A dimensional analysis of stakeholder assessment of project outcomes

Abstract

Driven by an interest in developing a deeper understanding of stakeholder interests, this study undertakes a dimensional analysis of how different stakeholders assess project outcomes. Most importantly, in our analysis, we take into consideration the largely unaccounted-for conceptual difference between project success and project failure. Data were collected over a two-year period (between 2013 and 2015) from 1631 project stakeholders in nine countries. We analysed the survey data using three-way Multidimensional Scaling. We found that most project stakeholders tend to be more specific in their assessment of project success than when assessing project failure. We also found that most stakeholders attached maximal and different levels of importance to different dimensions of project outcomes. In particular, we found that when assessing project "success", project stakeholders appear more focused on project effectiveness. On the other hand, when assessing project "failure", project stakeholders appear more focused on efficiency. Understanding how stakeholders assess and prioritise project outcomes is of particular interest to project managers as it enables them develop a clearer understanding of individual interests of various stakeholders. For stakeholders themselves, such an understanding helps limit possible disruptions to the project emanating from contesting decisions made by the project manager.

Organizational ambidexterity: using project portfolio management to support project-level ambidexterity

“…Key project stakeholders within organisations may express different preferences for individual projects within their portfolio given limited resources. Project stakeholders with a preference for predictability, high task certainty and who are risk averse may support projects which are designed within the realm of pre-existing organisational competencies (Chipulu et al 2019).…”

Managing strategic resources in petroleum industry projects

“…For example, various studies have identified human and related factors (including project team management) as critical factors for project success (see, for example, Chan, Scott, and Chan 2004;Belout and Gauvreau 2004;Scott-Young and Samson 2008;Ojiako, Johansen, and Greenwood 2008;Chipulu et al 2016Chipulu et al , 2019. Interestingly, by the interviewees focussing their discussion on the time, cost, and quality factor, it will appear that this notion of project success, while arguably project management scholarship has moved beyond (Shenhar et al 2001;Chipulu et al 2019), still holds reverence among project management practitioners. Despite this being the case, it is important that we acknowledge that the literature does emphasize that the valuable resource by itself does not necessarily give a competitive advantage (Baia, Ferreira, and Rodrigues 2020).…”

“…Such an understanding is important as it is inevitable that tensions will exist between these different levels (Chandrasekaran, Linderman, and Schroeder 2012), and not managing these tensions is a major source of risk to enhanced project performance and sustained business competitiveness (Marshall et al 2019;Al-Mazrouie et al 2020). Organizations will generally consist of different stakeholders which research should not treat as cohesive or homogeneous decision-making units (Ojiako et al 2014(Ojiako et al , 2015Chipulu et al 2019). However, these tensions require management despite the reality that practitioners across different levels of an organization are likely to continue to maintain informal and professional ties that last well beyond the completion of a specific project.…”

“…More specifically, the 'individual level' is interested in how specific actors are able to acquire, mobilize, organize, integrate, develop, rearrange, manage and deploy the entire spectrum of an organizations assets, competencies and capabilities in a manner that is able to ensure project performance and cope with changes in the business and competitive environment in a manner that ensures competitive advantage. Aligned to this is the view that project performance is to an extent driven by the behaviour and decisions of individual stakeholders such as clients (Lim and Ling 2002;Ojiako et al 2015;Chipulu et al 2019) and project managers (Turner and M€ uller 2005;Dvir, Sadeh, and Malach-Pines 2006;M€ uller and Turner 2007;Malach-Pines, Dvir, and Sadeh 2009;Ojiako et al 2015;Chipulu et al 2019;Akkermans et al 2020).…”

Effects of employing third-party logistics arrangements in construction projects

“…Traditionally, construction projects have measured performance of construction activities focussing on time, quality, and cost (Jonsson and Rudberg 2017), i.e. the 'Iron Triangle' (Atkinson 1999;Chipulu et al 2019). However, balancing project performance in the 'Iron Triangle' is dependent on wellfunctioning construction logistics that ensures that materials and resources are delivered to, and retrieved from, site when needed (Dubois, Hulth en, and Sundquist 2019;Ying, Tookey, and Seadon 2018).…”