Project success and critical success factors of construction projects: project practitioners’ perspectives

The construction industry plays an important role in the economy, contributing significantly to the national GDP, capital formation and employment (Cheng et al. 2021) and directly or indirectly influencing other sectors (Tripathi and Jha 2018), but it is continuously facing problems pertaining to resource planning, risk management and logistics, resulting in schedule delays, design defects, cost overruns and disagreements (Akinosho et al. 2020) amidst serious performance shortfalls and technological and budgetary uncertainties, with projects becoming increasingly complex and difficult (Siraj and Fayek 2019). The multifaceted, volatile and dynamic nature of construction poses problems in modelling the construction process (Hajdasz 2015). The construction industry is widely denounced for its low results. The key aim of a construction project is to succeed and the major challenges include global market settings, limited resources, limited budget, shortage of qualified and experienced workers, and intense competition (Ingle and Mahesh 2020). Performances characterised by poor compliance in terms of adherence to the budgeted cost and schedule have been characteristics of construction projects; and delays in execution are observed to be very expensive, adversely affecting project cost and profit margin (Hasan and Jha 2019). Zhu and Mostafavi (2017) cited a study by Construction Industry Institute (2012) observing that out of the 975 construction projects analysed, only 5.4% met their planned cost and schedule performance objectives. Project Management Institute reported that US$ 97 million are lost for every US$ one billion invested in projects that failed to achieve their objectives (PMI cited in Martens et al. 2018). With regard to the Indian context, the Govt. of India report (July 2022) on central sector infrastructure projects costing US$ 20 million (INR 150 crore) and above reported that out of 1505 monitored projects, 661 projects (43.92%) were delayed, 386 projects (25.65%) reported cost overrun and 222 projects (14.75%) reported both cost and time overruns vis-à-vis their original project implementation schedules (Infrastructure and Project Monitoring Division 2022).

‘A construction project is considered as successful when it is completed in time, without cost overruns, and within the specified quality parameters’ (Sinesilassie et al. 2019). Success factors are interconnected performance factors contributing to project success (Olugboyega et al. 2020), forming the basis for organisations to achieve success on a project (Nguyen et al. 2020). The essence of project success is that the right projects are done right (Langston et al. 2018). Other metrics of success include functionality, contractor’s competitiveness, absence of lawsuits and legal cases, and occupiers’ ‘fitness for purpose’ (Duy Nguyen et al. 2004). Project success is among the most studied themes in project management due to its complexity in defining success and the factors contributing to its achievement. Despite this, the term project success still remains diffuse and its meaning is often subject to the vagaries of the interpretation preferred by the eye of the beholder (Jugdev and Müller 2005).

The critical success factors (CSFs) of a project are project management system inputs that directly raise the chances of attaining success on a project (Gudienė et al. 2014 cited in Maghsoodi and Khalilzadeh 2017). Over the past decade, several works have recognised the factors that support the successful completion of construction projects, especially the factors that have a greater effect on project success than others (Altarawneh and Samadi 2019). There are very few studies considering practitioners’ viewpoints and providing valuable insights to project professionals in their daily activities (Townsend and Gershon 2020). The majority of the previous work in the CSF area under project management literature relied on questionnaire surveys and has identified long lists of factors. While these factors identify areas requiring critical attention, they still do not create a good fit with the most-cited definition of CSFs by Rockart (1982, p. 4) as ‘those few key areas of activity in which favorable results are absolutely necessary for a particular manager to reach his or her goals’.

To observe the CSFs, both qualitative and quantitative methods are applied. Ahmed et al. (2021) observed that the survey questionnaire method for measurement of project success is among the most commonly used methods, a standard method in project management literature, and a well-accepted way of measuring this outcome. They synthesised 60 research studies in a systematic literature review of project managers (PMs)’ leadership competencies in achieving project success and found that 43 studies used the survey questionnaire method. Among these 43 studies, 35 used a 5-point Likert scale and 5 used a 7-point Likert scale. Quantitative method usage is high; however, the outcomes observe gaps in different contexts. This paper applies a qualitative method to ensure that the project wholly inherits the trait of comprehensiveness, which would not be possible to capture by the use of quantitative methods.

