur-
poses, the CSFs selected were grouped into categories: human
resources, technical aspects, project management, organiza-
tional factors, and relationships with stakeholders.
The first conclusion that can be reached based on the results
is that although the CSFs mentioned in the scientific literature
are numerous, few of them exhibit statistical significance (at
1%, 5%, or 10%) in explaining each of the success dimensions
analyzed in this study. Therefore, many of the CSFs, although
well-argued from the theoretical point of view, do not stand up
to the assessment of the actors who effectively execute and
manage projects in companies.
Another important conclusion is that in analyzing the
achievement of project success multidimensionally, each suc-
cess dimension is explained by a different subgroup of CSFs. In
addition, the extent of their influence on the chances of achiev-
ing success varies greatly between those considered statisti-
cally significant and those that have a surprising negative
Pacagnella et al.
effect (technical performance control and disincentive mechan-
isms), reducing the chances of success.
Analyzing the statistically significant CSFs by category, it
can be observed that some exhibit greater participation than
others in explaining the success of projects. In this regard, the
human resources category was the one that had proportionately
a greater number of significant CSFs, with five out of a possible
seven (71.42%); the organizational factors category had three
out of a possible five (60.00%); project management had eight
out of a possible 15 (53.33%); technical aspects had two out of
a possible five (40%); and relationships with stakeholders had
two out of a possible six (33.33%).
Another point to be highlighted is that some CSFs influ-
ence success in more than one dimension, such as team
integration (efficiency, impact on the team); PMO (impact
on the team, preparation for the future); risk identification
(efficiency, impact on the team, impact on consumers); time
and money reserves (efficiency, impact on consumers); reg-
ister of lessons learned (efficiency, preparation for the
future); and use of previous technologies (efficiency, pre-
paration for the future).
Therefore, it can be concluded that the influence exerted by
the CSFs on the success of projects in project manufacturing
environments occurs in a varied and heterogeneous manner,
whether observing the analysis of the success dimensions or
the intensity with which each CSF influences the increase or
decrease in the chances that the project will be successful.
What is noteworthy in terms of limitations is the study’s
sampling procedure, which is non-probabilistic (by judgment);
hence, it does not enable statistical inference. This process was
employed because there was a need to select each participant
for the research according to his or her capacity to respond to
the questionnaire (identifying the presence of CSFs), and to
address the organization’s choice of a project manufacturing
environment.
Although this study attained its research objective, it is
apparent that the phenomenon studied features diverse
opportunities for new works. Accordingly, it is suggested
that qualitative, in-depth studies be carried out through
action surveys or case studies to evaluate in detail how
these CSFs influence the success of the types of projects
analyzed in this study. Indeed, the explanations suggested in
the Results and Discussion section of this article concerning
the influence of the CSFs on success could be better mea-
sured and assessed.
Finally, it is expected that this work will contribute—albeit
incrementally—to academia, aiding in comprehending the phe-
nomenon studied here and also contributing knowledge to com-
panies that operate in the project manufacturing environment,
aiding the decisions of managers of such projects.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
13
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
References
Ahmad, M. M., & Cuenca, R. P. (2013). Critical success factors for
ERP implementation in SMEs. Robotics and Computer-Integrated
Manufacturing, 29(3), 104–111.
Ahmed, R., Mohamad, N. A. B., & Ahmad, M. S. (2016). Effect of
multidimensional top management support on project success: An
empirical investigation. Quality & Quantity, 50(1), 151–176.
Ash, R. (2009). An examination of engineering personnel assignment
policies in the multi-project, capacity constrained situation. Engi-
neering Management Journal, 21(4), 58–70.
Belout, A., & Gauvreau, C. (2004). Factors influencing project suc-
cess: The impact of human resource management. International
Journal of Project Management, 22(1), 1–11.
Bower, D., Ashby, G., Gerald, K., & Smyk, W. (2002). Incentive
mechanisms for project success. Journal of Management in Engi-
neering, 18(1), 37–43.
Bubshait, A. A. (2003). Incentive/disincentive contracts and its effects
on industrial projects. International Journal of Project Manage-
ment, 21(1), 63–70.
Carvalho, A. N., Oliveira, F., & Scavarda, L. F. (2015). Tactical
capacity planning in a real-world ETO industry case: An action
research. International Journal of Production Economics, 167(1),
187–203.
Cervone, F. H. (2014). Effective communication for project success.
International Digital Library Perspectives, 30(2), 74–77.
Chronéer, D., & Backlund, F. (2015). A holistic view on learning in
project-based organizations. Project Management Journal, 46(3),
61–74.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). The ‘‘real’’ success factors on projects.
