British Journal of Management, Vol.

16, * – * (2005)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2005.00438.x

Methods for Managing Different

Perspectives of Project Success
David J. Bryde
School of Management, Faculty of Business and Law, Liverpool John Moores University, John Foster
Building, 98 Mount Pleasant, Liverpool, L3 5UZ, UK
Email: D.J.Bryde@livjm.ac.uk

The results of an exploratory study of UK organizations into methods for meeting

project key performance indicators (KPIs) are presented. The paper explores: influences
on the use of methods to manage project KPIs; the need for and existence of methods;
the factors that facilitate the meeting of the KPIs. It is concluded that the use of
methods varies depending upon the perceived importance of the project, the type of
project, the client-team relationship and whether an organization performance
management system exists. With project management capability often decreasing, in
part due to a failure to meet psychosocial project KPIs, a need for methods linked to the
KPIs was identified. However, the study found relatively low levels of adoption of such
methods. Where psychosocial project KPIs were being met the following facilitating
factors emerged: top-level policies, organization-wide training, integration with existing
management processes, building into project management system. Situations were
found where decision-makers did not consider the psychosocial KPIs of programme and
project managers. This was seen to contribute to a failure by organizations to manage
necessary increases in their project management capability and to be acting as a
possible barrier to long-term, sustainable improvements in performance.

Introduction However, the development of new PMS models

The management literature reports changes in the
theoretical constructs of performance measure-
ment over the last 20 years. Up until the 1980s,
the emphasis was on a narrow range of financial-
based measures, such as profit, return on invest-
ment and productivity. In the 1980s, dissatisfaction
with these ‘traditional’ performance measure-
ment systems (PMSs) led to the development of
‘balanced’ or ‘multi-dimensional’ frameworks
(Bourne et al., 2000) and PMS models, such as
the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) model (Kaplan
and Norton, 1992). The new PMSs were seen to
address the limitations of the old ‘traditional’
PMSs. For example, in a manufacturing context,
newly emerging PMSs helped the achievement of
continuous improvement goals and guarded
against the dangers of sub-optimization (Gha-
layini and Noble, 1996).
introduced a level of complexity. Measuring
performance requires understanding of a balance
of different perspectives from different stake-
holder groups. But it is recognized in the liter-
ature on the subject of organizational effective-
ness that different stakeholders use different
criteria/key performance indicators (KPIs) to as-
sess effectiveness and that it is rare that organiza-
tions fulfil the KPIs of all groups simultaneously.
Therefore the need for balance is accompanied by
complexity in terms of understanding the differ-
ent perspectives and reconciling the paradoxical
nature of the multidimensional framework. This
complexity is reflected in models of organizati-
onal effectiveness, such as the Competing Values
Model (Walton and Dawson, 2001). This model
arranges 17 KPIs in three dimensions that in-
corporate the values and preferences of stake-
holders in terms of the degree of internal or