The authors explored the perceptions of project practitioners on three themes, that is to say project success, CSFs, and artificial intelligence applications in handling construction projects. The new dimension of artificial intelligence is observed to be considered a successful application and the results of the study on same have been published in Kumar et al. (2021). This study presents the results of the themes ‘project success’ and ‘critical success factors’. Tabish and Jha (2012, p. 1131), citing Whitehead (1998), observe that statisticians suggest to limit the variables that are irrelevant as they result in poor model fit. A review of the literature revealed long lists of CSFs identified in previous studies based on the questionnaire surveys; however, this is in contrast to what has been debated about CSFs in the literature. Based on the research gaps identified, this paper addresses the following questions: (i) Do project practitioners perceive a large number of CSFs during the construction works? (ii) Do project practitioners consider traditional constraints of the Iron Triangle as adequate in defining project success? (iii) How do project practitioners perceive complex construction projects as successful projects? The research outcomes address the existing gaps and improve the understanding of project success, CSFs, complexity and complex construction projects.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides the literature review; Section 3 presents the research approach; Section 4 presents the results and discussion; and Section 5 presents the conclusions. Finally, Section 6 discusses the limitations of this research as well as directions for future research.

In the project management approach, CSFs and project success research are frequently considered among the key ways of enhancing project delivery effectiveness (Chan et al. 2004). Over time, researchers have proposed various frameworks for the classification of project success into different categories. McLeod et al. (2012) classified project success into three categories, that is to say process success, product success and organisation success, whereas Zwikael and Smyrk (2012) classified project performance into ‘project investment success’, ‘project ownership success’ and ‘project management success’. Joslin and Müller (2015) included project efficiency, project impact, organisational benefits, stakeholder satisfaction and future potential among additional project success criteria besides the three traditional criteria of the Iron Triangle. Al-Tmeemy et al. (2011) divided project success into the three categories of product success, project management success and market success. Shenhar and Dvir (2007) considered project success as a dynamic concept having short-term and long-term implications. They suggested five basic groups of measures (impact on customer, efficiency, preparation for future, business and direct success, and impact on teams) for a comprehensive assessment of project success in the short and long terms. De Wit (1988) and Baccarini (1999) differentiated between project management success and product success. Product success (measuring against the project’s overall objectives) is different from project management success (measuring performance on time/cost/quality/performance specifications). Joslin and Müller (2015) opined that project management success is a short-term measure and relates to efficiency, and project success is a long-term measure and relates to effectiveness and impact.

Amidst various frames of understanding, Radujkovic and Sjekavica (2017) opined that making a strong differentiation between project management success and project success is hard on account of their mutual relationships. Misic and Radujkovic (2015) opined that ‘understanding of megaproject performance goes beyond Iron Triangle, and includes wider participants’. The debate on the project success definition is still continuing, with various authors believing that a common consensus has not been established on the measures of project success in the construction industry (Akbari et al. 2020; Luo et al. 2020). Previous research has disagreed on the project success definition and the best way to achieve it (Townsend and Gershon 2020). Research into project success is more dominant than ever, which shows the growing recognisation of the importance of improving project delivery; however, the question of the optimal means for the achievement of project success is one that still needs to be solved, which is evidenced by the recurrent failures of all kinds of projects (McDermot et al. 2020).