International Journal of Project Management, 20(1), 185–190.
Creasy, T., & Anantatmula, V. S. (2013). From every direction—How
personality traits and dimensions of project managers can concep-
tually affect project success. Project Management Journal, 44(6),
36–51.
Damodara, U. K. (2002). Global project management—Not business
as usual. Journal of Management in Engineering, 16(1), 29–33.
Farrar, D. E., & Glauber, R. R. (1967). Multicollinearity in regression
analysis: The problem revisited. The Review of Economic and
Statistics, 49(1), 92–107.
Forsman, H. (2008). Business development success in SMEs: A case
study approach. Journal of Small Business and Enterprise Devel-
opment, 15(3), 606–622.
Fortune, J., & White, D., (2006). Framing of project critical success
factors by a systems model. International Journal of Project Man-
agement, 24(1), 53–65.
Fox, S., Jokinen, T., Lindfors, N., & Ylén, J. P. (2009). Formulation of
robust strategies for project manufacturing business. International
Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(2), 217–237.
Fricke, E. S., & Shenhar, A. J. (2000). Managing multiple engineering
projects in a manufacturing support environment. IEEE Transac-
tions in Engineering Management, 47(2), 258–268.
14
Garson, G. D. (2008). Quantitative research in public administration.
Raleigh, NC: NC State University.
González, G. E., Pulido Casas, G. H., & Leal Coronado, C. A. (2013).
Project manager profile characterization in the construction sector
in Bogotá, Colombia. Project Management Journal, 44(6), 68–93.
Gosling, J., & Naim, M. M. (2009). Engineer-to-order supply chain
management: A literature review and research agenda. Interna-
tional Journal of Production Economics, 122(2), 741–754.
Gustavsson, K. T. (2016). Organizing to avoid project overload: The
use and risks of narrowing strategies in multi-project practice.
International Journal of Project Management, 34(1), 94–101.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2005).
Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hayes, R. H., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1979). Link manufacturing pro-
cesses and product life-cycles. Harvard Business Review, 57(1),
133–140.
Horn, P., Scheffler, P., & Schiele, H. (2014). Internal integration as a
pre-condition for external integration in global sourcing: A social
capital perspective. International Journal of Production Econom-
ics, 153(7), 54–65.
Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2001). Applied logistic regression:
Textbook and solutions manual. Danvers, MA: Wiley-Interscience.
Hwang, B. G., & Lim, E. S. J. (2012). Critical success factors for
key project players and objectives: Case study of Singapore.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
139(2), 204–215.
Ika, L. A., Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2012). Critical success factors
for World Bank projects: An empirical investigation. International
Journal of Project Management, 30(1), 105–116.
Inayat, A., Melhem, H., & Esmaeily, A. (2014). Critical success fac-
tors in an agency construction management environment. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, 141(1), 1–7.
Iyer, K. C., & Jha, K. N. (2005). Factors affecting cost performance:
Evidence from Indian construction projects. International Journal
of Project Management, 23(1), 283–295.
Jin, X. H., & Ling, F. Y. Y. (2006). Key relationship-based determi-
nants of project performance in China. Building and Environment,
41(7), 915–925.
Johnson, R., & Wichern, D. W. (1998). Applied multivariate statistical
analysis – Fourth edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Karim, J. A., Demian, P., Baldwin, N. A., & Anumba, C. (2014). An
empirical study of the complexity of requirements management in
construction projects. Engineering, Construction and Architec-
tural Management, 21(5), 505–531.
Ko, J. H., Park, S. H., & Kim, D. C. (2015). Efficiency analysis of
project management offices for large-scale information system
projects: Insights for construction megaprojects. Construction
Economics and Building, 15(3), 34–47.
Laslo, Z., & Goldberg, A. (2008). Resource allocation under uncer-
tainty in a multi-project matrix environment: Is organizational
conflict inevitable? International Journal of Project Management,
26(1), 773–788.
Lechler, T. G., Edington, B. H., & Gao, T. (2012). Challenging classic
project management: Turning project uncertainties into business
opportunities. Project Management Journal, 43(6), 59–69.
Project Management Journal 50(2)
Lee, H. W., Anderson, S. M., Kim, Y. W., & Ballard, G. (2013).
Advancing impact of education, training, and professional experi-
ence on integrated project delivery. Practice Periodical on Struc-
tural Design and Construction, 19(1), 8–14.
Li, B. M., Xie, S. Q., & Xu, X. (2011). Recent development of
knowledge-based systems, methods and tools for one-of-a-kind
production. Knowledge-Based Systems, 24(7), 1108–1119.
Luzon, B., & El-Sayegh, S. M. (2016). Evaluating supplier selection
criteria for oil and gas projects in the UAE using AHP and Delphi.