r 2005 British Academy of Management

2 D. J. Bryde
external focus, the flexibility and control of
structure and the emphasis placed on either the
means or the end.
In the context of a balanced, multidimensional
framework the need to consider different stake-
holder perspectives influences recent theoretical
work and empirical study of the management
processes to enable managers to design and
implement a PMS. For example, Feurer and
Chaharbaghi (1995) have the identification of
stakeholder goals and learning requirements as
the first of a theoretical four-step approach to
developing a PMS. In a case study of the Estates
Management Department of the Mass Transit
Railway Corporation, Walters (1999) examines
the usefulness of a new PMS developed to reflect
the different goals that the organization wished to
fulfil. These goals include sustainable development,
continuous improvement, longevity, growth, and
employee and customer satisfaction. Kald and
Nilsson (2000) construct a multidimensional perfor-
mance measurement framework, reflecting the need
for balanced control, as per the BSC model, for a
study of the characteristics and uses of PMSs in 236
business units in Denmark, Finland and Norway.
De Toni and Tonchia (2001) use a multidimensional
construct involving cost and non-cost performance
measures in their study of operations performance
of 115 Italian firms in the mechanical, electro-
mechanical and electronic industries. Hlavacka et al.
(2001), in a study of the link between different
strategic types and organization performance in the
healthcare industry, use a multidimensional PMS
predicated upon meeting the expectations of internal
stakeholders, such as employees and external
stakeholders, such as patients.
The general move away from traditional PMSs
that focus on a narrow range of measures towards
multidimensional frameworks that require the
balancing of various stakeholder perspectives and
the attendant issues of complexity that accompany
such a move informs developments in the project
management discipline. In particular, develop-
ments relating to the definition and measurement
of project performance see theoretical-based work
and empirical studies focusing, either implicitly or
explicitly, on putting the changing character of
PMSs that are reported in the management
literature in the context to project environments.
Prior to the 1980s, project ‘success’ was narrowly
defined in terms of an individual project meeting
cost, time and quality (of the end product)-
related objectives, which has been described as
the ‘iron triangle’ (Atkinson, 1999). Methods for
managing project performance through the meet-
ing of the iron triangle KPIs – the term ‘project
success criteria’ is often used interchangeably
with the term ‘KPI’ (APM, 2000) – were
predicated on this narrow definition; being
focused on adherence to budgets, schedules and
technical specifications. In addition, the para-
meters of project success were, in part, con-
strained by the practical difficulties of assessing
success using other, more subjective, measures.
As with other management disciplines that
focus on performance measurement, such as
operations management, quality management
and strategic management, from the 1980s
onwards there have been a number of broad,
interlinked developments in the field of project
management that led to a redefined framework of
what constitutes successful project performance.
There has been recognition that there is a
difference between project management success
and project success (De Wit, 1988) and that
assessing project performance requires more than
taking measurements against the iron triangle
KPIs. Project management success focuses on the
iron triangle and also on the way in which a
project is managed, that is the ‘quality of the
process’. This forms one part of project success.
The other part of project success relates to the
effects of the project’s final product or service and
is referred to as ‘product success’ (Baccarini,
1999). Therefore a project can be viewed as being
successful despite the iron triangle KPIs not
being met. For example, a project might be
delivered late and over budget, yet it might lead
to an increase in the capability of the organiza-
tion to better manage future projects (Firth,
1995; Taylor and Graham, 1992).
The distinction between project management
success and project success is not just a debate
about terminology. Determining how success is
to be defined for a project is a necessary
precursor to the establishment of appropriate
methods for managing the project life cycle and
for the selection of suitable measurement techni-
ques. Defining success is also a key step in
understanding the important ‘success factors’,
that is, the inputs to the project management
system that have an influence on the outcome
(Cooke-Davies, 2002). A narrow definition of
project success that focuses exclusively on the
Managing Different Perspectives of Project Success
iron triangle may lead to an inadequate range of
success factors being considered by the project
team to the detriment of factors that relate to
other KPIs in the project success construct.
Being ‘multi-dimensional and multi-observa-
tional’ (Shenhar, Levy and Dvir, 1997) project
success is defined and measured using various
criteria, by disparate groups of people, through-
out the project life cycle. The disparate groups of
people who make up the project stakeholders
(Mallak, Patzak and Kursted, 1991) will rank the
various KPIs that make up project success. For
example, KPIs linked to meeting technical
‘quality’ or specification-related objectives, in
some situations, take precedence over KPIs
linked to meeting time and cost objectives (Might
and Fisher, 1985; Tukel and Rom, 2001).
Previous research relating to the post-1980s
project success paradigm has two main foci: esta-
blishing the character of the ranked theoretical
construct and investigating the factors influencing
the particular ranks assigned to individual KPIs
within the construct.
In terms of the character of the ranked theoreti-
cal construct, a consistent dichotomy in the liter-
ature is between the internal-focused and, to some
extent, quantifiable KPIs of adherence to budget
and schedule and the external-focused, in terms of
being outside or inside the project team, but less
quantifiable KPIs, which, in many cases, require
the employment of perceptual-based measure-
Level of
management Position in
organization
Time
perspective
Stakeholder
PM role
Strategy
Involvement
in PM system
Structure Organization
Sector Degree of
customer focus
Figure 1. Influences on ranked project success KPIs
3
ment methods. External-focused KPIs are often
expressed as an amalgam (Deutsch, 1991; Larson
and Gobeli, 1989; Mallak, Patzak and Kursted,
1991; Might and Fisher, 1985; Nicholas, 1989;
Pinto and Prescott, 1990; Shenhar, Levy and Dvir,
1997; Tukel and Rom, 2001; Tuman, 1993;
Wateridge, 1998). The amalgam is composed of
various elements, depending upon the project role
of a particular stakeholder; for example, Larson
and Gobeli define ‘satisfaction’ in terms of
customer perception, and for the organization,
by an increase in market share and by technolo-
gical breakthrough; whereas Pinto and Prescott,
define satisfaction in terms of factors relating to
the implementation process, factors relating to
perceptions of the project’s value and factors
relating to concern for and attendance to, the
client’s needs. There is also recognition in some
parts of the literature (Cleland, 1986; Nicholas,
1989; Tuman, 1993) that satisfaction can be
defined by groups internal to the project, such as
the project manager and project team members
and that their desired outcomes, whether they be
task-oriented or psychosocial-oriented (Pinto and
Pinto, 1991), are important KPIs.
The main focus of research relating to inves-
tigating the factors influencing the particular
ranks assigned to individual KPIs is in the area
of ‘stakeholder’ (see Figure 1).
Theoretical constructs identify a number of
different characteristics of project stakeholders,
Function
Stage of Project
Life Cycle
1
Ranked Project
success KPIs:
multi-dimensional
Type of
Project
Product/service Type of
delivered contract
4 D. J. Bryde
which include the following: whether the stake-
holders are distinguishable by following either an
adversarial, supporting or championing strategy
(Cleland, 1986; Mallak, Patzak and Kursted,
1991; Tuman, 1993), whether they are internal to
the project organization or external (Cleland,
1986), whether they have intrinsic power
(Deutsch, 1991; Mallak, Patzak and Kursted,
1991) whether they are involved in sponsoring or
managing a project (Freeman and Beale, 1992),
whether they view success from a long-term or
short-term time perspective (Pinto and Pinto,
