IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jadmsc/v9y2019i3p65-d260799.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Extending the View on Project Performance

Author

Listed:
  • Maedeh Molaei

    (Section of Infrastructure Design & Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering & Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Marian Bosch-Rekveldt

    (Section of Infrastructure Design & Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering & Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands)

  • Hans Bakker

    (Section of Infrastructure Design & Management, Faculty of Civil Engineering & Geosciences, Delft University of Technology, Stevinweg 1, 2628 CN Delft, The Netherlands)

Abstract

The main aim of this study is to gain insights into project management professionals’ perception of how project success can be achieved. The Q-methodology was followed in this research. Based on an extensive literature review and validation through expert judgment, a framework consisting of 33 factors increasing the likelihood of success was developed. A total of 34 practitioners in three different sectors (real estate, urban development, and infrastructure) in the Netherlands were asked to rank the statements contributing to the success of their projects. Four different perspectives of how project success can be achieved were distinguished in this study: “seeking the best match”, “being adaptive and open”, “keeping the team focused”, and “preparing for opportunities”. The perception of different practitioners of how success can be obtained may stem from factors of project context rather than sector and complexity. This highlights further research opportunities in taking a contingent approach when investigating project performance. The study helps to grasp the subjectivity of practitioners’ viewpoints regarding the potential ways to enhance project performance by understanding the similarity and differences of these viewpoints.

Suggested Citation

  • Maedeh Molaei & Marian Bosch-Rekveldt & Hans Bakker, 2019. "Extending the View on Project Performance," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-18, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:9:y:2019:i:3:p:65-:d:260799
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/9/3/65/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3387/9/3/65/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ming Lu & Alin Lin & Jiyi Sun, 2018. "The Impact of Photovoltaic Applications on Urban Landscapes Based on Visual Q Methodology," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-15, April.
    2. Geraint Ellis & John Barry & Clive Robinson, 2007. "Many ways to say 'no', different ways to say 'yes': Applying Q-Methodology to understand public acceptance of wind farm proposals," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(4), pages 517-551.
    3. S.Z.S. Tabish & Kumar Neeraj Jha, 2011. "Identification and evaluation of success factors for public construction projects," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(8), pages 809-823, August.
    4. Stephan Price & Clare Saunders & Stephen Hinchliffe & Robbie A McDonald, 2017. "From contradiction to contrast in a countryside conflict: Using Q Methodology to reveal a diplomatic space for doing TB differently," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 49(11), pages 2578-2594, November.
    5. Cyril Burt & William Stephenson, 1939. "Alternative views on correlations between persons," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 4(4), pages 269-281, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Venus, Terese E. & Hinzmann, Mandy & Bakken, Tor Haakon & Gerdes, Holger & Godinho, Francisco Nunes & Hansen, Bendik & Pinheiro, António & Sauer, Johannes, 2020. "The public's perception of run-of-the-river hydropower across Europe," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    2. Songsore, Emmanuel & Buzzelli, Michael, 2014. "Social responses to wind energy development in Ontario: The influence of health risk perceptions and associated concerns," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 285-296.
    3. Setiawan, Andri D. & Cuppen, Eefje, 2013. "Stakeholder perspectives on carbon capture and storage in Indonesia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 1188-1199.
    4. Prince Destiny Ugo, 2017. "Project Quality Management Performance: An Insight to Sustainable Development Initiatives in Oil and Gas Host Communities," Journal of Management and Sustainability, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 7(4), pages 76-88, December.
    5. Haggett, Claire, 2011. "Understanding public responses to offshore wind power," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 503-510, February.
    6. David Rudolph & Claire Haggett & Mhairi Aitken, 2018. "Community benefits from offshore renewables: The relationship between different understandings of impact, community, and benefit," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(1), pages 92-117, February.
    7. Zhifen Cheng & Shangyi Zhou & Baoxiu Zhang, 2018. "The Spatial Factors of Cultural Identity: A Case Study of the Courtyards in a Historical Residential Area in Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, July.
    8. Andrés Lorente de las Casas & Ivelina Mirkova & Francisco J. Ramos-Real, 2021. "Stakeholders’ Perceptions of the Possible Energy Sustainability Solutions in the Hotels of the Canary Islands," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(12), pages 1-26, June.
    9. Tim Jones & Colin G Pooley & Griet Scheldeman & Dave Horton & Miles Tight & Caroline Mullen & Ann Jopson & Anthony Whiteing, 2012. "Moving around the City: Discourses on Walking and Cycling in English Urban Areas," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 44(6), pages 1407-1424, June.
    10. Aitken, Mhairi, 2010. "Wind power and community benefits: Challenges and opportunities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(10), pages 6066-6075, October.
    11. Flannery, Wesley & O’Hagan, Anne Marie & O’Mahony, Cathal & Ritchie, Heather & Twomey, Sarah, 2015. "Evaluating conditions for transboundary Marine Spatial Planning: Challenges and opportunities on the island of Ireland," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 86-95.
    12. Evon Scott & Giorgos Kallis & Christos Zografos, 2019. "Why environmentalists eat meat," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-9, July.
    13. A. K. S. Suryavanshi & Viral Bhatt & Sujo Thomas & Ritesh Patel & Twinkle Trivedi, 2024. "Predicting CRM purchase intention by examining congruence, shopping orientation and mood moderation: Applying congruence theory with SEM-ANN-NCA method," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 21(3), pages 565-594, September.
    14. Abraham Park & Chen Yu Chang, 2013. "Impacts of Construction Events on the Project Equity Value of the Channel Tunnel Project," ERES eres2013_97, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    15. Jean-Charles Fiolet & Carl Haas & Keith Hipel, 2016. "Risk-chasing behaviour in on-site construction decisions," Construction Management and Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(12), pages 845-858, December.
    16. Brent S. Steel & Erika Allen Wolters & Rebecca L. Warner, 2019. "Public Preferences for Food–Energy–Water Tradeoffs in the Western U.S," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(19), pages 1-19, September.
    17. Athanasios Lamprou & Dimitra G. Vagiona, 2022. "Identification and Evaluation of Success Criteria and Critical Success Factors in Project Success," Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, Springer;Global Institute of Flexible Systems Management, vol. 23(2), pages 237-253, June.
    18. Anna Codemo & Ambra Barbini & Ahi Mantouza & Anastasios Bitziadis & Rossano Albatici, 2023. "Integration of Public Perception in the Assessment of Licensed Solar Farms: A Case Study in Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(13), pages 1-25, June.
    19. Knut Blind & Jakob Pohlisch & Anne Rainville, 2020. "Innovation and standardization as drivers of companies’ success in public procurement: an empirical analysis," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 45(3), pages 664-693, June.
    20. John Colton & Kenneth Corscadden & Stewart Fast & Monica Gattinger & Joel Gehman & Martha Hall Findlay & Dylan Morgan & Judith Sayers & Jennifer Winter & Adonis Yatchew, 2016. "Energy Projects, Social Licence, Public Acceptance and Regulatory Systems in Canada: A White Paper," SPP Research Papers, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, vol. 9(20), May.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jadmsc:v:9:y:2019:i:3:p:65-:d:260799. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.