This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal.
Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
Evaluating the Success of a Project and the
Performance of Its Leaders
Ofer Zwikael
Abstract—Although organizations regularly execute projects to
improve their performance, there is still no agreement in the liter-
ature on how to evaluate their eventual success. As a result, schol-
ars end up using different scales to measure the same outcome
variable of project success, thereby causing inconsistency in re-
search results. Existing project success evaluation models suffer
from their inability to apply to all project types and lack of sep-
aration of project success measurement from that of project indi-
viduals’ performance (for e.g., of the project manager). Through
two longitudinal studies based on the satisficing theory, this paper
develops, validates, and illustrates generic scales to measure the
success of any project, as well as the performance of its two key
leaders. This results in three distinct project success dimensions:
1) Project management success—evaluates the performance of the
project manager in achieving the project plan; 2) Project ownership
success—evaluates the performance of the project owner in realiz-
ing the business case; and 3) Project investment success—evaluates
the investment performance of the project for its funder. This pa-
per contributes to the literature by offering a theoretically robust,
multidimensional evaluation model that will enhance performance
evaluation of both projects and their leaders.
Index Terms—Operations and management, performance eval-
uation, product development, project management, software devel-
opment management.
I. INTRODUCTION
UCCESSFUL projects have a substantial positive impact on
S organizational performance; hence, understanding project
success correctly is of importance for both practice and research
(for e.g., [14], [20], and [28]). However, “there is still no con-
sensus as to what success really means” ([51], p. 33). To explain
why, after decades of research into this area, scholars still use
different scales to measure project success (for e.g., [34], [41],
and [55]), we analyze the theoretical and methodological faults
with the leading project success evaluation models (i.e., those
developed by Pinto, Shenhar, and DeLone and McLean).
Later in this paper we discuss these faults in detail, which
suggest that existing models
1) fail to separate project success measures from individual
performance measures (for e.g., of the project manager).
Manuscript received January 24, 2019; revised May 8, 2019 and June 8, 2019;
accepted June 22, 2019. Review of this manuscript was arranged by Department
Editor P. ED Love. (Corresponding author: Ofer Zwikael.)
O. Zwikael is with the Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200,
Australia (e-mail: ofer.zwikael@anu.edu.au).
J. Meredith is with the Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC 27109
USA (e-mail: meredijr@wfu.edu).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEM.2019.2925057
0018-9391 © 2019 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
1
and Jack Meredith
For example, a project manager may perform well but
events beyond their control cause the project to fail, or
vice versa;
2) are frequently limited to certain types of projects and hence
not generic enough to enable their use across all project
types; and
3) typically mix or combine the different perspectives of key
stakeholders (for e.g., the client and the contractor) into
one global but meaningless score that provides an overall
(but misrepresentative) view of project success.
Using one overall project success score is in conflict with the
consensus in the literature on the multidimensional nature of
project success [20], [36], [50]. Pinto was the first to develop
distinct success dimensions [37] and an overall success measure
(an average of all the success dimensions) called the project
implementation profile (PIP). However, rather than using the
dimensions as separate constructs that evaluate a project from
different perspectives, many scholars wrongly use the PIP or
other similar aggregate scales (for e.g., [13], [19], [30], [42],
and [44]).
These limitations with the leading models result in the lack
of an agreed-upon project success evaluation model in the lit-
erature. Consequently, scholars use dissimilar project success
scales to measure the same outcome variable (project success),
which results in misleading and inconsistent research findings.
Given this research gap, we investigate the following research
question: How should project success and the performance of
its key leaders be measured? The objective of this paper is to
develop, validate, and illustrate multiple generic success and
performance scales that can be applied to any project.
To do so, it was necessary to separate the success measure
of the project itself from that of the individual performance of
its key leaders (for e.g., the project manager). To recognize how
managers decide whether an initiative was a successful invest-
ment, we use Simon’s [53] theory of satisficing managerial be-
havior. This theory notes that managers aim at satisficing their
objectives, rather than maximizing or optimizing them. Over the
years since the introduction of this Nobel Prize winning theory,
others (for e.g., [7], [21], [23], [33]) have employed and extended
the satisficing concept in various contexts. One particular appli-
cation in the area of project performance is that of Zwikael and
Smyrk [62] who pointed out that projects not achieving their for-
mal goals stated in the business case may not necessarily imply
a failure, since senior management may still be satisfied with
the outcome. Thus, the crucial success measure of the project
should be based on the acceptability of the outcome in the eyes
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
2 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
of its funding entity. Accordingly, the satisficing theory is used
here to develop a new project evaluation model that addresses
the limitations and weaknesses of existing models.
The proposed model is superior to the vast range of models
proposed in the literature in recent decades because it is:
1) the first to distinguish between two important evaluation
perspectives—that of project success (one measure) ver-
sus the performance of its key leaders (two measures);
2) generic and can be used for any type of project;
3) theory based, relying on the satisficing theory [53];
4) methodologically robust, developed and validated in a
five-step study, and then illustrated in a longitudinal study.
This paper contributes to the engineering management liter-
ature by offering a multidimensional evaluation model that will
enhance the performance evaluation of both projects and their
leaders. The following section analyzes existing project success
models and their limitations in more detail.
II. UNDERSTANDING PROJECT SUCCESS
A. Multidimensional Nature of Project Success
Senior executives use the general term “project success” to
both subjectively describe and objectively evaluate the achieve-
ments of their projects at their completion. Similarly, scholars
use the same term as an outcome variable when conducting re-
search on projects. However, there are different points of view for
evaluating success following project completion. Shenhar et al.
argue that project success is a multidimensional construct, sug-
gesting that “different people … assess the success of projects in
different ways, and at different times” ([47], p. 5). Indeed, each
of the multiple project stakeholders (such as the organizational
executives, the project manager, the project team, and end users)
has their own perspective of a project due to nationality, cul-
ture, vested interests, fears, hopes, incentives, and motivations
[20], [27].
Moreover, reflection on project success can also change as
time progresses, conditions change, and the project is viewed
in longer retrospect. Therefore, time horizons also play a role
because some stakeholders (for e.g., the project manager) have
a short-term interest, whereas others, such as the project funder
(the senior executive who commits funds to the project, such as
the CEO or the president of the client organization), have longer
term concerns [61]. Shenhar et al. conclude that “comprehen-
sive success criteria must therefore reflect different interests and
views—leading to a multidimensional, multicriteria approach”
([50], p. 113). Therefore, project success should have “distinct
but related dimensions” ([36], p. 8).
B. Key Project Success Dimensions
Acknowledging that project success is a multidimensional
construct, scholars have identified its key dimensions. At the op-
erational level, projects are expected to be completed on time,
cost, and according to the intended scope. These three oper-
ational objectives were referred to by Martin Barnes in 1969
as the “iron triangle” [56]. The iron triangle was later replaced
with the term “project management success” (PMS) [12], de-
fined as the extent to which the project plan was realized [21], in
particular in achieving its time, cost, and scope targets. PMS
is the first agreed-upon success dimension, which has been
widely accepted in business and research to measure the project
implementation process [37].
However, “PMS” represents only an internal, short-term per-
spective of a project, but ignores the strategic and long-term
considerations [43], [52]. Basten et al. argue that “the tradi-
tional way of assessing project success is inadequate to as-
sess the overall success” ([3], p. 12). By considering only
PMS, project managers may make poor decisions when aiming
to achieve local optimization rather than global optimization
for the good of the project—for example, a project manager
may conduct less consultation with stakeholders to reduce the
duration of the project and enhance PMS, but by doing this
damaging, the project’s chance to achieve a sustainable, agreed-
upon, and validated solution that will add long-term value to the
organization.