1991), whether they are project managers or end
users (Wateridge, 1995) and where they are
positioned in the organization in terms of their
job (Larson and Gobeli, 1989) and management
level (Tukel and Rom, 2001). There is also recog-
nition that the factors distinguishing different
stakeholder types are interrelated. For example,
those stakeholders who are internal to the project
are likely to follow supportive strategies (Cleland,
1986) and those with a long-term time perspective
are often those who carry out the role of sponsor
or who occupy positions in the upper levels of the
management hierarchy (Pinto and Pinto, 1991).
Empirical research relating to the stakeholder
area has investigated the extent to which the
multi-attribute character of the project success
KPIs varies according to different stakeholder
contexts. Although variations in the precedence
given to KPIs have been reported (Tukel and
Rom, 2001; Wateridge, 1998), these variations
are not shown to be statistically significant.
There has been less emphasis, but some
reported studies, of the influence on the character
of project success KPIs of the three other
variables shown in Figure 1; ‘Type of Project’,
‘Organization’ and ‘Stage of the Project Life
Cycle’. The influence of the type of project on
rankings of KPIs is considered in a study of the
important KPIs for 103 development projects in
30 US firms, 70% of which were sponsored by the
US Department of Defense or NASA (Might and
Fisher, 1985). Using a six-item project success
KPI construct, they distinguish between the
following perceptual KPIs: overall satisfaction,
technical performance relative to the initial
specification, technical performance compared
with other similar projects and performance
relating to identification and resolution of pro-
blems and cost and schedule, which are measured
using quantitative methods. The study found that
the perceptual measures of success were ranked
higher in terms of performance than the quanti-
tative measures of cost and schedule. This
finding, which is confirmed in a later study
(Tukel and Rom, 2001), is significant in provid-
ing confirmation through empirical study of the
validity of previous theoretical work and anec-
dotal evidence, reviewed by Nicholas (1989), that
suggest KPIs with perceptual-oriented measure-
ment methods take precedence over other KPIs:
and the recognition of the pre-eminence given to
perceptual measures over more ‘pragmatic’ mea-
sures is found to promulgate into related project
management research. See, for example, studies
of project critical success factors by Larson and
Gobeli (1989) and Pinto and Slevin (1987, 1989).
Research into the influences on the ranking of
project success KPIs relating to ‘Organization’
factors is considered in terms of the type of
structures used (Kerzner, 1989) and in terms of
whether the organization is a service-provider/
manufacturer and customer-focused/not custo-
mer-focused (Tukel and Rom, 2001). Kerzner
describes a redefinition of KPIs, within the US
Inland Revenue, post-1986, beyond KPIs linked
to the achievement of time-base milestones, to
include KPIs related to the successful operation
of a matrix structure: namely, that line managers
do not have to sacrifice their existing, opera-
tional-related work. Although the single case-
study research method employed by Kerzner
does not allow external validity of similar
redefinitions in other organizations, there is
statistical evidence that manufacturing and non
customer-focused organizations, with a variety of
project structures, are as likely to give precedence
to customer satisfaction-related KPIs over inter-
nal measures, such as meeting time objectives, as
service-providers or customer-focused organiza-
tions (Tukel and Rom, 2001).
The potential influence of the stage of the
project life cycle on the importance attached to
individual KPIs is proposed in a theoretical
model of project success (De Wit, 1988). Empiri-
cal study suggests a limited influence. A study of
the experience of 127 project managers involved
in industrial projects carried out in Israel over the
preceding ten years (Shenhar, Levy and Dvir,
1997) found that the importance attached to
KPIs, expressed as the following four dimen-
sions: customer satisfaction, budget and sche-
dule, business success and future potential, did
Managing Different Perspectives of Project Success
not significantly change depending upon the stage
a current project was at. This was confirmed in a
later study that found that ‘quality’-related KPIs
took precedence over time and cost-related KPIs
throughout all stages of the project life cycle
(Tukel and Rom, 2001).
The attention of the research carried out to
date, described above, is on identifying, classify-
ing and ranking, in order of importance, the
project success KPIs; with the focus on under-
standing the multidimensional, multi-observa-
tional attributes internal to the ranked project
success KPI element, shown in Figure 1. How-
ever, there has also been some work looking at the
practical implications of the change from the iron
triangle construct to a construct with a multi-
dimensional and multi-observational character.
Boehm and Ross (1989) suggest that it is possible
to reconcile the competing values inherent to the
project success construct and meet the KPIs of all
parties involved in software projects by applying
Theory W software project management. Boehm
and Ross describe the principles of Theory W,
which focuses on developing ‘win-win’ situations
through attention to people’s interests and
expectations. They illustrate the usefulness of
Theory W by showing how its principles could
have been applied to an information systems
project in a manufacturing organization that had
failed to satisfy the main participants. One
principle is understanding the psychosocial-or-
iented KPIs of project team members and aligning
them with other objectives, which is described by
Boehm and Ross as to ‘match people’s tasks to
their win conditions’. This is achieved by search-
ing out win-win conditions. For example a win
condition for software professionals might be
professional growth rather than promotion to a
management position, therefore assigning a role
on a project that provides such growth would
create a win condition. Central to the successful
application of Theory W is that key decision-
makers, such as project sponsors and project
managers, recognize the importance of meeting
psychosocial KPIs such as personal growth.
In general terms research has been undertaken
which explores the influences on how project
success is defined and measured. These influences
include the stage of the project life cycle, the type
of project being undertaken, the type of organi-
zation and the stakeholders involved. The focus
of this work is on how project success ought to be
5
gauged. There is a need to explore how project
success is actually defined and measured in
practice and how methods for definition and
measurement are used to produce the desired
outcomes. This paper will make a contribution to
meeting this need through an exploratory study,
with the aims of the study being:
 to investigate the variables that influence the
use of methods to manage project KPIs;
 to explore the need for and the existence of
methods to meet psychosocial project KPIs;
 to investigate factors which enable the meet-
ing of psychosocial project KPIs.
The findings of the study are reported and
discussed and, given the exploratory nature of the
research, suggestions for further work are pro-
vided at the end of the paper.
The research context
Data collection
Semi-structured interviews were used to obtain
data concerning project management practice
and the attitudes and opinions of project
participants, in various organizations. As part
of the study the prior research, described in the
preceding section, was used to establish a project
success KPI construct comprising 17 attributes
(see Table 1).
The focus of this study is on the following
elements in the construct: client perception
(external focus); meeting specified project objec-
tives (iron-triangle focus); growth of others, own
personal growth, personal non-financial and
financial rewards (all psychosocial focus).
Sample
Purposive, heterogeneous sampling was used to
ensure data were collected from a diverse range of
organizations. The sample has representation
from traditional project-focused organizations,
such as a supplier of defence products and
services, and from organizations that have less
of a tradition of managing projects, such as a
university. Details of the nine organizations in
the sample are shown in Table 2.
In each organization, one of the people
interviewed was the person with overall respon-
sibility for project management. In some organi-
6 D. J. Bryde

