A Coherent Framework for Understanding Critical Success Factors of ICT Project Environment

(1)

A Coherent Framework for Understanding Critical Success Factors of ICT Project

Environment

A’ang Subiyakto

Department of Information System

Syarif Hidayatullah State Islamic University Jakarta Jakarta, Indonesia

aang_subiyakto@uinjkt.ac.id

Abd. Rahman bin Ahlan

Department of Information System International Islamic University Malaysia

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia arahman@iium.edu.my

Abstract—Although there has been significant research on information and communication technology (ICT) project success, but there are still gaps around this field. Thus, further understanding to ensure the level of ICT project success is still required in both theory and practice. The ultimate aim of this study is develops a coherent critical success factors (CSFs) framework for helping ICT project managers to deal with the complexity of project dimensions which have influenced the shaping of project success. The four consideration points in this framework development are: first, based on a comprehensive success definition as guidance for measuring the critical connection between the success criteria level and the CSFs level; second, integrating coherently four project dimensions for encouraging the high content validity; third, presenting the alternating critical connection between the project success definition and the CSFs determination; lastly, adopting the project stakeholder perceptions from multiple levels of an ICT project organization’s environment. However, it is a proposition concept, but this proposed CSF framework is reasonable in the context of the ICT project success improvement.

Keywords-ICT project; CSF framework; success criteria; project dimensions; CSFs

I. INTRODUCTION

However, project management is a relatively mature discipline in the context of standardizations [1-3], best practices [1], research articles [3,4,], and in its community of professional practitioners [6,7], but scholars [8-10] mentioned that this is not in the ICT projects environment domain. Specifically, authors identified the five gaps around it, namely: the high rate of the project failures, the ambiguous project success definition, the use of different project dimensions in project success measurement, and the use of different CSFs identification methods. Based on these identified gaps, the ICT community still needs a reliable framework for measuring the project performance attainments and one of the challenges here is how the ICT development projects can be better managed to increase chances of success.

The paper tried to present a coherent CSF framework development based on four consideration points: the comprehensive success definition guidance, integrating coherently four project dimensions, presenting the alternating critical connection between the project success definition and the CSFs determination, and adopting the

project stakeholder perceptions from multiple project organization levels

The next section highlights the gaps around the ICT project performance studies. The followed parts are literature review which it elaborated the previous concepts, the proposed framework development, and the last part of the paper is concluded with suggestion for further studies.

II. THE SIX GAPS AROUND ICTPROJECT SUCCESS

The five identified gaps which are considered and encouraged for developing this framework are: first, various studies [11-20] have been presenting that the majority of the ICT projects are unsuccessful and unbalanced [18]. Although, [20,21] questioned and criticized these findings, but the next researchers [22] published constantly the failure evidences. The successful ICT projects can encourage business operations to improve products and to enhance services, but, in contrast, its failures can cause substantial financial losses to an organization and even jeopardize its survival [23].

Second, scholars [24-26] mentioned indirectly that project success is an ambiguous concept and it had been discussing especially for the criteria by which success will have judged. However, a project management is performed well and the project could be considered ‘‘successful”, it is also probable to be a futile project in the context of the success criteria indifferences [27].

Third, several researchers [27-31] used partially the project dimensions to describe the project success theories in their studies. While, the others [32] mentioned that an overall framework can be developed coherently through integrating the dimensions. Petter, DeLone, and McLean [33] described that a multidimensional measurement will support the high content validity. Hence, the use of multidimensional measurement is more reasonable to explore the ICT project performance, rather than partial ones [34].

Fourth, researchers [35] asserted that when using the CSFs method as a planning tool, managers from multiple levels of an organization’s hierarchy must be interviewed. Even, Van Aken [36] mentioned ‘‘the satisfaction of all stakeholders’’ as his project success definition. In contrast, several scholars only used one or partial stakeholders as their research respondents, such as top management [37],

(2)

project manager [22,38,39], user [40,41], project team member and project manager [42], ICT experts and faculty members [43], professionals [44] in their researches; a lack in the stakeholder approaches [45]. It may be one of reasons why scholars [45] proposed a role-based stakeholder classification model to gather a comprehensive perspective around ICT project performance.

The last identified gaps, authors recorded that researchers [35,46] used the top-down method to elaborate CSFs in their project performance studies in the early CSFs study era. While, the next researchers [19,20,29,32,34,38,39,42,47,48] developed the bottom-up method by identifying, classifying and grouping an amount of CSFs. Definitely, each of these methods have strengths and weaknesses, but would have got an alternative method if these methods had combined [49]. However, this combination may be better method than the previous methods, but authors have not yet find specifically a research around it.

Against these gaps, ICT community still needs an alternative framework for understanding CSFs of ICT project environment. The challenge here is how the ICT development projects can be better improved to increase chances of success. Moreover, it will help ICT project managers in dealing with the complexity of project dimensions environment.