To deal with the limitations of the PMS scale, project evalua-
tion models were “reformulated to include longer-term success
criteria such as newly acquired skills and capabilities resulting
from team learning and growth” ([15], p. 972) and the utiliza-
tion of a project’s outputs by its users [16]. Other researchers
extended the PMS scale by considering additional dimensions,
such as client satisfaction Pinto and Mantel (1990), commercial
success and future potential [50], satisfaction of other stake-
holders [9], impact on the project team [48], as well as safety,
effectiveness, and reduced conflicts [54].
The three key project success evaluation models (based on
their use in practice and extensive research impact) and their
related dimensions are summarized in Table I.
C. Limitations of Existing Project Success Evaluation Models
These key project evaluation models, although extensively
used in project-related research, suffer from multiple method-
ological and theoretical limitations. First, these models include
generic items that can be used in all projects (for e.g., comple-
tion on time and customer satisfaction), and they also include
items that are relevant only to certain types of projects but are
inappropriate for measuring the success of others. For exam-
ple, Shenhar et al.’s model [52] includes success items, such as
“developing a new technology” and “creating a new market.”
Such items may be irrelevant for many projects that instead aim
at enhancing knowledge, developing capabilities, or reducing
operations costs. Similarly, DeLone and McLean’s model [16]
measures “system quality,” an item that may not be relevant for
projects, such as a new service, and Pinto and Mantel’s model
[39] assesses whether the project “solved a problem,” which may
not be relevant for projects that explore new opportunities. As a
result, existing project evaluation models are not generic enough
to enable their use across all project types. This limitation has
created a situation where scholars remove unrelated items from
key scales and replace them with ad-hoc adjustments (for e.g.,
[34], [41], and [55]), which in turn results in research measuring
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ZWIKAEL AND MEREDITH: EVALUATING THE SUCCESS OF A PROJECT AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS LEADERS
TABLE I
KEY PROJECT EVALUATION MODELS
the same outcome variable in an inconsistent manner over the
years and across studies.
Second, although the consensus in the literature is that project
success is multidimensional and each dimension should capture
a different type of information that is relevant for a particular
stakeholder, scholars commonly aggregate various dimensions
into one overarching score that provides an encompassing (but
possibly misleading) view of project success [13], [19], [30],
[42], [44]. For example, the Los Angeles Red Line metro project
was successful in terms of efficient delivery (opened to the pub-
lic eight months ahead of schedule, with no budget overruns) but
a failure in terms of long-term effectiveness (60 000 passengers
in the first year instead of the expected one million), so an
aggregate score of “moderate success” will not capture the true
story correctly [49]. This type of aggregation can misrepresent
accurate performance because it does not allow capturing the
different views of its key stakeholders, who often represent dif-
ferent entities and organizations. For comparison, in the strategy
discipline, only 1% of research uses an aggregate performance
construct, with the majority of research using a set of separate
constructs, which thereby allows the researcher to study a
unique outcome variable that best fits the perspective of their
research [32].
Third, project success can be different from the successful
performance of its leaders. In other words, a failed project
does not necessarily indicate poor performance of its project
manager, or vice versa. For example, in the Los Angeles metro
project mentioned above, the construction project manager
achieved their goals by delivering the outputs ahead of time and
on budget, but the project failed because it did not reduce traffic
problems, and eventually the remaining phases of the project
were dropped [49].
Given the different (often even contradictory) perspectives of
success from various project stakeholders, evaluation models
should be more comprehensive to represent such differences in
objectives. Based on the separate constructs approach principle
[32], we develop a model of distinct but related success dimen-
sions that distinguishes between the achievement of the goals
of the project’s leaders and the realization of net value for the
3
funder who approved the project. Such a distinction is especially
important in cases where the project leaders perform well but
are unlucky due to external factors, so the project fails, or vice
versa. A formalized approach for such distinct project evaluation
dimensions is discussed next.
III. DISTINCT PROJECT EVALUATION DIMENSIONS
The discussion above highlights the need to evaluate project
performance separately from various distinct perspectives.
Accordingly, Zwikael and Smyrk [62] proposed a triple-test
conceptual framework to measure project success from three
distinct dimensions. The first two dimensions evaluate the
individual performance of the two key project leaders (the
project manager and the project owner) in realizing their
relevant baseline documents (the project plan and the business
case, respectively). For this purpose, a project owner is defined
as “the senior manager who is held accountable by the funder
for realizing the business case” [61]. The third dimension
[project investment success (PIS)] is unique as it evaluates the
effectiveness of the investment in the project for its funder by
assessing the success of the project overall. In other words, PIS
does not evaluate individual performance, but instead takes a
long-term perspective of the actual value from the investment
in the project for its funder, that is, project success. For this
purpose, the funder is the key project stakeholder because they
invest in the project and expect to get some value for their key
stakeholders in return for this investment.
The triple-test project evaluation framework is used in this
paper for its following strengths.
1) It is generic and can be implemented in any project.
2) It proposes distinct scales that capture the different per-
spectives of the key project stakeholders, such as the
funder and project manager.
3) It evaluates the success of the project separately from the
performance of its key leaders.
4) Other evaluation models focus on various internal and ex-
ternal stakeholders, whereas this one focuses on the most
important ones (i.e., the project funder, project owner,
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.

4 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT

TABLE II
TRIPLE-TEST PROJECT EVALUATION DIMENSIONS

and project manager) that represent the needs of all other
project stakeholders.
The three conceptual success dimensions of the triple-test
conceptual framework are summarized in Table II.
PMS evaluates the achievement of the project plan (i.e., sched-
ule, cost, and scope/quality targets) by the project manager,
whereas both project ownership success (POS) and PIS cap-
ture the value generated from the project. It should be noted that
this value, detailed in the project’s business case, does not need
to necessarily improve the current situation but simply provide
a positive benefit to the project funder in comparison to the al-
ternative future situation had the project not been undertaken.
The value can be measured in both monetary terms, such as
return on investment (ROI) and net present value (NPV) [24],
as well as nonmonetary returns such as increased organizational
capabilities or new knowledge generated from the project. How-
ever, POS is relative (to realizing the business case’s goals—see
[29]), whereas PIS is a measure for the absolute contribution of
the project to its funder regardless of the project’s stated goals.
The use of PIS as the missing piece in project evaluation allows
us to distinguish between the success of a manager in achieving
their nominal goals set in its business case (POS) from the actual
success which results in a net gain (project worth) to the organi-
zation (PIS). The actual worth of the project is calculated based
on the monetary and nonmonetary benefits realized, disbenefits
realized, and project cost [63].