Table 1. Character of project KPI

Project KPI Character of KPI

Client perception An external focus linked to the quality of the product and the quality of the
project management process
Meeting specified project objectives The ‘iron triangle’ of cost, time and quality
Smoothness of handover An external focus linked to the quality of the project management process in
the post-implementation stage
Responsiveness to change An internal focus that encompasses the quality of the project management
process throughout the project
Cost effectiveness of work An internal focus that encompasses the quality of the project management
process throughout the project
Improvement in organizational capability A long-term strategic focus linked to benefit for the organization
Growth of others Psychosocial focus on team member’s development
Own personal growth Psychosocial focus on individual development
Level of disruption to organization An external focus linked to a short-term strategic focus for the organization
Avoidance of non-benefit through early cancellation An internal focus linked to short-term strategic focus for the organization
Enabling of other project work An internal focus linked to long-term strategic focus for the organization
Personal non-financial rewards Psychosocial focus on reward and recognition for the project team
Contribution to continuous improvement Long-term strategic focus linked to benefits to the organization
Adherence to defined procedures Short-term focus linked to the quality of the project management process
Degree of process innovation Long-term strategic focus linked to the quality of the project management
process
Personal financial rewards Psychosocial focus on reward and recognition for the project team

Note: Those KPIs shown in bold are the focus of this exploratory study

Table 2. Organizations interviewed

Organization Nature of business Scope of interviews

A Supplier of defence products and services
B Re-processor of fuel products
C Manufacturer of telecommunications products
D Manufacturer of electronic components
E Supplier of financial products and services
F Supplier of Information Technology facilities and
services
G Provider of consultancy and training services
H Local authority
I University
Head of Project Management, Programme Manager,
Project Manager, Senior Project Engineer and
Engineering Manager
Head of Project Management, Head of the Project
Procurement Group (responsible for projects), Head of
Engineering Management Development (responsible for
the development of project management) and Project
Manager
Manager of Business Efficiency (responsible for Project
Management), Product Manager, Programme Manager
and Project Manager
Programme Manager, Product Manager, Project Manager
and Senior Project Engineer
Project Support Manager, Product Manager, Project
Consultant and Project Manager
Head of Project Management Focus Group (responsible
for project management), Project Office Manager
(responsible for project management support services),
Programme Manager and Project Manager
Managing Director (responsible for project management),
Project Consultant, Senior Project Manager and Project
Manager
Director (responsible for project management), Assistant
Director (responsible for special projects), Programme
Manager and Project Manager
Director (responsible for academic projects), Director
(responsible for non-academic projects), Programme
Manager (construction projects), Project Manager
(academic), Project Manager (non-academic)
Managing Different Perspectives of Project Success
zations. this person had the title ‘Head of Project
Management’, whilst in others it was the job of a
person at director level. This enabled data to be
collected about how project management ought
to happen in an organization, as well as how it
happened in practice. Interviewing programme
managers, project managers, project engineers
and product managers obtained additional data
on project management practice. This data was
supplemented by interviewing people working in
a project management support role, such as
project consultants and staff in project offices or
project management development roles.
Findings
Variables that influence the use of methods to
manage project KPIs
The interviews with subjects highlighted a num-
ber of possible variables influencing the manage-
ment of project KPIs, as shown in Figure 2.
Perceived importance. The staff from organiza-
tions A and B described how methods were
consistently employed to manage the iron trian-
gle KPIs and the KPIs linked to customer or
client satisfaction, in respect of their traditional
project work or core project-related business.
There were established methods used to manage
the iron-triangle KPIs: actual versus budgets,
revised versus baseline plans and quality sche-
dules versus specifications. Perception surveys
were undertaken both during and at the end of
projects to help manage customer/client satisfac-
tion. These two organizations could be classed as
being traditionally project focused and, in terms
of using methods for managing KPIs, could also
be classed as project-management focused. How-
ever, within these two organizations there was
evidence that the use of methods was influenced
by the perceived importance of the project, where
importance was assessed in relation to whether it
was a core-business or supportive activity. For
example, the use of the methods described earlier
in this paragraph on ‘supportive’ projects: such as
the introduction of a new IT system or the under-
taking of an internal human-resource manage-
ment initiative, was typically described by staff as
being variable and patchy. This suggests that in
terms of utilizing methods for managing KPIs,
the degree of project management focus might
7
Perceived Type of
importance of
project project
Use of methods to
manage
project KPI
Client/
Organization Contractor
PMS relationship
Figure 2. Influences on methods to manage project KPIs
vary within project-focused organizations, depend-
ing on the importance attached to the activity.
Type of project. The influence of the activity
being undertaken was also evident in the organi-
zations with less of a traditional focus on
managing projects, such as H and I, the local
authority and the university. In these two
organizations, small pockets of project manage-
ment maturity existed. In these pockets of
maturity, iron-triangle and customer/client KPIs
were being managed on a certain type of project.
For example, a construction programme man-
ager in a university’s Estate Management Ser-
vices and an assistant director involved in large-
scale construction projects in a local authority,
described well-developed methods for managing
iron triangle and customer/client KPIs, similar to
those used in the project-focused organizations
(see above). Yet in the other parts of the two
organizations, where different types of projects
were being undertaken, no such methods were
being used. Unlike the experiences of the two
organizations A and B discussed above, the use
of methods in H and I did not seem to be linked
to any perceived importance of the work, rather a
reflection of the fact that such methods are
routinely used, and expected to be used, for such
types of project.
Client/contractor relationship. The nature of the
client/contractor relationship seemed to influence
the development of the methods for managing
customer/client KPIs in some of the organizations.
Typical methods were used by organizations D
and F and involved working with clients to
establish the important KPIs. Common to these
situations, and others in which predefined project
success KPIs were used, was the characteristics of
the client/contractor relationship, with the two
8 D. J. Bryde
organizations managing projects for a small
number of customers in long-term partnerships.
This allowed the project teams to gain an
understanding over time of how to develop
