Every project is set up with a target to achieve its success, that is why understanding how to define success and what factors contribute to achieving it is an important question to understand before starting a project (Joslin, 2015). Together with, without clear define the term project success, it does not reach up to marked and often in the eye of the beholder (Judgev & Muller, 2005).
According to the APM (2006), there are many techniques to create successful projects and most of them are generic. All of those techniques and investigations aimed to find a way of making a successful project. Even with a concerted effort is to define and measure the project success (Bloch et al., 2012; GAO (Government Accountability Office), 2013; The Standish Group, 2010).
Initially project success measure by triple concept: iron triangle (time cost and quality) (Atkinson, 1999; Packendorff, 1995), to some extent that success factors incorporates with scope (Adnan et al., 2013; Berssaneti and Carvalho, 2015), stockholder interest (Harding, 2012), manager, top management, project management (Rockart, 1979), ill define technology, risk management (Harding, 2012) and so on.
Nowadays, it is going to multidimensional concept that include short-term success factors: efficiency and long-term achievement of desired results: effectiveness and impact (Shenhar, et al., 1997, Judgev, et al., 2001). Shenhar and Dvir (2007) and Carvalho and Rabechini Junior (2015) notify efficiency (connected to the iron triangle), effectiveness, impact on society, needs and priorities in society, and sustainability factors. Among them, Carvalho and Rabechini Junior (2015) explain the sustainability is the impact of the project on social and environmental aspects, which is more relevant with the current triple bottom line theory (Carvalho and Rabechini, 2011; Singh et al., 2012; Silvius et al., 2013).
Many literatures show that project methodologies directly contribute to success goals (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Fortune and White, 2006; White and Fortune, 2002) or to the perceived appropriateness of project management or positive to project success (Lehtonen and Martinsuo, 2006, Joslin and Muller, 2015). Besides, sometimes unrealistic expectations, methodologies limitations or ill-selection methodology do not back the success result (White and Fortune, 2002; Lehtonen and Martinsuo, 2005). Thus, the Standish Group, 2010 states that methodologies and its element(s) impact on project success investigation have been demand (Cooke-Davies and Arzymanow, 2003; Milosevic and Patanakul, 2005).
Project Methodology and its elements’ positive relationship on project success:
In the project management field, different literature reveals that project methodologies seen as a collection of elements directly contribute to the goals (Fortune & White, 2006) or to the perceived checks and balances of project management (Lehtonen & Martinsuo, 2006). Methodology elements are the foundation elements of project success factors and Joslin and Muller (2015) define the success factor variable is in a description of that methodology element.
Joslin and Muller also show that every methodological element give the heterogenous impact pictures on project success at a time meaning, some of the methodology elements may have a greater impact on project success than others. However, there collected data show the highest references support to the positive relationship between project methodology and project success (Joslin and Muller, 2015). There findings proved project methodology does an highest significant impact on project characteristics as time, cost, and scope (see the Table-….). Joslin, 2014 discover a result that project methodology and project success are all socially constructed phenomena; therefore, the effect of a PMM on project success is investigated by the author to provide conditional knowledge that can be used to understand when and how to improve a PMM’s positive impact on project success especially under the influences of different project governance contexts.
Morris and Pinto express this with another research paper that move on update project management needs of the companies to reflects much more in a complex reality, where interpretive views of the reason for change are more appropriate (Morris and Pinto, 2004). The international standard methodologies, such as PMBOK Guide, PMI’s or OGC (Of?ce of Government’s Commerce, UK) PRINCE 2, are updated year to year and include extensions for government, construction and others vital industries (Joslin and Muller, 2015).
How effective project management methodology-PRINCE 2 on project success:
PRINCE 2 (Projects IN a Controlled Environments) is a structured project management approach, based on thousands of projects and project sponsors, project managers, project teams, academics, trainers experience. It contains all the basic concepts and processes of project management, planning, delegating, monitoring and control of all aspects of the project life cycles to achieve the project objectives within the expected performance targets for time, cost, quality, scope, benefits and risks (OGC, 2009).
Additionally, PRINCE 2 is easy-clipped and flexible management framework for different kinds of projects (Lianying, Jing and Xinxing, 2012) given business change by implementing a secure, consistent, well-proven approach to project management is a valuable business investment.