By distinguishing between the two project success dimen-
sions, we argue that projects can still be considered a success
even when the business case is not achieved. For example, in the
NASA’s Hubble Telescope project [17], [51], because the tele-
scope was produced and delivered to space with a faulty mirror,
the target benefits from the project were delivered late (POS
failure). By way of contrast, the general view of the astronomy
community (including NASA itself) is that the images gener-
ated by the now-repaired instrument have been of inestimable
scientific value (PIS success). In other words, a project can fail
to achieve its business case targets (POS) but still be a success-
ful investment for its funder (PIS), although not the other way
around. If a project achieved its business case targets (POS),
then it implies that the funder is satisfied with the project’s re-
sults, otherwise they would have never approved the project. We
therefore hypothesize that PIS scores will be higher than those
of POS:
H1 : Project investment success scores are higher than project own-
ership success scores (PIS>POS)
IV. RESEARCH OVERVIEW
Because the Zwikael and Smyrk [62] project evaluation
framework we adopted is conceptual and did not offer mea-
surement scales, this paper develops, tests, and validates such
scales using two research methodologies (see Table III). We use
longitudinal studies to capture the time it takes project benefits
to be realized after project completion. We also use a structured
scale development process [11] to develop and validate the new
scales. These scales will then be used to enhance practice and
develop theory through hypothesis testing.
First, to ensure the proposed project evaluation model is valid
and comprehensively captures the distinct, but related dimen-
sions of project success, we conducted the following five steps
[11]. In Step 1, to confirm the need for a multidimensional
project evaluation model [36], [50], we conducted a content va-
lidity study, which involved a group of 20 international experts
from academia and industry. In Step 2, for item generation and
refinement we interviewed 13 senior executives (9 CEOs and
4 CFOs) and conducted a supplementary literature analysis. In
Step 3, we conducted an initial item reduction by following an
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) based on survey data collected
from 146 global managers. In Step 4, we validated the scales by
conducting a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and tested con-
vergent validity and internal consistency, based on survey data
of 200 U.S. projects. To capture the long-term effect of projects
on their organizations, this step involved longitudinal data col-
lection. In Step 5, we reconfirmed the scales by replicating the
survey with a different group of participants in a large survey of
267 additional projects in various cultures. In Study 2, we an-
alyzed 20 projects in Europe and Australia by comparing their
ex ante with ex post NPV values to test the hypothesis using a
different research methodology.
V. STUDY 1—THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT
EVALUATION MODEL
This study describes five steps to develop and validate success
scales for the project evaluation model.
A. Step 1—The Multidimensional Nature of Project Success
The objective of Step 1 was to confirm the multidimensional
structure of a project success scale by conducting a content
validity study with subject experts.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ZWIKAEL AND MEREDITH: EVALUATING THE SUCCESS OF A PROJECT AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS LEADERS
TABLE III
RESEARCH OVERVIEW OF TWO LONGITUDINAL STUDIES
1) Participants and Procedure: We sent requests for partic-
ipation to 30 international experts from both academia and in-
dustry. Twenty experts (67%) returned complete questionnaires,
consisting of 13 senior academics with a PhD in project man-
agement and related areas from leading universities, and seven
senior project management practitioners with global business
experience. Among these responses, eight were received from
Australia, five from the United States, three from Israel, two
from New Zealand, and one from the U.K. and China each.
We asked participants to sort each of the seven questionnaire
items (discussed below and presented in random order) into one
of the two traditional success dimensions (derived from the lit-
erature analysis mentioned above) where they best fit: PMS and
project success [12]. We provided a definition for each dimen-
sion, but did not indicate which dimension the items should fall
in. As suggested by Churchill [11], we also asked participants
to provide feedback on the clarity and readability of each item.
2) Measures: The four PMS items were based on the three
iron triangle items—the project was completed on time, within
budget, and within the agreed scope. Because we do not evaluate
the quality of the decision to approve the project (but instead the
performance during the project given the changing requirements
and conditions), we refer to the modified (i.e., most recently
5
approved) baseline documents (i.e., the business case and project
plan). These three items were complemented by a new item
(PMS4), i.e., “the project manager did not cause unanticipated
negative impact to the project’s results” [62]. This item was
added to ensure the project manager (or any of the project team
members) has not caused negative results that are not directly
related to time, cost, and scope, such as higher than expected
levels of pollution and noise during a construction project.
For project success, the following three items were developed
from core theories in adjacent disciplines.
1) “The project realized its target benefits—as set by the
project’s funder.” This item relies on the expectation that a
project should realize its target benefits - strategic project
goals that, following project completion, will enhance or
maintain organizational performance, as specified in the
business case [6], [61].
2) “The investment in this project generated satisfactory re-
sults for the project’s funder.” This item is based on
Simon’s [53] satisficing theory, as described earlier.
3) “The project’s funder would have invested in this project
again had they known its actual final results.” Regret the-
ory [4], [5] posits that people care not only about what
they get, but also about what might have been obtained
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
6 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
had they chosen differently. Pinto and Mantel (1990) use
the regret theory in their first project success item: “Know-
ing what you know now about the status of the project, we
would have developed the project” (p. 275). Therefore,
a successful project for a funder is one they would have
invested in again.
3) Data Analysis: We used the following two criteria [1] to
test the experts’ level of agreement with the proposed dimen-
sions: 1) substantive agreement, measuring the proportion of
respondents who assign an item to its intended dimension (a
threshold value of 0.7); and 2) substantive validity coefficient,
measuring the extent to which respondents assign an item to its
posited dimension rather than another dimension (a threshold
value of 0.5).
4) Results: Six of the seven proposed items received val-
ues higher than the thresholds required for both measures, with
values for the substantive agreement index ranging from 0.78
to 0.94 and substantive validity coefficient from 0.56 to 0.88.
Therefore, these items were confirmed in their proposed di-
mensions. Item PMS3 was the only one not to meet the thresh-
old requirements. Following comments made by the experts, its
wording was changed to “The project was completed within the
agreed scope” for testing in the next step. It was expected that the
revised wording sufficiently clarified the meaning of the item,
being one of the three dimensions of the iron triangle. Minor
word changes have also been made to the other items as per the
suggestions received from the experts. For example, PMS4 was
simplified to “the project was completed without undesirable
benefits caused by the project manager.”
B. Step 2—Item Generation and Refinement
Following the confirmation of the multidimensional structure
of a project success scale in Step 1, the objective of this step was
to identify potential project success dimensions and items and
then refine them for empirical testing in future steps.
1) Participants and Procedure: We interviewed 13 senior
global executives (nine CEOs and four CFOs) of large organiza-
tions who approve and evaluate project success. To obtain suffi-
cient diversity, we included organizations that were both private
(for e.g., banks and telecom firms) and governmental (for e.g., a
transportation hub and a government department). Although all
these organizations were based in Fiji, the interviewees gener-
ally had global business experience and worked in collaboration
with their international companies’ headquarters overseas (for
e.g., Germany, Australia, and the U.K.) and used diverse project
management methodologies. The interviews lasted 50 min on
average and were semistructured so the participants could elab-
orate on how their organizations evaluate project success.
2) Data Analysis: The interview transcripts were coded and
analyzed with reference to the two success dimensions tested in
Step 1: PMS and project success. This was achieved through an
iterative process of data analysis from different perspectives at
different times [31].
3) Results:
a) Project Management Success: The interviewees empha-
sized the importance of completing projects on time and budget,
for example, “We had to fast-track internet banking within three
months” (CFO #1), and “the two targets we give them is keeping
the project within the allocated cost and timelines” (CFO #6).
Moreover, the interviewees suggested an overall question to be
added for evaluating the project management process holisti-
cally.
b) Project Success: Interviewees in the private sector em-
phasized the importance of achieving financial success. For ex-
ample, CEO #3 said that project success is judged in terms of
“revenue retention perspective,” because “we need to get value
to shareholders …give a commercial benefit to the company.”