appropriate and measurable customer stake-
holder-focused project success KPIs. For those
projects with no such client/team relationships,
the establishment of customer stakeholder-
focused project success KPIs typically took place
through workshops, which often ran over a
number of days. The use of such workshops
tended to be confined to projects in which the
value of the project to the organization was
deemed to justify the cost involved in under-
standing and defining the customer and stake-
holder-focused project success KPIs (see above).
For example, organization E used them on a
project to develop a new product line, which was
crucial to the achievement of the organization’s
business strategy, but not on all other projects.
Organization PMS. Interviews with staff in
organization A highlighted the possible role of
an organization PMS, which did in part aim at
aligning definitions of project success between the
organization and the project team, through the
establishment of harmonized and aligned project
objectives. The management process for imple-
menting this PMS took place outside individual
projects and typically involved a form of manage-
ment-by-objectives. Specified objectives to be met
were stated in terms of business targets, which
incorporated task-oriented project success KPIs,
such as achieving time, cost and quality objec-
tives and personal targets, which incorporated
psychosocial project success KPIs, such as
personal development and non-financial reward
and recognition. The Head of Project Manage-
ment described this process as ‘the value planning
process’. The Chief Executive Officer of the
organization had 6–10 individual objectives
broken down under the headings of The Eur-
opean Foundation for Quality Management
(EFQM) model and these ‘values’ were cascaded
down through the organization in the form of
individual business and personal objectives.
Need for methods to meet psychosocial project
KPIs
In all of the organizations, a common view was
that project management capability was not
keeping pace with changes in demand for project
management resources. In many cases, the de-
mand for skilled project managers was going up
but the level of resource was going down. This
decrease in capability was due, in part, to
psychosocial project KPIs not being met. A project
consultant in organization E described this:
‘Good people are leaving. Good people are not
rewarded as being good. There is no reward and
recognition.’
There was a recognition that as part of the solution
project managers’ and project team members’
psychosocial project KPIs needed to be better
met and that methods need to be developed to
facilitate the process. Potential methods identified
included the following: establishing internal devel-
opment processes, raising the profile for project
management, defining ways of matching the right
people to project management roles, establishing
processes for the retention of people, establishing
clear structures/processes/procedures to manage
the project life cycle, which included consideration
of psychosocial project KPIs.
Existence of methods to meet psychosocial project
KPIs
In terms of the existence of methods used to meet
psychosocial project KPIs, the interviews sug-
gested a dichotomy between the perceived im-
portance attached to a KPI and the practicalities
of data measurement linked to that KPI. For
example, there was a high degree of unanimity
across all organizations that in relative terms the
most important KPI was client perception. Some
of the organizations had translated this perceived
importance into their project management sys-
tems, mainly through perception surveys, but the
use of such surveys was patchy and inconsistent,
even within these organizations. More common
was a tension between the desire to measure, and
hence manage, client perception and the difficulty
of doing it in practice. A programme manager in
organization A best expressed this tension:
‘Yes we would like to do it [measure client perception]
and we talk about it a lot, but in terms of getting a
specific metric to measure client perception I can’t
think of one. Though it is crucial to what we do.’
In comparison with methods for measuring and
managing client perception, there was more
Managing Different Perspectives of Project Success
widespread adoption of methods for managing
KPIs focused on the iron triangle. This preva-
lence seemed to be influenced most by the
existence of well-established, quantitative-based
data-collection methods for measuring time and
cost-related objectives, rather than a general view
that the iron triangle KPI takes precedence over
the client perception KPI. Indeed, the interviews
suggested that client perception is ranked as more
important than meeting the iron triangle.
Compared to methods related to client percep-
tion and the iron triangle, formal methods to
manage the psychosocial project KPIs were not as
prevalent, either across organizations or within
organizations. In a similar fashion to the other
KPIs discussed above, this seemed to reflect the
following: first, psychosocial KPIs of the project
team were not perceived to be as important as
client perception and the iron triangle; second, they
were difficult KPIs to measure and integrate the
management of into project management systems.
Factors to enable the meeting of psychosocial
project KPIs
From the interviews a number of factors emerged
that seemed to have an influence on meeting
psychosocial project KPIs of personal growth and
development and non-financial reward and recog-
nition. (During the interviews it became clear that
financial reward and recognition was not per-
ceived as important to staff involved in projects,
compared with the other psychosocial KPIs.)
Top-level policies relating to psychosocial project
KPIs. In a number of the organizations inter-
viewed, the establishment of a high-level, written
policy of recognizing both project management-
related performance and the development of
project management skills had an influence on
meeting the psychosocial KPIs relating to project
team members’ personal growth and reward and
recognition. In organizations B, D and H the
development of such policies was known not only
to those responsible for project management,
such as the Heads of Project Management, but
also to the programme managers and project
managers. The key factor was not the existence of
the policy, but that it had been disseminated to
those working in project teams, that is, the
programme and project managers and that the
9
dissemination was part of an effective implemen-
tation of the policies. This resulted in the
programme and project managers expressing
satisfaction that their psychosocial KPIs were
considered.
Organization-wide training in project management
skills. In organizations A, B, C, D, F and H
there was common agreement amongst the staff
at all levels that organization-wide training in
project management had been formally under-
taken and had had a positive effect. These formal
training programmes had contributed to high
levels of satisfaction that the psychosocial KPIs
related to personal growth and development,
both of individuals and others, was being met by
the organizations. These high levels of satisfac-
tion were found not only amongst programme
and project managers, but also amongst those
responsible for project management and those
working in a project support role.
Integration of meeting psychosocial project KPIs
with existing management processes. As dis-
cussed earlier (see ‘Organization PMS’, above).
Organization A had linked the meeting of
psychosocial project KPIs with an existing
‘cascading values’ management process. As was
the case with the establishment of policies, the use
of this management process was having a positive
effect in terms of the staff involved in projects
believing that their psychosocial KPIs of non-
financial recognition were being met.