III. LITERATURE REVIEW A. Project Success Criteria

Success is an interesting word which connotes with different things to different people, and very context-dependent [31]. A number of scholars [24-26] mentioned indirectly that it is an ambiguous concept and it has been discussing especially for the criteria by which success will be judged. However, a project management is performed well and the project can be considered ‘‘successful”, it is also probable to be a futile project in the context of the success criteria indifferences [27]. De Witt [27] concluded that the most appropriate criteria for success is the degree to which project met its objectives. This concept will be complex if one considers overall stakeholder perceptions from technical aspects, operational aspects, managerial issues, and strategic agendas [27,50].

Traditionally, Atkinson [30] formulated project success based on three criteria: time, cost, and quality. Although, it was criticized by some scholars [51] because of incapable to represent the comprehensive success criteria, but it provided a basic understanding for the project success theory. Further, researchers incremented this triangle model with the customer satisfaction [23,51] and the fulfilment of functional requirements [52].

In short, Judgev and Muller [31] contextualized comprehensively the previous concepts as “efficiency” and “effectiveness”. Efficient is focused on the iron triangle model [30] to measure technically the project performance

as concluded by Belasi and Tukel [53] that the capability or resource ownership has consequences for project organization. Effective is significance of the intangible appropriate to the stakeholder expectations [31], as stated also by Yeo [54] that even if the ICT project sounded successful, it may still meet with resistance or rejection by stakeholders, because of unfulfilled their needs [52].

B. Project Dimensions

It is a better way to develop a holistic framework which it represent many aspects for understanding ICT project success performances as suggested by Westerveld [32] that a possible way to develop an overall framework, use the multidimensional perspectives [33,55,56] not only focused at the operational level, but also managerial level and strategic level [29,31,54]. This is because of most of the ICT project problems are related to managerial, organizational, human and culture issues, not only technical problems [35]. There are four project dimensions which are proposed by authors for developing the coherent framework for understanding CSFs in ICT project environment:

1) Systematical Dimensions

Specifically, Belasi and Tukel [53] concluded that the capability or resource ownership has consequences for project success. This is appropriate with the technical project success concepts about efficiency and effectiveness [31]. Researchers formulated these resources, including time, cost, quality [30], technology, people, process and structure [57]. However, these attributes and their relationships in a project can be used as a parameter measuring project success [57], but these are used differently and separately by a number of researchers [25,26,58-63] in their studies.

2) Managerial Dimensions

Researches [27,28,31,53,64] mentioned that one of factors which influence the project performance is managerial aspects. Clearly, De Witt [27] elucidated that regardless of poor project management, project could be considered ‘‘successful” and it is also probable that a project is futile despite of project management was performed well. Further, scholars [27,64] separated the project performance and the project management performance, and distinguished the project life cycle and the product life cycle [27,31,64,65] for simplifying the project complexities. Specifically, Jugdev and Muller [31] decomposed the project cycle to be conception, planning, and implementation, and the product cycle consist of handover, utilization, and close down [31]. This concept show that the project life cycle is related with the processes during the project itself and the product life cycle represents the business process included the project process.

3) Directional Dimensions

Numerous researchers [26,27,32,50,59-63,66,67] mentioned the directional issues including project objective determinations, project goal definitions, business mission

(3)

attainments or organization vision directions are the several of CSFs in their studies. Generally, [53] recorded that scholars classified CSFs based on strategic aspects and tactical aspects. Furthermore, Wateridge [68] concluded that the technical success level only refers to the achievement of short-term goals related to the managerial duties of project manager because their futures may depend on it. He also stated that users and project sponsors have different perceptions; the users may prefer the results of the project which can be applied to short-term, and, on the other hand, the project sponsor may wish the long-term advantages [68]. In short, the success of project can be measured based on various stakeholder interests [54] according to technical issues (short-term), tactical issues (medium-term) and strategic issues (long-term).

4) Environmental Dimensions

Marnewick and Labuschagne [3] concluded that the alignment between project and business objectives influences the perceive of success and it changed over times related to the environmental changes [26,27,32,50,59-63,66,67]. While, most of the ICT project problems are related to management, organizational, human and culture issues, not technical problems [28]. Specifically, Howsawi, Eager, and Bagia [29] designed a project success measurement concept based on the project environment dimensions, namely: context level, business level, deliverable level, and process level. Further, they concluded that it contributes to the body of knowledge by highlighting the effect of the context-related criteria on project success definition and planning [29]. In short, a specific characteristic of CSFs were inherited from the particular environment in where it operates [10,69].