International Journal of Construction Management, 16(2),
175–183.
Mccomb, S. A., Green, S. G., & Compton, W. D. (2007). Team flex-
ibility’s relationship to staffing and performance in complex proj-
ects: An empirical analysis. Journal of Engineering Technology
Management, 24(1), 293–313.
McGovern, T. O. M., Hicks, C., & Earl, C. F. (1999). Modelling
supply chain management processes in engineer-to-order compa-
nies. International Journal of Logistics: Research and Applica-
tions, 2(2), 147–159.
Mello, M. H., Strandhagen, J. O., & Alfnes, E. (2015). Analyzing the
factors affecting coordination in engineer-to-order supply chain.
International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
35(7), 1005–1031.
Meng, X. (2010). The effect of relationship management on project
performance in construction. International Journal of Project
Management, 30(2), 188–198.
Meng, X., & Gallagher, B. (2012). The impact of incentive mechan-
isms on project performance. International Journal of Project
Management, 30(3), 352–362.
Might, R. J., & Fisher, N. (1985). The role of structural factors in
determining project management success. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 32(2), 71–77.
O’Connor, J. T., Choi, J. O., & Winkler, M. (2016). Critical success
factors for commissioning and start-up of capital projects. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(11), 1–12.
Pandit, A., & Zhu, Y. (2007). An ontology-based approach to support
decision-making for the design of ETO (Engineer-to-order) prod-
ucts. Automation in Construction, 16(6), 759–770.
Pheng, L. S., & Chuan, Q. T. (2006). Environmental factors and work
performance of Project managers in the construction industry.
International Journal of Project Management, 24(1), 24–37.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1987). Critical factors in successful
project implementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Man-
agement, 34(1), 22–27.
Rahim, R. A., & Baksh, M. S. N. (2003). The need for a new product
development framework for engineer-to-order products. European
Journal of Innovation Management, 6(3), 182–196.
Rezaiea, K., Ostadib, B., Tadayoun, S., & Aghdasi, M. (2009). Crit-
ical Success Factors (CSFs) for process management projects.
Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management, 17(1),
100–103.
Ribeiro, P., Paiva, A., Varajão, J., & Dominguez, C. (2013). Success
evaluation factors in construction project management—Some evi-
dence from medium and large Portuguese companies. KSCE Jour-
nal of Civil Engineering, 17(4), 603–609.
Pacagnella et al.
Rockart, J. (1979). Chief executives define their own data needs.
Harvard Business Review, 57(1), 81–83.
Rudberg, M., & Wikner, J. (2004). Mass customization in terms of the
customer order decoupling point. Production Planning & Control,
15(1), 4–13.
Schoenherr, T., & Swink, M. (2012). Revisiting the arcs of integration:
Cross-validations and extensions. Journal of Operations Manage-
ment, 30(1), 99–115.
Scott-Young, C., & Samson, D. (2008). Project success and project
team management: Evidence from capital projects in the pro-
cess industries. Journal of Operations Management, 26(1),
749–766.
Shenhar, A., & Dvir, D. (2010). Reinventing project management: The
diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Boston,
MA: Harvard Business Press.
Shenhar, A., Dvir, D., Levy, O., & Maltz, A. C. (2001). Project suc-
cess: A multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Planning,
34(6), 699–725.
Springer, M. L. (2016). Project and program management: A
competency-based approach. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Univer-
sity Press.
Tishler, A., Dvir, D., Shenhar, A., & Lipovetsky, S. (1996). Identify-
ing critical success factors in defense development projects: A
multivariate analysis. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 51(2), 151–171.
Tromp, J. W., & Homan, T. (2015). How unplanned changes emerge
while implementing a Project Management Information System
(PMIS) in a complex multiproject R&D environment. Procedia-
Social and Behavioral Sciences, 194(7), 211–220.
Van Der Velde, R. R., & Van Donk, D. P. (2002). Understanding bi-
project management: Engineering complex industrial construction
projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(7),
525–533.
Wang, E. T., Ju, P. H., Jiang, J. J., & Klein, G. (2008). The effects of
change control and management review on software flexibility and
project performance. Information & Management, 45(7), 438–443.
Wang, J., Lin, W., & Huang, Y. H. (2010). A performance-oriented
risk management framework for innovative R&D projects. Tech-
novation, 30(11), 601–611.
Wei, H. H., Liu, M., Skibniewski, M. J., & Balali, V. (2016). Conflict
and consensus in stakeholder attitudes toward sustainable transport
projects in China: An empirical investigation. Habitat Interna-
tional, 53(1), 473–484.