Building the meeting of psychosocial project KPIs
into the project management system. The staff in
organizations D and F described similar project
management processes that involved an interac-
tion between all the stakeholders, including the
project team members, to identify expectations.
For programme managers, project managers and
project engineers these expectations could relate
to meeting their psychosocial KPIs. Through this
interaction, which took place at the start of the
project when the project was defined and
continued throughout the life cycle to include a
review of performance in closure and handover,
the definitions for project success between the
stakeholders were shared.
In organization D this process seemed to work
well, with staff expressing satisfaction that their
10
expectations were considered at the start and their
perceptions taken into account at the end.
However, in organization F the process was not
always effective. There was a formal project
management procedure that built the measure-
ment of previously defined project KPIs, including
psychosocial, into the closure stage of the project
life cycle. However, despite the procedure being in
place, the project manager did not believe that
their psychosocial project KPIs, such as the need
to take on projects that were challenging and
stretching, were always properly evaluated. This
left the project manager feeling frustrated, demo-
tivated for the next project and questioning their
long-term future in the organization. It also
highlighted the fact that there was a dissonance
between the goals of the organization, in relation
to carrying out a project and the goals of the
project manager, which were not reconciled.
Recognition of the importance of psychosocial
KPIs. In organization G, a lack of recognition
at top-management level of the importance of
psychosocial KPIs was found to be a restraining
force working against the meeting of the KPIs. A
common psychosocial project KPI amongst the
project consultant, senior project manager and
project manager was the degree to which the
senior management, in their role of sponsors,
involved them in the initiating of new projects.
Such involvement was regarded as crucial to their
personal development. The inability of the
organization to recognize the project managers’
psychosocial project KPIs was a perceived weak-
ness in project performance, with all the staff
members believing that the organization was not
delivering successful projects. As was the case in
the previous section, they were left frustrated and
demotivated.
Conclusions
This study suggests that although there might be
widespread theoretical acceptance of the multi-
dimensional, multi-observational project success
KPI construct, more emphasis in project manage-
ment practice is being placed on iron-triangle and
customer/client external focused project success
KPIs compared to psychosocial-oriented and
internal stakeholder focused project success
KPIs. This seems to reflect both the perceived
D. J. Bryde
importance of the KPI and problems in develop-
ing appropriate measurement methods. Varia-
tions in the use of methods to manage project
KPIs also seems to result from the type of project
being carried out, the client/contractor project
relationship and whether an organization PMS
exists. (Though the exploratory nature of the
study means further work is needed to confirm
the findings – see below.)
The use of a narrow range of KPIs that focuses
exclusively on the iron triangle, whether by
accident or design, is potentially limiting in terms
of optimizing project performance. The metrics
emphasized in project environments, which are
linked to the project success KPIs, serve to
influence actions and decisions (Hauser and
Katz, 1998), help determine how the project is
to be managed (APM, 2000) and enable win-win
situations (Boehm and Ross, 1989). Therefore
ignoring such measures as ‘project team member
satisfaction’ and ‘increase in organizational cap-
ability’ might lead to a failure to align project
management action to key elements of perfor-
mance, with actions focusing exclusively on the
short-term and ignoring more long-term goals,
such as the achievement of continuous improve-
ment in project management and the develop-
ment of sustainable improvements in project
performance. This is a particularly pertinent issue
given the widespread reduction in project man-
agement capability reported in the survey results.
Where methods exist to manage a range of
task-oriented and psychosocial-oriented project
KPIs, the influence of wider developments in the
area of performance measurements is evident.
The use of the ‘cascading values’ model PMS
topology, as described in the performance man-
agement literature (see De Toni and Tonchia,
2001), shows how existing management processes
for performance management are applied in
project contexts. Where specific project manage-
ment-related business processes are developed for
considering psychosocial project KPIs, difficulties
are sometimes encountered. These difficulties are
consistent with prior literature (see for example
Bourne et al., 2000) that testifies to the problems
of practically implementing multidimensional
PMSs. They also suggest that it cannot be assum-
ed that internal stakeholders, such as project
managers, will always base their definitions of
success on being supportive of project goals, nor
that the merging of the distinction between
Managing Different Perspectives of Project Success
company objectives and definitions of project
success is achieved with positive consequences.
(This assumption is found in some of the project
management literature.)
In terms of project management practice, a key
outcome from the study is the problem of align-
ment or integration of different project stakeholder
perspectives, as a necessary step in dealing with the
complexity and paradoxes inherent in the multi-
dimensional construct. Developing practical solu-
tions is also made more difficult by the inherent
tension in project environments between the need
to establish a degree of solidity (at the project level)
in the context of external environments that are
often fluid and fast changing (at the programme
level). Establishing metrics linked to a project
success KPI construct is in part a response to the
need for solidity and as such metrics need to be
treated a being flexible and adaptable over time
and across stakeholder groups.
The results suggest another barrier to the
alignment or integration of stakeholder perspec-
tives may be in the difference in emphasis placed
on psychosocial project KPIs, such as personal
growth of team members, between those directly
involved in projects on a day-to-day basis and
those with an overseeing role above the project
manager and the team. These differences need to
be recognized if Theory W project management
(Boehm and Ross, 1989) is to be practised and
win-win situations created. However, in some
cases it might not be possible to meet psychosocial
project KPIs, such as providing a career oppor-
tunity or the opportunity for personal growth.
But even in these situations it is still necessary to
understand the expectations of the internal
stakeholder, in terms of their involvement in the
project, through the interaction between the
organization stakeholders and the internal stake-
holders. Crucial to this alignment will be to
ensure that, whilst not being able to guarantee a
particular psychosocial-oriented outcome for the
stakeholder, there is a perception that their
psychosocial project KPIs were considered and
treated in a fair and just manner. To maximize
the likelihood of such a perception existing, the
interaction must start early in the project life
cycle and continue through subsequent stages.
There needs to be a recognition in the
development of project management processes
of the acceptance by stakeholders representing
the organization, such as project sponsors, that