Furthermore, interviewees stated that a successful project also
realizes the nonmonetary target benefits that were approved be-
fore its commencement: “achieve the benefits of the project as
in the business case” (CEO #3). In particular, CFO #1 refers to a
target benefit of “knowledge sharing and resource capabilities,”
stating that the project “will enhance the [country’s] economic
activity.” In the telecom company, CEO #3 refers to “qualitative
benefits, such as enhancement in customer service and reduction
in fault rate to the customer.” CEO #7 mentioned the target ben-
efits of increased “customer satisfaction” and reduced “number
of accidents.”
4) Discussion and Further Literature Review: Interviewees
confirmed PMS as an important dimension to evaluate the per-
formance of project managers, while also emphasizing the im-
portance of benefit realization for overall project success. To
learn more about the relationship between target benefits and
project success we conducted an additional literature review to
identify examples of target benefits in various project types,
such strategic, operational, compliance, and external projects
[46]. We concluded that there is a large variety of target benefits
(for e.g., increased public health, increased knowledge, reduced
manufacturing cost, and increased service quality), and thus, a
limited number of success items in a scale cannot accommo-
date all project types. Therefore, the proposed model includes a
generic item regarding target benefits (“the project has realized
all target benefits”), where each project can define its unique
target benefits.
Based on the items that had received support in the first two
steps, complemented by an additional literature review, we pro-
posed an initial set of items (see Table IV) for the three project
success dimensions adopted earlier.
C. Step 3—Initial Item Reduction
The objective of this step was to refine the initial items
identified in Step 2 using an empirical study, which includes
convergent validity tests and an EFA.
1) Participants and Procedure: We conducted a survey of
146 senior managers who supervise projects in Papua New
Guinea. This country was selected because it is one of the world’s
fastest-growing economies and accommodates a large number
of infrastructure, gas, oil, and mineral mega projects executed
by foreign companies using project management methodologies
commonly used in the United States and the U.K. [57], and of-
fers a different culture to test the robustness of our scales. Most
organizations included in the sample were government (28.1%),
services (15.8%), engineering (13.7%), NGO (12.3%), and con-
struction (11.0%). Most common project types in the sample
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ZWIKAEL AND MEREDITH: EVALUATING THE SUCCESS OF A PROJECT AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS LEADERS
TABLE IV
INITIAL ITEMS FOR THE THREE PROJECT SUCCESS DIMENSIONS (STEP 2)
were construction (32.9%), services (28.1%), and engineering
(15.1%). The average project lasted 19.1 months, involved a
team of 69.1 members and cost US$14M. Questionnaires were
administrated in English, which is an official language and spo-
ken by professionals. We selected senior managers rather than
project managers as survey participants, to avoid self-evaluation
of project success. Managers were asked to rate the success of
the last project they supervised using the measures described
below.
2) Measures: We used the ten success items derived from
Step 2 and presented in Table IV (rated on a seven-point Likert
scale) to conduct an EFA. Because convergent validity measures
the extent to which the proposed scale relates to similar estab-
lished constructs [59], we also asked the participants to report
on the following three common success items.
1) Schedule overrun, measured as time overrun at the end of
the project in comparison with the most recently approved
schedule (in percentage). We expect the actual value of the
schedule overrun will be negatively correlated with item
PMS1 (“the project was completed on time”).
2) Cost overrun, measured as budget overrun at the end of
the project in comparison with the most recently approved
budget (in percentage). We expect the actual value of the
cost overrun will be negatively correlated with item PMS2
(“the project was completed within budget”).
3) Customer satisfaction, measured on a Likert-type scale
ranging from one (low) to ten (high) to capture the diver-
sity of clients’ satisfaction from project results. We expect
this measure will be positively correlated with both POS
and PIS, as both represent the perceived success of the
project by the funder.
7
3) Data analysis: To test convergent validity, we calculated
the significance of the correlation between the proposed similar
constructs. We then conducted an EFA to confirm the dimen-
sions of the success construct and to conduct item reduction. To
examine whether the items load onto the specified dimensions,
we performed a rotated Varimax factor analysis with Kaiser
Normalization and calculated alpha Cronbach (α), composite
reliability (CR) and average variance extracted (AVE) for each
factor.
4) Results: Significant correlations were found for the fol-
lowing four expected relationships analyzed for convergent
validity:
1) schedule overrun—PMS1 (r = −0.466; p < 0.001);
2) cost overrun—PMS2 (r = −0.315; p < 0.001);
3) customer satisfaction—PIS (r = 0.660; p < 0.001);
4) customer satisfaction—POS (r = 0.207; p = 0.012).
These results support convergent and nomological validity for
the proposed scale.
Then, an EFA was conducted for item reduction. An initial
EFA suggested that item POS3 had a poor alignment with all
other items. The reason might have been that participants did not
fully comprehend the complex nature of the new term “worth”
in the context of project success. Similar comments had been
received verbally from the participants during data collection.
Because of the confusion caused by this item, we removed it
from further analysis.
Table V presents the EFA results (only loadings of 0.4 and
above shown) for all remaining nine items included in the ques-
tionnaire. Results confirm the assumed dimensions of the items
among the three proposed dimensions. These three dimensions
explained 78% of the variance. Eight of the nine items fell into
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
8 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
TABLE V
EXPLORATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS (STEP 3)
∗
Loadings less than 0.4 are not presented.
the same dimensions confirmed at the end of Step 2 (with cross
loadings for items PMS5 and POS1). Item PMS4 fell into the
POS dimension, probably due to the confusing term used “unde-
sirable benefits.” Table V also shows that alpha Cronbach, CR,
and AVE levels were found to be satisfactory in most cases.
5) Discussion: Results confirmed the three success dimen-
sions with acceptable factor loadings, though changes were re-
quired to some items:
1) PMS5 was removed due to a high cross loading with PIS,
2) POS2 was removed due to the confusing term “undesirable
benefits,”
3) POS3 was removed earlier due to poor alignment with all
other items and the confusing term “worth,”
4) following the omission of two of the three POS items and
to ensure this dimension maintained multiple items, a new
item was added: “the project business case was realized”
[61],
5) PMS4 was rephrased to include the more understandable
term “undesirable impact,”
6) following comments from participants that PIS1 was too
broad, it was replaced with two more specific items that
rely on relevant theories: “The investment in this project
generated satisfactory results (even if the business case
was not realized),” based on Simon’s [53] satisficing the-
ory, and “I would have invested in this project had I known
everything that has happened since,” based on the concept
of regret [4]. The revised scale was then tested in Step 4.
D. Step 4—Scale Validation
The objective of this study was to validate the revised scale
by conducting a CFA, and testing reliability based on a large
survey conducted in the United States. To capture the long-term
effect of POS and PIS, and to deal with potential same source
bias issues, this step involved longitudinal data collection. We
also repeated the convergent validity analysis, though this time
using different constructs than the ones used in Step 3.
1) Participants and Procedure: We first conducted a pilot
study with 18 senior managers in Australia, followed by col-
lecting data in the United States through a two-wave survey,
designed to minimize common method bias [22]. In the first
wave of this survey, managers were asked to report on three
project management constructs (discussed below) in the most
recent project they supervised. Two months later, participants
reported on project success for the same projects if already com-
pleted. Two hundred respondents working in project related jobs
in various organizations and industries filled in both question-
naires. 83% of the respondents work in private companies, 11%
in government, and 6% in other organizations. The average par-
ticipant had 14.1 years of work experience, including 8.1 years
in projects. The average organization size was 1538 employees.