C. Critical Success Factors (CSFs)

De Wit [27] who referred Haifield [70], interpreted CSFs as “a number of factors that determine the successful outcome of a project” and the others [51] stated that success factors are any circumstance, fact, or influence which contributes to a result which needs to be done correctly to ensure the success of project. Retrospectively, CSFs have been researching by scholars [46,70] since the end of 1970s and this topic is still interesting now because of researchers need to continue their effort to explore new possibilities of achieving the success of project [23].

Jugdev and Muller [31] even recorded that most of the CSFs literatures during 1980s-1990s contributed on identifying categories of success, but only focused at the business operational level and lack in the depth of framework integration [31]. Numerous researchers [19,20,32,34,38,42,72] used a bottom-up concept for identifying CSFs through taking across identifying, classifying and grouping CSFs. This method is relatively easy to use, but lacks to present a coherent connection between CSFs level and success dimension level [20]. On the other hand, Rockart [46] introduced how to identify critical areas and to initiate the performance initiations

which reflected those areas [35]. However, several researchers said that this top-down method is relatively difficult to use [35] and human biased [10,20,35], but the others mentioned that this top-down concept lends a sense of consistency and completeness [35]. Therefore, researchers [49] tried to develop an alternative method for sharing several strengths, weaknesses, and limitations both concepts.

In brief, Westerveld [32] stated that a possible way to develop an overall framework use the multidimensional perspectives [33,55,56] not only focused at the operational level, but also managerial level and strategic level [29,31,54] because of majority of the ICT project problems are related to these aspects, not only technical problems [28]. Hence, authors tried to develop a coherent framework based on critical connections between project success criteria, project dimensions and CSFs as it suggested by researchers [17].

IV. THE PROPOSED CSFS FRAMEWORK DEVELOPMENT

According to the six stated gaps on the early pages and reviewing the previous literatures, authors improved a coherent framework for understanding CSFs of ICT project environment as presented by Table II. The four main points of this development are:

Firstly, authors define that ICT project success is a project which it is conducted efficiently [31,73,74] and effectively [31,74] to produce a project result which it fulfilled the business functional requirements [52,54] and the stakeholder satisfactions [23,27,31,50,51,54]. Based on this definition, authors identify four success criteria, namely: efficiency, effectiveness, fulfillment of the business functional requirements, and stakeholder satisfactions. These criteria will be guidance for formulating the project dimensions to measure the critical connection between the success criteria level and the CSFs level [20].

Secondly, the proposed framework integrated coherently four project dimensions, as suggested by [32] to encourage the high content validity [33] on project success measurement. The dimensions are systematical dimension [25,26,30,31,53,57,63], managerial dimension [27,28,31,53,64,65], directional dimension [26,27,32,50,53,54,59-63,66-68], and environmental dimension [3,10,26-29,32,50,59-63,66,67,69]. Researchers [34] mentioned that the use of multidimensional measurement is more reasonable to describe the ICT project performance, rather than use the partial ones.

Thirdly, authors adopted the combination CSFs determination method [49] for determining CSFs. This method combined the top-down method [35,46] and the bottom-up method which it is used indirectly by [19,20,29,32,34,38,39,42,47,48]. The aimed is to share several strengths and weaknesses both previous method [49]. However, this combination may be better method than the previous ones, but authors have not yet find specifically a research around it [49]. The eighteen CSFs are

(4)

bring-downed based on the four formulated project dimensions as represented by table below.

TABLE I. THE EIGHTEEN BRING-DOWNED CSFS [XX]

Dimensions Research Variables

Systematical

Factor related to cost Factor related to time Factor related to quality Factor related to people Factor related to technology

Managerial

Factor related to conception Factor related to planning Factor related to implementation Factor related to handover Factor related to utilization Factor related to close down Directional

Support short term direction Support middle term direction Support long term direction Environmental

Factor related to project Process Factor related to deliverable level Factor related to business level Factor related to context level

Fourthly, the framework presented the climb-down critical connection between project success, project success criteria, project dimensions, and CSFs which it is suggested by [20,45,46] as figured by Figure 1. Alternately, it means that the identified CSFs are formulated from the project success criteria and inversely.

Lastly, the framework is also developed to accommodate the project stakeholder perceptions from multiple levels of an ICT project organization’s environment appropriate to

assertions by [27,35,36,50] as illustrated crossly by the stakeholder satisfactions line (Table I) which it across the managerial dimensions, directional dimensions, and environmental dimensions.

Figure 1. The alternating critical connection

In short, the proposed CSFs framework will help the ICT project managers on dealing with the complexity of ICT project environment. They can identified the CSF areas based on crossing the four project dimensions, the stakeholder focuses, and the project success criteria.

I. CONCLUSION

The first challenge of ICT use in business organizations is measuring the ICT project success because of the failures can cause substantial financial losses and even jeopardize their survivals [23]. While, the dimension of ICT project is complex, related to numerous aspects, such as personal, organizational, managerial, cultural [35] and environmental [29], not only technical ones [35]. The ultimate aim is help project managers for understanding CSFs in the complexity of ICT project environment by crossing the four project dimensions, the stakeholder focuses, and the project success criteria.