CSFs are the factors that constitute, influence and determine project success and are the most notable concepts of construction project success (Soon Han et al. 2012). Daniel was the first to discuss the concept of success factors in the 1960s (Leidecker and Bruno 1984). Rockart, based on Daniel’s concept, introduced the CSFs approach and defined CSFs as ‘those few key areas of activity in which favorable results are absolutely necessary for a particular manager to reach his or her goals’ (Rockart 1982). A seminal study on CSFs is the study of Pinto and Slevin (1987), who are recognised as having devised the standard and most widely utilised theoretical framework to assess project success (Jugdev and Müller 2005; Davis 2014). Pinto and Slevin (1987) defined CSFs as ‘those factors which, if addressed, will significantly improve project implementation chances’ (Pinto and Slevin 1987, p. 22). However, Pinto and Slevin (1987) developed this CSF model based on only 52 usable responses, and responses were limited to only one stakeholder group (project team). Pinto and Slevin (1989) opined that CSFs, though predictive of project success, come into play at different stages of a project’s life cycle (Pinto and Slevin 1989). Wang et al. (2022) performed a literature review of studies on the CSFs and success criteria for mega infrastructure construction projects for the period between 2000 and 2018. They found partnering/relationships with key stakeholders; adequate resource availability; adequate communication and coordination among related parties; clear strategic vision; and public support or acceptance as the top five CSFs. Many authors have recognised the significance of understanding the influence of CSFs on project performance for improving project efficiencies and effectiveness (Sinesilassie et al. 2019). The success factors are vast and diverse; so, identifying and focussing on CSFs among them might improve the project’s efficiency and contribute to the project’s success (Maghsoodi and Khalilzadeh 2017). It is difficult to prioritise, categorise and reduce the CSFs to a more manageable number and therefore a compelling model encompassing all CSFs has yet to be developed and indeed may be impossible (Langston et al. 2018).

Over the period, project management researches have defined CSFs for different project types, project sizes, procurement methods, countries and stakeholders, as well as for different success categories (project success, product success, project management success, etc.). Although numerous CSFs are observed being cited in scientific literature, a few show statistical significance in describing each of the success dimensions, and many CSFs, although well-evidenced in theory, do not deliver as a factor of interest to project professionals during execution (Pacagnella et al. 2019). Varied lists of CSFs for construction project success have been documented by different researches. Kumar et al. (2021) documented a comprehensive list of CSFs identified in previous research (Table A1 in Appendix).

Diverse sets of CSFs for project success on construction projects documented by several previous studies are either too generic, posing problems when implemented in practice (Duy Nguyen et al. 2004), or specifically limited to a particular project (Belassi and Tukel 1996). The project failures are still very high, and a possible reason could be these CSFs not including sufficient know-how, to help support decision making by project professionals (Zwikael and Globerson 2006). Moradi et al. (2020), in a longitudinal study, identified 338 success factors, documented 132 success factors after synthesising and excluding similarities and observed 65 factors as weighty success factors contributing to project success.

Pollack et al. (2018) performed a scientometric analysis of project management research for the period 1970–2015 to explore the concepts central to the Iron Triangle. They found that the Iron Triangle concept can effectively communicate interrelations among central success criteria. However, researchers are increasingly pointing to the inadequacy of the Iron Triangle to wholly measure project success and suggesting other key performance indicators such as stakeholder satisfaction, safety, sustainability, compliance with audit and transparency, etc. (Tabish and Jha 2018).

Understanding complexity is very important and significant for PMs on account of differences associated with decision making and achievement of goals that are related to complex projects, influencing the CSFs and affecting the project management. There is disagreement on the definition of complexity (Cristobal 2017). The efforts to define complexity often refer back to systems theory (Davies and Mackenzie 2014). Baccarini (1996) defined project complexity as ‘consisting of many varied interrelated parts and can be operationalized in terms of differentiation and interdependency’. Many authors considered Baccarini’s (1996) work as a starting point in project complexity research (Mikkelsen 2021). De Rezende et al. (2018) performed a bibliometric network analysis of 50 years of project complexity research to present a broader and clearer image of the field. They found that the project complexity is defined by novelty, structural, pace, uncertainty, social–political, regulative and dynamics dimensions. They further found that now the focus is changing from project control to project adaptability and it necessitates developing capabilities for managing complex projects. Burke and Morley (2006) defined complexity as the ‘number and heterogeneity of different elements that interrelate’. They opined that complexity is an inherent and defining feature of projects and its effect on project performance is still not completely discovered (Burke and Morley 2016, p. 1243 cited in Bjorvatn and Wald 2018). The definition of complexity as ‘consists of many different elements with multiple interactions and feedback loops between elements’ provided by Hatch and Cunliffe (2012) is observed to be among most cited in the research literature (Hatch and Cunliffe 2012, p. 1204 cited in Bakhshi et al. 2016).