53% of respondents were male.
2) Measures: In the first wave, participants rated the fol-
lowing project management constructs, which are expected to
be related to project success [10]. All items were rated on a
seven-point Likert scale.
Senior Executive Support (SES): The extent to which top man-
agement allocates sufficient resources and provides assistance to
the implementation of a project. It was measured using a tailored
eight-item scale [26]. An example item was “The senior exec-
utive strongly considered the goals and values of the project.”
The scale’s alpha coefficient was 0.94.
Senior Executive Leadership (SEL): It measures the lead-
ers’ ability to present and communicate an organization’s trans-
formational vision to the project team using a five-item scale
[58]. An example item was “The manager clearly articulated
his/her vision of the future.” The scale’s alpha coefficient
was 0.92.
Effective Target Benefits (ETB): It measures senior managers’
ability to define effective strategic project goals that are set in a
manner that will allow their successful measurement, manage-
ment, and realization using a fifteen-item scale [60]. An example
item was “Project goals were assigned a specific target value.”
The scale’s alpha coefficient was 0.96.
In the second wave, participants rated project success using
the three dimensions derived from Step 3: PMS (four items),
POS (two items), and PIS (three items).
3) Data analysis: Our CFA compared the following three
models for the structure of the success scale:
1) a one-factor model, comprised of all nine items;
2) a two-factor model, with PIS and POS combined into one
factor;
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ZWIKAEL AND MEREDITH: EVALUATING THE SUCCESS OF A PROJECT AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS LEADERS
TABLE VI
PROJECT EVALUATION MODEL
3) a three-factor model, which maintains the three success
dimensions: PMS, POS, and PIS.
We compared the models using the comparative fit index
(CFI), goodness of fit index (GFI), and root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA) with threshold acceptance levels of
0.9, 0.9, and 0.08 accordingly [8]. Because these values are only
“rules of thumbs” [22], we also conducted inferential conver-
gent validity tests by calculating the correlations between the
proposed success scale dimensions (PMS, POS, and PIS) and
the related constructs ETB, SEL, and SES.
4) Results: The CFA suggests that all three models resulted
in the same good fit of the data (CFI = 0.97, GFI = 0.94, RMSEA
= 0.09), yet the three-factor model also suggested high reliabil-
ity levels: PMS (α = 0.84; CR = 0.87; AVE = 0.62), POS
(α = 0.81; CR = 0.81; AVE = 0.68), and PIS (α = 0.89;
CR = 0.90; AVE = 0.74). Significant and positive correlations
were found among all nine combinations of the three project
management constructs and three project success dimensions:
ETB (α = 0.96; CR = 0.97; AVE = 0.66); SEL (α = 0.92;
CR = 0.92; AVE = 0.69), and SES (α = 0.94; CR = 0.95;
AVE = 0.68). Correlation values ranged from 0.22 to 0.67 with
significance levels all below p-value of 0.01. These moderate
values suggest the constructs are related but not overlapped.
E. Step 5—Replication
The objective of this step was to replicate the results of previ-
ous steps and confirm their robustness in a different international
and multicultural sample.
1) Participants and Procedure: Similar to previous steps,
managers were asked to rate the success of their last project
completed using the nine-items presented in Table VI. Data were
collected using an additional survey of 267 senior managers in
a convenience sample in a diverse set of countries and cultures,
which included India (N = 204), Singapore (N = 41), and Cook
Islands (N = 22). The primary organizations included in the
sample were the traditional project management industries of
software (56.4%) and construction (36.1%). The most common
9
project types in the sample were services (39.8%) and construc-
tion (32.7%). The average project lasted 25.1 months, involved
a team of 36.8 members, and cost US$14.7M.
2) Results: We first repeated the CFA analysis conducted in
Step 4. The analysis confirms a good fit of the data (CFI = 0.88,
GFI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.06). However, because these are non-
inferential tests [22], we also repeated the convergent validity
tests conducted in Step 3. Results show again statistically sig-
nificant correlations between the new and old success measures:
1) schedule overrun—PMS1 (r = −0.142; p = 0.023);
2) cost overrun—PMS2 (r = −0.073; p = 0.244);
3) customer satisfaction—PIS (r = 0.308; p < 0.001);
4) customer satisfaction—POS (r = 0.249; p < 0.001).
These results are similar to those obtained in previous steps
and support the final dimensions and items of the project success
evaluation model presented in Table VI.
Next, we calculated the correlations among the three success
dimensions. All correlations among the pairs were found to be
positive but low (PMS–POS: 0.11; PMS–PIS: 0.11; POS–PIS:
0.20). These results suggest that PMS, POS, and PIS are related
but distinct constructs and as discussed earlier, a project can
succeed in one but fail in another.
Last, following the validation of the evaluation model, its three
dimensions, and the nine items, we used the data of the 267
projects to test our hypothesis. We conducted a paired-sample
mean comparison t-test. Results in Table VII show that both
POS and PIS scores are significantly higher than PMS. Further-
more, PIS scores are significantly higher than POS (t = –2.198;
p = 0.04), and hence support our hypothesis.
VI. STUDY 2—THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN POS AND PIS
A. Methodology
In order to test our hypothesis from a different perspective
using another research methodology, and to illustrate the differ-
ence between the two new project evaluation dimensions (POS
and PIS), we analyzed 20 major road and rail projects reported
in the literature using the well-quantified financial measure of
NPV. An ex ante NPV analysis (as set in the project business
case) is common for project appraisal, whereas an ex post NPV
analysis (which uses actual values measured years after project
completion) is expensive and hence has limited value in practice.
Therefore, an ex post NPV analysis is conduced rarely and only
for a limited number of major public projects where the mon-
etary benefits can be inferred from public usage, such as with
roads, tunnels, bridges, and railways. We compared ex ante with
ex post NPV data from two sources—ten road and rail projects
executed in Europe [25], and ten road projects from Australia
[2]. All monetary values were discounted in the original analyses
and converted to $US for the purpose of this paper.
B. Results
Fig. 1 presents the NPV values of these 20 projects (each
is represented as a dot in the figure), based on their ex ante
and ex post evaluations. The diagonal line in the figure splits
the projects between those above the line achieving higher ex
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
10
TABLE VII
MEAN COMPARISON AMONG PROJECT SUCCESS DIMENSIONS
∗p < 0.05.
∗∗p < 0.01.
∗∗∗p < 0.001.
Fig. 1. Ex ante versus ex post project NPV analysis.
post NPV than their ex ante targets from their business case
and those below the line that were unable to achieve their ex
ante targets. When measured against their original goals, this
analysis confirms the findings in the literature that most projects
fail to achieve the goals set in their business cases, i.e., project
ownership failure. For example, this particular small sample of
highly complex mega-projects shows that 85% of the projects
do not achieve their goals, compared with 61% in Information
Technology projects [18].
Whereas the diagonal line in Fig. 1 allows the evaluation of
POS, we can now also consider the horizontal x-axis line in the
figure, which provides an additional and missing perspective
about PIS. The x-axis splits projects between those achieving
positive ex post NPV (investment success, i.e., benefits exceed
costs) and those generating negative ex post NPV (investment
failure, i.e., costs exceed benefits). Although the illustration of
the horizontal line in this analysis lies on the x-axis itself, or-
ganizations should consider alternative positive NPV thresholds
for their investments before a project can be considered an in-
vestment success. Results show that most projects, although not
achieving their ex ante targets (POS), are still located above the
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
horizontal x-axis (PIS). Thus, our hypothesis gains additional
support. Furthermore, these results also support the extension
of the satisficing theory to the project evaluation context, as
Fig. 1 shows that most projects still provide positive (and in
many cases satisficing) results for their funders, even if they fail
to achieve their official goals.