11
long-term, project KPIs, such as increasing the
capability of the organization to manage future
projects, are important, in addition to the short-
term, project-specific project KPIs, such as satis-
fying the client and getting the project completed
on time. However, such project management
processes are not currently common, with an em-
phasis in the methods used to manage the project
success KPIs on defining and measuring perfor-
mance against the iron triangle and on measuring
client perception. With project success being
defined by the organization in such a narrow
way, project managers are encouraged to focus
exclusively on short-term measures, as these are
seen as being those that provide most rewards
and recognition. This may lead to optimization of
project performance in the short-term and from
the narrow, tactical project perspective, but sub-
optimization in the long term and from the
broader, strategic organization perspective (such
a phenomenon was described by one person in
the survey as ‘projectitis’). The existence of such a
phenomenon has potentially damaging conse-
quences: there would be a focus by the project
manager on the task-oriented goals of the project
at the expense of the psychosocial-oriented goals
of project team members and of the goals of
other projects being carried out in the organiza-
tion. In terms of organizational performance,
problems with such a focus may not materialize
in the short-term but may manifest themselves as
the organization looks to sustain performance
over longer timescales.
Suggestions for further work
In some areas of project management, work is
currently being carried out to develop normative
models based on empirical research. One such
initiative is that of Archibald and Voropaev
(2003), which is looking to achieve consensus and
context within the international project manage-
ment community in both how projects ought to
be categorized and how the stages of the life cycle
ought to be classified. The ultimate aim of such
an initiative is that categorization and classifica-
tion can contribute to our understanding of the
variables influencing project success and to the
selection of appropriate methods for achieving
success. The exploratory work reported in this
paper makes a contribution in terms of testing
12
the validity of the multidimensional project KPI
construct but further empirical study of how
project success is defined and measured could
make a similar contribution to that of the work
being carried out in the area of project categor-
ization and life-cycle classification. Such a study
of project management practice in the area of
project success could lead to the establishment of
normative models, if appropriate for different
cultural, business, organization and project con-
texts, which could be used by practitioners.
The exploratory study reported in this paper
has highlighted forces that could either facilitate
or restrain the meeting of psychosocial project
KPIs. These include the development of imple-
mentation of top-level policies, organization-wide
training, integration with existing management
processes and development of the project manage-
ment system. Further work is needed to explore in
more detail which factors are important and how
the factors interact with each other. The study has
also brought to light the difficulty of developing
methods that reflect and attempt to reconcile the
complexities of the multidimensional and multi-
observational character of the project success
construct. In this respect the wider performance
measurement literature has provided potentially
useful theoretical frameworks to inform the
establishment of models for measuring and mana-
ging project performance: i.e. the use of Dixon et
al’s (1990) performance measurement questionnaire
(PMQ), discussed in Ghalayini and Noble (1996);
procedurally just performance management systems,
for example see Taylor, Renard and Tracy (1998);
sustainability metrics, for example see Epstein and
Roy (2001); and the ‘balanced scorecard’ (BSC)
approach, see Stewart (2001). Further work would
be useful to establish the extent to which such
models reflect practice and to understand how they
might contribute to achieving project success.
References
Archibald, R. D. and V. Voropaev (2003). ‘Commonalities and
differences in project management around the world: a survey
of project categories and life cycles’. 17th World Congress on
Project Management, Moscow, 4–6 June 2003.
APM (2000). Body of Knowledge, (4th edn). Association for
Project Management, High Wycombe.
Atkinson, R. (1999). ‘Project management: cost, time and
quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to
accept other success criteria’, International Journal of Project
Management, 17(6), pp. 337–343.
D. J. Bryde
Baccarini, D. (1999). ‘The Logical Framework Method for
Defining Project Success’, Project Management Journal,
30(4), pp. 25–32.
Boehm, B. W. and R. Ross (1989). ‘Theory-W Software Project
Management: Principles and Examples’, IEEE Transactions
on Software Engineering, 15(7), pp. 902–916.
Bourne, M., J. Mills, M. Wilcox, A. Neely and K. Platts (2000).
‘Designing, implementing and updating performance mea-
surement systems’, International Journal of Operations &
Production Management, 20(7), pp. 754–771.
Cleland, D. I. (1986). ‘Project Stakeholder Management’,
Project Management Journal, 17(4), pp. 36–44.
Cooke-Davies, T. (2002). ‘The ‘‘real’’ success factors on
projects’, International Journal of Project Management,
20(3), pp. 185–190.
De Toni, A. and S. Tonchia (2001). ‘Performance measurement
systems: models, characteristics and measures’, International
Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20(1/2),
pp. 46–70.
Deutsch, M. S. (1991). ‘An Exploratory Analysis Relating the
Software Project Management Process to Project Success’,
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 38(4),
pp. 365–375.
De Wit, A. (1988). ‘Measurement of Project Management
Success’, International Journal of Project Management, 6(3),
pp. 164–170.
Dixon, J. R., A. J. Nanni and T. E. Vollman (1990). The New
Performance Challenge: Measuring Operations for World
Class Competition. Dow Jones-Irwin, Homewood IL.
Epstein, M. J. and M. J. Roy (2001). ‘Sustainability in Action:
Identifying and Measuring the Key Performance Drivers’,
Long Range Planning, 34, pp. 585–604.
Feurer, R. and K. Chaharbaghi (1995). ‘Performance measure-
ment in strategic change’, Benchmarking for Quality Manage-
ment & Technology, 2(2), pp. 64–83.
Freeman, M. and P. Beale (1992). ‘Measuring Project Success’,
Project Management Journal, 23(1), pp. 8–17.
Firth, G. (1995). ‘Choosing the right structure for a project
based organisation’, Seminar - Project Organisation, Project
Management ’95, London, March.
Ghalayini, A. G. and J. S. Noble (1996). ‘The changing basis of
performance measurement’, International Journal of Opera-
tions & Production Management, 16(8), pp. 63–80.
Hauser, J. and G. Katz (1998). ‘Metrics: You Are What You
Measure!’, European Management Journal, 16(5), pp. 517–
528.
Hlavacka, S., L. Bacharova, V. Rusnakova and R. Wagner
(2001). ‘Performance implications of Porter’s generic strate-
gies in Slovak hospitals’, Journal of Management in
Medicine’, 15(1), pp. 44–66.
Kald, M. and F. Nilsson (2000). ‘Performance Measurement At
Nordic Companies’, European Management Journal, 18(1),
pp. 113–127.
Kaplan, R. S. and D. P. Norton (1992). ‘The balanced
scorecard - measures that drive performance’, Harvard
Business Review, 70(January–February), pp. 71–79.
Kerzner, H. (1989). ‘Systems Project Management: A Case
Study at The IRS’, Journal of Systems Management, 40(1),
pp. 7–9.
Larson, E. W. and D. H. Gobeli (1989). ‘Significance of Project
Management Structure on Development Success’, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 36(2), pp. 119–125.
Managing Different Perspectives of Project Success 13