This study applies a qualitative content analysis. This methodology is frequently adopted to comprehend a phenomenon requiring deeper understanding. The methodological framework used for qualitative content analysis is broadly based on the recommendations of Kuckartz (2019) and Erlingsson and Brysiewicz (2017). A qualitative approach is ‘appropriate to use to study a research problem when the problem needs to be explored; when a complex, detailed understanding is needed’ (Creswell 2013). It is used for exploring new phenomena and for capturing individuals’ understandings of meaning and processes (Given 2008). Qualitative research is characterised by generating understanding rather than testing (Corbin and Strauss 2008); it ‘emphasizes words rather than quantification in the collection and analysis of data’ (Bryman 2012). Interviews, as a qualitative approach instrument, can be used to investigate novel occurrences and record individual perceptions of meanings and processes (Given 2008).

The perceptions of senior PMs on project success, CSFs and complexity were varied and mixed. Their response to the number of CSFs was in contrast to the long lists of CSFs identified in the published literature. The results are discussed in detail below.

Although project success is a comprehensive topic and among the most studied themes in project management, a common consensus has not been established on the measures of project success in the construction industry. CSFs in previous studies have been mostly identified through cross-sectional questionnaire surveys primarily relying on self-reporting by respondents. Various studies have identified this self-reporting among sources of biasedness as respondents may choose to share success stories only. Further, previous research on CSFs has been carried out considering limited aspects of construction projects, and such a practice has resulted in long and diverse lists of CSFs with each list applicable in a limited context/condition. Therefore, a common understanding of project success and a CSF model globally applicable to all types of projects is yet to be developed.

This study explored the perceptions of project practitioners about project success, CSFs and complexity to address the following three questions – (i) Do project practitioners perceive a large number of CSFs during the construction works as presented in questionnaire surveys? (ii) Do project practitioners consider traditional constraints of the Iron Triangle as adequate in defining project success? (iii) How do project practitioners perceive complex construction projects as successful projects? This study has found that project practitioners perceive a small number of CSFs in contrast to the large lists of CSFs from which respondents participating in the questionnaire surveys are requested to choose or rank. Further, the CSFs perceived by the project practitioners in this study are significantly different from the constituents of the 10 CSF list proposed by Pinto and Slevin (1987), suggesting the prevalence of a research gap with regard to finding the updated list of CSFs, apart from testing the current CSFs lists through quantitative questionnaire surveys in different contexts and performing the research considering limited aspects of construction projects. The traditional constraints of the Iron Triangle, though important, are yet considered inadequate in defining project success, and project professionals are seen as relying more on other indicators for defining a project as a success. Complexity/complex projects are perceived in terms of a large number of interfaces/stakeholders, complex working systems/tools, complex communication, and uncertainty.

The present empirical study contributes a theoretical analysis to the project management literature by laying an incremental groundwork for the development of a common understanding of CSFs as well as the leveraging of project success in a way that would facilitate effective decision making during the project’s life cycle. It will also help project practitioners, other stakeholders, and policymakers to understand the relative importance of CSFs for project success.

The main limitation of this qualitative study lies in the fact that, while such studies typically require the population of respondents to be drawn from a large sample of project professionals so as for their results to be imbibed with a fair degree of representativeness, only a small sample size was used in the present study. We further propose more in-depth interviews with a wider audience in the construction industry to ascertain whether the project practitioners perceive only a small number of CSFs during the project execution works in contrast to the large CSFs lists presented in questionnaire surveys. Obtaining such confirmation would increase the credibility of the present study, and allow determining whether the initial findings of this qualitative study find similarity or even corroboration across a larger sample of stakeholders. Another limitation of this study is the focus on construction projects, though the findings can be generalised to other project-based industries but may not be directly applicable (for instance as in the case of software projects); therefore, the research needs to be expanded to other industries to determine the consistency of the results. This will be valuable because this would help to bridge the gap between the construction industry and research academia. Further, it will help project professionals in enhancing the likelihood of greater construction project success.