PRINCE 2-methodology starts as “a system of practices, techniques, and procedures, and rules” (Project Management Institute, 2013), boost the project effectiveness and increase chances of success (Vaskimo, 2011). Therefore, it elements as processes, tools, techniques, knowledge areas, and comprehensive capability profiles were developed to assist the managers in achieving more success rate. Thus, the UK government widely considered as the leading method in every project management (OGC, 2009) also in construction project has complex in nature.
Standardized, customized and the comprehensiveness methodology context lead to the higher chance of project success (Joslin and Muller, 2015). In contrast, Shenhar et al.’s mantra Wysocki (2011) states “one size fits all” does not suitable in every project management to achieve success. Supporting this limitation, PRINCE 2 described as “a method that supports some aspects of project management” (TSO, 2009) and it offers the better answer to overcoming problems faced by projects and project particular contexts (PRINCE2; OGC, 2009). Furthermore, Russo, and Stolterman proposed a solution that customized tailor procedures is to the most successful project management methodology (2002) and PRINCE 2 give the same facilities (OGC, 2009).
Aubry et al. (2010) found that Project Management Organization’s experienced is agile related project methodology allow flexibility in the processes and organization. Project management methodology requirements are varied according to their size (Turner et al., 2010). However, the idea of standardizing and/or customizing a methodology is underlying the methodology become comprehensive to manage the project to higher levels of success means project methodology have to supplement for effective use by the project manager (Joslin and Muller 2015).
Wells (2012), set a research to test the role and contribution of project methodology on its success and detail comparative analysis of PRINCE 2, Agile with others three method is given in the report (see brief in Figure…. Table. .. and ….).
The Author concluded that PRINCE 2 is a useful to some extent where they replace and compensate for the absence of tacit knowledge in a project, helping managers with less experience and knowledge of project management, together with this methodology helps to minimises the misalignment exists between the perceived value of methodologies across different groups and between the project and the strategic/organizational levels. Most project managers perceived the prime purpose of project management methodologies to be management, control, and compliance rather than support and guidance (Wells, 2012).
Construction project success factors and its position with PRINCE 2 methodology impacts:
Quite a lot of literatures mention several key areas in different terms to assurance the construction project success such as budget, time schedule, quality standards and goals, breakdown structure and milestones, unique conception and planning, resource management, project manager expertise and experience, well communication way, team member involvement, adaptability and motivation system (Doloi and Lim, 2007), health and safety (Chan and Chan, 2004), loss control (Ramirez et al., 2004), risk management, environmental protection, IT system management, globalization issue (CII, 2011), client relationships (Caru, et al., 2004) and so on. Basically, a more rigorous standard planning and communication system is needed to construction industry success (Chau et al., 2003).
Following the Ribeiro, et al., (2013) data analysis and responses (Figure….), the authors selected eight factors considering the average of the interviews answers with consideration of the economic point of views which have the most influence to assess the success of a construction project. In graph, “complete the project within the budget” factor is the highest weighting (78.0%). The author discusses the point as it is not surprising since construction work is greatly influenced by unexpected external factors (like the weather), which often involve an increase the costs of the projects. “Finishing on schedule” is secondly important (75.0%), because of an overrun in schedule often means an increase in costs.
A vital tendency is trying to meet customer expectation of good service is also shown. “Complete the project according to the requirements” arises in third place (65.0%). The lowest are “keep the team motivated”, “optimize the use of available resources” and “provide products with superior technology” with markings of less than 30.0%. Analyzed the results, the highest traditional ones: budget, and schedule are the top of the list. The quality requirements accomplishment and customer satisfaction are the second top. In other words, project management success is increasingly related with customer satisfaction (Ribeiro, et al., 2013).
Similarly, as like other challenging sector, the success of construction industry and its management measure are now more complex due to several stockholder involvements (Yang, 2011) and multi-disciplinary collaboration (Singh et al., 2011) becoming it larger in size day-by-day (Chau, 2004).
Project/stakeholders’ interest and it’s important:
In order to deliver the project on time and within the budget, project manager usually assess project/stakeholders’ interest. It is extremely important, because of careful and detail plans of the project (Kaysi, 2013).
Evaluation of the mega project as a success or failure, one may have to find out very seriously and carefully that ‘who are stakeholders? And what do they expect from the project? Because of every large project is very subjective and cannot be generalized over the other projects. Those also have own unique perspective and structure (Kaysi, 2013).