VII. DISCUSSION
A. Theoretical Contributions
This paper developed, validated, and illustrated a project suc-
cess evaluation model consisting of three dimensions (PMS,
POS, and PIS) and their related items. To develop the evalu-
ation model, we relied on existing scales where appropriate. For
example, PMS is heavily based on the project manager achiev-
ing the goals set in the project plan document (for e.g., cost
and schedule), and POS is based on the project owner realizing
the goals set in the business case (for e.g., benefits). However,
the proposed project evaluation model also addresses the weak-
nesses with existing models discussed earlier and is supported
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ZWIKAEL AND MEREDITH: EVALUATING THE SUCCESS OF A PROJECT AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS LEADERS
by the satisficing theory [53] for managerial decision making,
and hence contributes to the literature, as is discussed next.
First, the proposed model is generic (rather than project-type
dependent) and thus allows implementation in any project type,
for example by accommodating the unique goals expected from
each project into the target benefits and business case. Second,
it has distinct dimensions and hence allows various stakeholders
to focus on different goals for the same project. For example, a
marketing manager may propose the target benefit of “increased
sales” for a new R&D project, the finance manager may require
that the company’s cash flow does not decrease by more than
5%, and the R&D manager may set a softer target benefit such
as “increased organizational knowledge,” whereas the project
manager will be measured on completing the project on time.
Third, the proposed model separates the evaluation of project
success (i.e., PIS) from the performance of its two key project
leaders—the project manager, who is accountable to deliver the
project plan, and the project owner, to deliver the business case
(PMS and POS, respectively). For this purpose, the new PIS di-
mension evaluates a successful investment rather than success-
ful managerial performance. PIS is a unique dimension, as it
does not rely on any existing project baseline document. Rather
than evaluating whether specific goals have been achieved by a
particular project leader, this dimension captures the long-term
impact of a project on its funder, regardless of its stated goals.
PIS is the first success measure that reflects the narrow interests
of the most important entity of any project—the funder, as they
are the only entity that can approve a project as well as extend a
successful project with a follow-on project.
As a new theoretical dimension, we developed the PIS di-
mension based on the satisficing theory [53], which argues that
managers aim at satisficing their objectives, rather than maxi-
mizing or optimizing them. Accordingly, the project funder may
consider a project successful if the results were satisfactory, even
if it did not achieve all formal objectives. We also relied on the
concept of regret [4], which postulates that in addition to what
they get, people also care about what might have been obtained
had they chosen differently. Accordingly, we claim that for a
funder, a successful investment in a project is one they would
have invested in again had they known everything that has hap-
pened since. In summary, PIS is a holistic evaluation of project
success by the senior executive who approved the project, for
e.g., the CEO. It indicates that investment success is achieved
when a project generates satisfactory results for the project’s
funder.
We therefore contribute to the performance and project man-
agement literatures by integrating the satisficing theory into the
project evaluation context. We further contribute to the literature
by clarifying 1) the difference between evaluating the results of a
managerial initiative and the performance of the managers who
executed the initiative, and 2) whether an initiative was a suc-
cess or failure relative to its stated goals as opposed to whether
it was an absolute worthwhile investment for the organization.
Accordingly, scholars can now use the most appropriate scale to
measure project success to address their focus, i.e., using PMS
to evaluate the project management process (for e.g., research
on project team management, leadership, planning, and control)
11
and POS and PIS to evaluate the value of projects (for e.g.,
research on the effectiveness of project selection, and strategy
implementation).
B. Practical Contributions
In addition to the theoretical contribution, this paper also of-
fers practical contributions by enhancing our knowledge about
the conceptual meaning and measurement of project success.
First, results from longitudinal empirical studies confirm that
the question about whether the investment in a project was wor-
thy (PIS) is distinct from the question of whether the project
leaders were successful in realizing its business case (POS) and
the project plan (PMS). Furthermore, we conclude that projects
can be successful investments for their organizations (PIS) even
when their leaders fail to achieve their business case goals (and
vice versa). For example, a company that sets a 70% ROI target
for a project may still be satisfied with a 50% ROI result, despite
the project failing to achieve the goals specified in the business
case (POS failure, but PIS success), especially when goals are
set unrealistically or too optimistically.
Second, by adding a dimension measuring the performance
of the project owner (POS) to the traditional one measuring the
performance of the project manager (PMS), we offer clarity to
the role of the project manager. Shenhar et al. ([52], p. 699)
state “project managers are the new strategic leaders, who must
take on total responsibility for project business results.” How-
ever, this paper supports the most recent literature that argues
that although the leadership role of project managers in real-
izing the strategic goals of projects is valuable, the account-
ability for business results should lie with the project funding
entity (a.k.a. client) in general, and the project owner in par-
ticular (for e.g., [6], [35], and [45]). As a result, we conclude
that project managers should not be held accountable for over-
all project performance metrics that are beyond their control,
nor should their responsibilities be enlarged beyond their nor-
mal levels of competence and familiarity. That is, they should
be accountable for delivering the project outputs according to
the project plan, which will in turn support the project owner
achieving the project’s long-term goals as specified in the busi-
ness case.
Third, each success dimension is distinct and used for dif-
ferent purposes and at particular times. For example, PMS can
be evaluated immediately (or soon) after project completion,
whereas POS evaluation can only occur after the benefits have
been “secured,” i.e., when they have either been fully achieved,
surely failed, or when we expect no major changes in their values
[63]. Furthermore, managers may want to reassess the relative
weighting of each success dimension’s individual items in each
project. For example, within the PMS dimension, meeting sched-
ule goals may be more important than cost goals in one project
but vice versa in another. Similarly, each project will have a
unique set of target benefits, such as those mentioned earlier:
team growth and learning, preparing for the future, improved
safety, customer satisfaction, reduced conflicts, developing new
skills, and so on. Setting the weightings of items within a success
dimension could be a useful strategic exercise at the start of the
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
12
project, as well as for future evaluation and benchmarking, both
immediately after the project has been completed as well as at
specific points in the more remote future. Such a benchmarking
exercise would not only provide an excellent forum for executive
discussions concerning what project goals are most important to
the organization, but also provide guidance for project managers,
steering committees, and proposers of future projects.
Using a mixed-method analysis, we confirmed that projects
that fail to achieve their goals are not necessarily unworthy in-
vestments for their funder. Although retrospectively, the orga-
nization could have invested in other projects instead, it is not
clear if they would have gained their promised returns either.
Therefore, failures to achieve project goals (set in the project
plan and business case) primarily tell us about the performance
of the project manager and project owner (respectively). Yet, the
actual organizational performance following project completion
may still be enhanced (PIS), even if the goals were not realized
(POS and PMS).
VIII. CONCLUSION
Existing evaluation models for project success suffer from
theoretical and methodological limitations, such as their lack of
separation of project success measurement from that of project
individuals’ performance and their inability to apply to all
project types. Moreover, there is no agreement in either research
or practice on how project success should be evaluated, which
results in scholars employing dissimilar scales to measure the
same research phenomenon and practitioners developing ad-hoc
solutions for this problem.