Mallak, L. A., G. R. Patzak and H. A. Kursted, Jnr (1991).
‘Satisfying Stakeholders for Successful Project Management’,
Computer Industrial Engineering, 21(1–4), pp. 429–433.
Might, R. J. and W. A. Fisher (1985). ‘The role of structural
factors in determining project management success’, IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, 32(2), pp. 71–77.
Nicholas, J. M. (1989). ‘Successful Project Management: A
Force-Field Analysis’, Journal of Systems Management,
40(1), pp. 24–30, 36.
Pinto, M. B. and J. K. Pinto (1991). ‘Determinants of Cross-
Functional Cooperation in the Project Implementation
Process’, Project Management Journal, 20(4), pp. 13–20.
Pinto, J. K. and J. E. Prescott (1990). ‘Planning and Tactical
Factors in the Project Implementation Process’, Journal of
Management Studies, 3, pp. 305–327.
Pinto, J. K. and D. P. Slevin (1987). ‘Critical Factors in
Successful Project Implementation’, IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 34(1), pp. 22–27.
Pinto, J. K. and D. P. Slevin (1989). ‘Critical Success Factors in
R&D Projects’, Research Technology Management, Jan–Feb,
pp. 31–35.
Shenhar, A. J., O. Levy and D. Dvir (1997). ‘Mapping the
Dimensions of Project Success’, International Journal of
Project Management, 28(2), pp. 5–13.
Stewart, W. E. (2001). ‘Balanced Scorecard for Projects’,
Project Management Journal, 32(1), pp. 38–53.
Taylor, B. and C. Graham (1992). ‘Information For Strategic
Management’, Management Accounting, January, pp. 52–54.
Taylor, M. S., M. K. Renard and K. B. Tracy (1998).
‘Manager’s reactions to procedurally just performance
management systems’, Academy of Management Journal,
41(5), pp. 568–579.
Tukel, O. I. and W. O. Rom (2001). ‘An empirical investigation
of project evaluation criteria’, International Journal of
Operations and Production Management, 21(3), pp. 400–416.
Tuman, J. (1993). Models for Achieving Success through Team-
building and Stakeholder Management (ed. P. G. Dinsmore),
pp. 207–223. AMACOM, USA.
Walters, M. (1999). ‘Performance measurement systems – a case
study of customer satisfaction’, Facilities, 17(3/4), pp. 97–104.
Walton, E. J. and S. Dawson (2001). ‘Managers’ Perceptions of
Criteria of Organizational Effectiveness’, Journal of Manage-
ment Studies, 38(2), pp. 173–199.
Wateridge, J. (1995). ‘IT projects: a basis for success’, Interna-
tional Journal of Project Management, 13(3), pp. 169–172.
Wateridge, J. (1998). ‘How can IS/IT projects be measured for
success?’, International Journal of Project Management, 16(1),
pp. 59–63.

David Bryde is currently senior lecturer in operations management at Liverpool John Moores
University. He is an experienced researcher and teacher at executive, masters and undergraduate
level and has published his research in various journals. Prior to joining Liverpool JMU he
worked for Metier Management Systems, suppliers of Artemis project management software.
After leaving Metier the author joined ICI, working as a project manager in a group specialising
in IT related and infrastructure projects.