Whyte, J., Stasis, A., & Lindkvist, C. (2016). Managing change in the
delivery of complex projects: Configuration management, asset
information and “big data.” International Journal of Project Man-
agement, 34(2), 339–351.
Yang, L. R. (2013). Key practices, manufacturing capability and
attainment of manufacturing goals: The perspective of project/
engineer-to-order manufacturing. International Journal of Project
Management, 31(1), 109–125.
Yang, L. R., Huang, C. F., & Wu, K. S. (2011). The association
among project manager’s leadership style, teamwork and project
success. International Journal of Project Management, 29(3),
258–267.
15
Yeo, K. T., & Ning, J. H. (2002). Integrating supply chain and critical
chain concepts in Engineering-Procure-Construct (EPC) projects.
International Journal of Project Management, 20(1), 253–262.
Yet, B., Constantinou, A., Fenton, N., Martin, N., Luedeling, E., &
Shepherd, K. (2016). A Bayesian network framework for project
cost, benefit and risk analysis with an agricultural development
case study. Expert Systems with Applications, 60(10), 141–155.
Zhang, L., & He, J. (2015). Critical factors affecting tacit-knowledge
sharing within the integrated project team. Journal of Management
in Engineering, 32(2), 1–10.
Zhang, L., He, J., & Zhou, S. (2013). Sharing tacit knowledge for
integrated project team flexibility: Case study of integrated project
delivery. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
139(7), 795–804.
Zhang, J., Jia, S., & Diaz, E. (2015). A new buffer sizing approach
based on the uncertainty of project activities. Concurrent Engi-
neering, 23(1), 3–12.
Zhang, M., & Jin, M. (2014). Two staged incentive contract focused
on efficiency and innovation matching in critical chain project
management. Journal of Industrial Engineering and Management,
7(4), 919.
Zhang, Y., & Fan, Z. P. (2014). An optimization method for selecting
project risk response strategies. International Journal of Project
Management, 32(3), 412–422.
Author Biographies
Antônio Carlos Pacagnella, Jr., holds a doctorate in produc-
tion engineering from Federal University of São Carlos (UFS-
CAR), a master’s degree from the University of São Paulo
(USP), and a degree in mechanical engineering from the State
University of Campinas (UNICAMP). He is a professor and
researcher in the Production and Manufacturing Master Pro-
gram and also in the Business Management Post Graduation
Program at the School of Applied Sciences of the State Uni-
versity of Campinas. His experience and major fields of inter-
ests are project management and operations management. He
can be contacted at antonio.junior@fca.unicamp.br
Sérgio Luis da Silva holds a degree in materials engineering
from the Federal University of São Carlos, a master’s degree in
production engineering from the Federal University of São
Carlos, and a PhD in mechanical engineering from São Paulo
University. He is currently an associate professor at the Federal
University of São Carlos UFSCAR, where he has been teaching
since 1995. He has experience in production engineering and
information sciences with emphases on the product develop-
ment process and knowledge management. He has been an
advisor in the Post-Graduation Program in Production Engi-
neering at UFSCar since 2003. He can be contacted at ser
giol@ufscar.br
Ornella Pacı́fico is a professor and academic coordinator at
Estácio de Sá University and holds a doctorate in business
administration from the University of São Paulo at the Faculty
of Economics, Administration and Accountability. Her major
16
fields of experience include project management, finance man-
agement, and business education. She can be contacted at ornel
lapac@gmail.com
Paulo Sergio de Arruda Ignacio holds a doctorate in civil
engineering from LALT/DGT/FEC/UNICAMP (2010), in the
area of transport engineering. He holds a degree in mechanical
engineering from the Methodist University of Piracicaba
(1985) and a master’s degree in quality management from
IMECC (2001). He is a PhD professor at the Faculty of Applied
Sciences (FCA), State University of Campinas (UNICAMP)
and ad hoc arbitrator in newspapers. He has published articles
in magazines and congresses. He has academic and consulting
experience in operations and services management, logistics,
Project Management Journal 50(2)
supply chain management, productivity, management, quality
and performance measurement, and system modeling. He can
be contacted at paulo.ignacio@fca.unicamp.br
Alessandro Lucas da Silva holds a degree in mechanical engi-
neering from the University of São Paulo (2001), a master’s in
production engineering from the University of São Paulo
(2004), and a PhD in production engineering from the Univer-
sity of São Paulo. He worked as a process development engi-
neer at Embraer. He was an assistant professor at the
Universidade Estadual Paulista (UNESP) from 2010 to 2012.
He is currently an assistant professor at the University of Cam-
pinas (UNICAMP) in the Production Engineering course. He
can be contacted at alessandro.silva@fca.unicamp.br