Based on the satisficing theory [53], this paper developed,
validated, and illustrated generic scales to measure the success
of any project, as well as the performance of its two key leaders,
through the following three distinct success dimensions:
1) PMS—to evaluate the performance of the project manager
in achieving the project plan,
2) POS—to evaluate the performance of the project owner in
realizing the business case, and
3) PIS—to evaluate the performance of the project as an in-
vestment for its funder.
Not only the purpose and subject of each success dimension
are different, but also the time of their evaluation also varies.
For example, PMS can be evaluated soon after outputs have
been delivered, whereas POS evaluation can only occur after the
benefits have been secured [63]. The distinct dimensions of the
proposed project evaluation model clearly distinguish between
the short- and long-term results, as well as between the success
of a project and the performance of its leaders (project manager
and project owner). Finally, the model is generic and hence can
be used for any project type.
This paper offers a theoretical contribution to the performance
and project management literatures by arguing that projects, al-
though frequently not achieving their goals, can still deliver pos-
itive net value for their funders. Following four steps to develop
the model, we tested this claim and received support in two lon-
gitudinal studies: 1) a survey of 267 projects in the U.S. (Study
1—step 5), and 2) an ex ante versus ex post analysis of 20 projects
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT
in Europe and Australia (Study 2). We conclude that the separa-
tion between the performance of project leaders achieving their
goals and the performance of the project itself to generate orga-
nizational value is an important distinction for the evaluation of
projects.
A research limitation of this study may relate to data collec-
tion in limited contexts. Future research should test the proposed
evaluation model in different nations and cultures, various kinds
of organizations, different types of projects, multiple points in
time, different economic cycles (booms, busts), and for mul-
tiple types of stakeholders. Next, whereas in our studies we
allowed a lag of two months to evaluate project success, we
accept that this duration might be insufficient in other cases.
Future research can study how long after its completion project
success should be evaluated and how the quality of the origi-
nal funding decision impacts project success (for e.g., can an
incorrectly selected project become a success?). Last, future re-
search could also focus on the value and applicability of the
evaluation model in practice, investigating the receptiveness of
executives and project stakeholders to the dimensions and items
in the scales. In particular, the employment of a rigorous and
agreed-upon framework to evaluate project success in practice
can substantially improve our record of success for the complex
projects we are struggling with today, as well as better support
high quality research.
REFERENCES
[1] J. C. Anderson and D. W. Gerbing, “Predicting the performance of mea-
sures in a confirmatory factor analysis with a pretest assessment of their
substantive validities,” J. Appl. Psychol., vol. 76, no. 5, pp. 732–740, 1991.
[2] Ex post economic evaluation of national road investment projects, vol. 1,
Australian Government—Department of Infrastructure, Regional Devel-
opment and Cities, Canberra, ACT, Australia, Rep. 145, 2018.
[3] D. Basten, D. Joosten, and W. Mellis, “Managers’ perceptions of informa-
tion system project success,” J. Comput. Inf. Syst., vol. 52, no. 2, pp. 12–21,
2011.
[4] D. E. Bell, “Regret in decision making under uncertainty,” Oper. Res., vol.
30, pp. 961–981, 1982.
[5] H. Bleichrodt, A. Cillo, and E. Diecidue, “A quantitative measurement of
regret theory,” Manage. Sci., vol. 56, no. 1, pp. 161–175, 2010.
[6] R. Breese, S. Jenner, C. E. M. Serra, and J. Thorp, “Benefits manage-
ment: Lost or found in translation,” Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 33, no. 7,
pp. 1438–1451, 2015.
[7] D. B. Brown and M. Sim, “Satisficing measures for analysis of risky po-
sitions,” Manage. Sci., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 71–84, 2009.
[8] M. W. Browne and R. Cudeck, “Alternative ways of assessing model fit,”
in Testing Structural Equation Models, K. A. Bollen, J.S. Long, Eds. New-
bury Park, CA, USA: Sage, 1993.
[9] D. J. Bryde and D. Brown, “The influence of a project performance mea-
surement system on the success of a contract for maintaining motorways
and trunk roads,” Project Manage. J., vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 57–65, 2005.
[10] Y. Chih and O. Zwikael, “Project benefit management: A conceptual
framework of target benefit formulation,” Int. J. Project Manage., vol.
33, no. 1, pp. 352–362, 2015.
[11] G. A. Churchill, “A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing
scales,” J. Mark. Res., vol. 16, pp. 64–73, 1979.
[12] T. Cooke-Davies, “The ‘real’ success factors on projects,” Int. J. Project
Manage., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 185–190, 2002.
[13] F. Costantino, G. Di Gravio, and F. Nonino, “Project selection in project
portfolio management: An artificial neural network model based on critical
success factors,” Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 33, no. 8, pp. 1744–1754,
2015
[14] P. Crosetto and T. Regner, “It’s never too late: Funding dynamics and
self pledges in reward-based crowdfunding,” Res. Policy, vol. 47, no. 8,
pp. 1463–1477, 2018.
 This article has been accepted for inclusion in a future issue of this journal. Content is final as presented, with the exception of pagination.
ZWIKAEL AND MEREDITH: EVALUATING THE SUCCESS OF A PROJECT AND THE PERFORMANCE OF ITS LEADERS
[15] A. Davies, S. Manning, and J. Soderlund, “When neighboring dis-
ciplines fail to learn from each other: The case of innovation and
project management research,” Res. Policy, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 965–979,
2018.
[16] W. DeLone and E. McLean, “The DeLone and McLean model of infor-
mation systems success: A ten-year update,” J. Manage. Inf. Syst., vol. 19,
no. 4, pp. 9–30, 2003.
[17] A. J. Dunar and S. P. Waring, “The Hubble space telescope,” in Power to
Explore—History of Marshall Space Flight Center 1960–1990. Washing-
ton, DC, USA: US Government Printing Office, ch. 12, 1999.
[18] M. Feris, O. Zwikael, and S. Gregor, “QPLAN: Decision support for eval-
uating planning quality in software development projects,” Decis. Support
Syst., vol. 96, pp. 92–102, 2017.
[19] P. Finch, “Applying the Slevin-Pinto project implementation profile to an
information systems project,” Project Manage. J., vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 32–39,
2003.
[20] N. Gil and J. K. Pinto, “Polycentric organizing and performance: A con-
tingency model and evidence from megaproject planning in the UK,” Res.
Policy, vol. 47, pp. 717–734, 2018.
[21] J. Goh and N. G. Hall, “Total cost control in project management via
satisficing,” Manage. Sci., vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 1354–1372, 2013.
[22] V. D. R. Guide and M. Ketokivi, “Editorial: Notes from the Editors: Re-
defining some methodological criteria for the journal,” J. Oper. Manage.,
vol. 37, pp. v–viii, 2015.
[23] D. Kahneman, Thinking, Fast and Slow, 1st ed. New York, NY, USA:
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.
[24] L. Kauppinen, A. S. Siddiqui, and A. Salo, “Investing in time-to-build
projects with uncertain revenues and: A real options approach,” IEEE
Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 65, no. 3, pp. 448–459, Aug. 2018.
[25] C. Kelly, J. Laird, S. Costantini, P. Richards, J. Carbajo, and J. Nellthorp,
“Ex post appraisal: What lessons can be learnt from EU cohesion funded
transport projects?,” Transport Policy, vol. 37, pp. 83–91, 2015.