According to the PRINCE 2 principle of defined roles and responsibilities, a PRINCE 2 project always has to define three primary stakeholders and their interest (business, user and supplier) and if the project is to be successful, it must be satisfied all three stockholders. Furthermore, “For completeness of the project PRINCE 2 recommends that the business, user and supplier interests need to be prioritised all the time” (OGC, 2009, pp. 31-32). Such as, the International Olympic Committee have the interest to show a peaceful Olympic game, that is why, authority identified stakeholders with a list of influence; anticipate the kind of influence, positive or negative. The authority also developed strategies to get the most effective support possible to project and reduce any obstacles and keep peaceful game environment (Yang, 2013).
Figure 4.2.1: Three primary project interests (Adapted from OGC, 2009, p.32)
London Olympic: a mega-project management:
London Olympic Games Park was the most ambitious mega construction projects are stand-in as a showcase of a transition to green sustainable technology, where every unique project operates by going outside of normal rules (Fainstein 2008; Faulconbridge 2013). These mega projects are controlled under the PRINCE2 management methodology, to ensure a set of targets of environmental issues implementation (Dodd and Yu, 2009, ODA, 2012). Therefore, the success story of sustainable construction in London Olympic 2012 demands a critical study to future learning legacy.
Sustainable London Olympic 2012 and PRINCE 2 methodology:
The International Olympic Committee (IOC) adopted the concept of royal legacy and sustainability that became an important motto for the London Olympic a history of sustainable games implements and undertake social, economic and environmental measures (Triple-Bottom Line Dilemma-TBL) (Kaysi, 2013). Safe Climate management, healthy living style, regeneration of East London site, biodiversity, and inclusion, encouraging the city people to think and support the idea of sustainable life were the themes of this sustainable game parks.
In the Olympic games history, London 2012 was a big challenge to use its scope, level of change and the mega games venues had to deal with sustainability legacy (Silvius, et al., 2012, Kaysi, 2013). Besides, McNeil and Simon Dresner argued that the idea of “sustainable development” is challenging work for uncertain future (Kaysi, 2013). Similarly, Tomi Kallio, Piia Nordgerg and Ari Ahonen explained that it was clear that sustainable development was powerful and a vital notion; because of its ambiguity, and no influence and impact to change.
Before, London 2012, some author believes that sustainable Olympic games are also a vague idea. “As it tries to satisfy the games’ insatiable drive for faster, higher and stronger (growth) while delivering equality, solidarity and accountability across all sports and groups around the world” (Girginov, 2010, pp.430, 431). Additional strong argument, Silvius (2012) mention that projects and sustainable development are maybe not “natural friends” and project management is not capable to achieve the sustainability concept (Eid, 2009).
However, the London Olympic 2012 construction projects are passing behind of all criticism and believed, it has gained valuable experience and confidence in delivering sustainable projects and Olympic Delivery Authority’s approach to innovation and sustainable development has influenced long term change in the industry (CPA, 2012, ODA, 2012 and DEFRA, 2013).
This experience is the guide pulls with the key lessons on procuring sustainable buildings, infrastructure and transport. Also, may be importance of protecting the natural capital for future generations as well as the social and economic capital in the form of a capable and skilled workforce and small business and entrepreneurship where ensure the legacy continues (DEFRA, 2013).
For achieve the sustainable target, authority was encapsulated in the London 2012 Sustainability Policy and the Sustainability Plan, which provided the overarching sustainability framework for London 2012. Together with, the ODA published its Sustainable Development Strategy mentioned 12 objective areas as like carbon, water and waste; social issues like noise, communities, transport and mobility; and economic factors like employment and business.
The Olympic Authority set a specific mission: “to deliver venues, facilities and infrastructure on time, fit for purpose and in a way, that maximizes the delivery of a sustainable legacy within the available budget. Cost, time, safety, equality and inclusion, environment, quality, functionality and legacy were the headlines. From the beginning, the protection of the health and safety of everyone involved was paramount” (Tuchman, 2012).
According to DEFRA guide, the Sustainable Development Strategy was ‘projected to act as a catalyst for industry to deliver an improvement in the economic, social and environmental sustainability of development across the UK’. The target of the authority was get lessons from London 2012 to be spread far and wide. Also, most important lessons of the Learning Legacy for the authority are ‘many environmental sustainability benefits go hand in hand with cost savings’ and ‘using the right approach to projects through innovation in design and materials specification areas’ (DEFRA, 2013).
On the other side, as like most of the other project management methodology, PRINCE2 offer no special attention to address the issue of sustainability (OGC, 2009 and Martens and Carvalho, 2016). But, the ‘Lessons learned’ report regarding London Olympic 2012 listed out 7 broader line notable sustainability achievements: 1)