[26] B. Kuvaas and A. Dysvik, “Exploring alternative relationships between
perceived investment in employee development, perceived supervisor sup-
port and employee outcomes,” Human Resour. Manage. J., vol. 20, no. 2,
pp. 138–156, 2010.
[27] Y. H. Kwak, J. Park, B. Y. Chung, and S. Ghosh, “Understanding end-users’
acceptance of enterprise resource planning (ERP) system in project-based
sectors,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 59, no. 2, pp. 266–277, May
2012.
[28] P. E. D. Love, D. J. Edwards, and Z. Irani, “Moving beyond optimism bias
and strategic misrepresentation: An explanation for social infrastructure
project cost overruns,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 560–
571, Nov. 2012.
[29] M. Martinsuo, O. J. Klakegg, and A. H. van Marrewijk, “Introduction:
delivering value in projects and project-based business business,” Int. J.
Project Manage., vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 631–635.
[30] A. Mazur, A. Pisarski, A. Chang, and N. M. Ashkanasy, “Rating de-
fence major project success: The role of personal attributes and stake-
holder relationships,” Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 944–957,
2014.
[31] M. B. Miles and M. A. Huberman, “Qualitative Data Analysis: An Ex-
panded Sourcebook, 2nd ed. Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage Publ., 1994.
[32] C. C. Miller, N. T. Washburn, and W. H. Glick, “The myth of firm perfor-
mance,” Org. Sci., vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 948–964, 2013.
[33] B. Moritz, E. Siemsen, and M. Kremer, “Judgmental forecasting: Cogni-
tive reflection and decision speed,” Prod. Oper. Manage., vol. 23, no. 7,
pp. 1146–1160, 2014.
[34] R. Müller and M. Martinsuo, “The impact of relational norms on informa-
tion technology project success and its moderation through project gover-
nance,” Int. J. Manag. Projects Bus., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 154–176, 2015.
[35] A. Musawir, C. E. M. Serra, O. Zwikael, and I. Ali, “Project governance,
benefit management, and project success: Towards a framework for sup-
porting organizational strategy implementation,” Int. J. Project Manage.,
vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1658–1672, 2017.
[36] S. Petter, W. D. DeLone, and E. R. McLean, “Information systems success:
The quest for the independent variables,” J. Manage. Inf. Syst., vol. 29,
no. 4, pp. 7–62, 2013.
[37] J. K. Pinto and D. P. Slevin, “Critical factors in successful project im-
plementation,” IEEE Trans. Eng. Manage., vol. EM-34, no. 1, pp. 22–27,
Feb. 1987.
[38] J. K. Pinto and D. P. Slevin, “Critical Success Factors Across the Project
Life Cycle. Drexel Hill, PA,USA: Project Manage. Inst., 1988.
13
[39] J. K. Pinto and S. J. Mantel, “The causes of project failure,” IEEE Trans.
Eng. Manage., vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 269–276, Nov. 1990.
[40] J. K. Pinto and J. E. Prescott, “Planning and tactical factors in the project
implementation process,” J. Manage. Stud., vol. 27, no. 3, pp. 305–327,
1990.
[41] A. Rezvani, P. Khosravi, and N. M. Ashkanasy, “Examining the interde-
pendencies among emotional intelligence, trust, and performance in in-
frastructure projects: A multilevel study,” Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 36,
no. 8, pp. 1034–1046, 2018.
[42] M. Rusare and C. I. Jay, “The project implementation profile: A tool for
enhancing management of NGO projects,” Progress Develop. Stud., vol.
15, no. 3, pp. 240–252, 2015.
[43] K. Samset and G. H. Volden, “Front-end definition of projects: ten para-
doxes and some reflections regarding project management and project
governance,” Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 297–313, 2016.
[44] C. Scott-Young and D. Samson, “Project success and project team man-
agement: Evidence from capital projects in the process industries,” J. Oper.
Manage., vol. 26, pp. 749–766, 2008.
[45] C. E. M. Serra and M. Kunc, “Benefits realisation management and its
influence on project success and on the execution of business strategies,”
Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 53–66, 2015.
[46] C. E. M. Serra, “Benefits realization management and strategic project
success analysis of UK, USA, and Brazil,” paper presented at PMI Global
Congr. 2015—EMEA, London, U.K., 2015.
[47] A. J. Shenhar, O. Levy, and D. Dvir, “Mapping the dimensions of project
success,” Project Manage. J., vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 5–13, 1997.
[48] A. J. Shenhar and D. Dvir, “Reinventing Project Management: The Di-
amond Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation. Brighton, MA,
USA: Harvard Bus. School Press, 2007.
[49] A. J. Shenhar, V. Holzmann, B. Melamed, and Y. Zhao, “The challenge of
innovation in highly complex projects: What can we learn from Boeing’s
Dreamliner experience?,” Project Manage. J., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 62–78,
2016.
[50] A. J. Shenhar, A. Tishler, D. Dvir, S. Lipovetsky, and T. Lechler, “Re-
fining the search for project success factors: A multivariate, typological
approach,” R & D Manage., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 111–126, 2002.
[51] A. Shenhar and V. Holzmann, “The three secrets of megaproject success:
Clear strategic vision, total alignment, and adapting to complexity,” Project
Manage. J., vol. 48, no. 6, pp. 29–46, 2017.
[52] A. J. Shenhar, D. Dvir, O. Levy, and A. C. Maltz, “Project success: A mul-
tidimensional strategic concept,” Long Range Planning, vol. 34, pp. 699–
725, 2001.
[53] H. A. Simon, “Theories of decision-making in economics and behavioral
science,” Amer. Econ. Rev., vol. 49, no. 3, pp. 253–283, 1959.
[54] S. Toor and S. Ogunlana, “Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Stakeholder per-
ception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector
development projects,” Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 228–236,
2010.
[55] F. Ullah, M. J. Thaheem, S. Q. Siddiqui, and M. B. Khurshid, “Influence
of six sigma on project success in construction industry of Pakistan,” TQM
J., vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 276–309, 2017.
[56] P. Weaver, “A brief history of project management,” APM Project, vol. 19,
no. 11, pp. 1–4, 2006.
[57] World Bank, (2019). Accessed: May 7, 2019. [Online]. Available:
https://data.worldbank.org/country/papua-new-guinea
[58] B. E. Wright and S. K. Pandey, “Transformational leadership in the public
sector: Does structure matter?,” J. Public Admin. Res. Theory, vol. 20,
no. 1, pp. 75–90, 2010.
[59] W. G. Zikmund, B. J. Babin, J. C. Carr, and M. Griffin, Business Research
Methods, 8th ed. Independence, KY, USA: South-Western Cengage Learn-
ing, 2010.
[60] O. Zwikael, Y. Chih, and J. Meredith, “Project benefit management: Setting
effective target benefits,” Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 36, pp. 650–658,
2018.
[61] O. Zwikael and J. Meredith, “Who’s who in the project zoo? The ten core
project roles,” Int. J. Oper. Prod. Manage., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 474–492,
2018.
[62] O. Zwikael and J. Smyrk, “A general framework for gauging the perfor-
mance of initiatives to enhance organizational value,” Brit. J. Manage.,
vol. 23, pp. S6–S22, 2012.
[63] O. Zwikael and J. R. Smyrk, Project Management: A Benefit Realisation
Approach. London, U.K.: Springer-Verlag, 2019.