TABLE II. THE COHERENT CSFS FRAMEWORK FOR ICT PROJECT ENVIRONMENT

ICT Project Stakeholders

Consultants

Suppliers ICT Key Users

Project Team Members End Users Business Key _Users

Project Managers Top Managers

ystem

atical D

sio

People

Cost/ Budget

Time

Quality

Technology

Managerial Dimension

Conception

Stage Planning Stage

Production/ Implementation

Stage

Handover Stage

Utilization Stage

Close Down Stage

The next Conception Directional

Dimension Short Term Direction Middle Term Direction

Long Term Direction Environmental

Dimension Project Level Deliverable Level Business Level Context Level

Fulfillment of the functional requirements Stakeholder satisfactions focus

Effectiveness

(5)

The four development consideration points are: first, based on a comprehensive success definition as guidance for measuring the critical connection between the success criteria level and the CSFs level; second, integrating coherently four project dimensions for encouraging the high content validity; third, presenting the alternating critical connection between the project success definition and the CSFs determination; lastly, adopting the project stakeholder perceptions from multiple levels of an ICT project organization’s environment.

However, it is a proposition concept, but this proposed CSF framework is reasonable in the context of the ICT project success improvement. Moreover, additional researches are needed to establish qualitatively and quantitatively the validity of this framework, particularly for formulating the project dimensions and determining CSFs based on a comparison from the previous study.

REFERENCES

[1] L. Crawford and J. Pollack, “How generic are project management knowledge and practice?,“ Project Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 87–96, 2007.

[2] F. Ahlemann, F. Teuteberg and K. Vogelsang, “Project management standards–Diffusion and application in Germany and Switzerland,“ International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 292-303, 2009.

[3] C. Marnewick and Les Labuschagne, "Factors that influence the outcome of information technology projects in South Africa: An empirical investigation," Acta Commercii, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 78-89, 2009.

[4] K. Sewchurran and M. Barron, “A systemic enquiry to learn about the project manager project sponsor relationship,“ in Proc. of the PMI Research Conference 2008. Warsaw: Project Management Int’, 2008. [5] A.D. Smith, “Surveying practicing project managers on curricular

aspects of project management programs: a resource-based approach,“ Project Management Journal, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 26–32, 2003.

[6] S.A. Leyborne, “The changing bias of project management research: a consideration of the literatures and an application of extant theory,“ Project Management Journal, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 61–74, 2007. [7] Irja Hyvari, “Success of Projects in Different Organizational

Conditions,” Project Management Journal, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 31-41, 2006, ISSN 8756-9728/03

[8] D. Rubinstein, “Standish Group Report: There’s Less Development Chaos Today,” Software Development Times, 1, 2007.

[9] S. Pellegrinelli, D. Partington, C. Hemingway, Z. Mohdzain and M. Shah, “The importance of context in programme management: An empirical review of programme practices,“ International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 41-55, 2007.

[10] A. Azimi and F.S. Manesh, “A new model to identify and evaluate critical success factors in the IT projects; Case study: using RFID technology in Iranian fuel distribution system,” International Journal of Information Science and Management, Special Issue, January-June 2010.

[11] Hastie S., “What Makes Information Systems Projects Successful?” Software Education Associates Ltd, May 2006.

[12] S. W. Ambler, “2007 IT Project Success Rates Survey Results,” Internet:

http://www.ambysoft.com/surveys/success2007.html#Results [Feb. 20, 2009].

[13] Logica Management Consulting, “White paper: securing the value of business process change,” http://www.logica.com, 2008.

[14] C. Stanforth, “Analysis e-government project failure: comparing factorial, systems and interpretive approaches,” Centre for Development Informatics, pp. 978-1, 2010.

[15] KPMG, “Forensic fraud and misconduct survey 2010: Australia and

New Zealand,” Internet: http://www.kpmg.com/au/en/issuesandinsights/articlespublications/fr

aud-survey/pages/fraud-survey-2010.aspx, 2010 [July 15,2013]. [16] Lisa Chauvet, Paul Collier, and Marguerite Duponchel, “What

explains aid project success in post-conflict situations?,” World Bank, 2010.

[17] Geneca, “Doomed from the Start? Why a Majority of Business and IT Teams Anticipate Their Software Development Projects Will Fail,” Winter 2010/2011 Industry Survey, 2011.

[18] Independent Evaluation Group (IEG), “Capturing technology for development: an evaluation of World Bank Group activities in information and communication technologies,” Washington, DC: Independent Evaluation Group, The World Bank Group, 2011. [19] L. A. Ika, Amadou Diallo, Denis Thuillier, “Critical success factors

for World Bank projects: An empirical investigation,“ International Journal of Project Management Vol. 30, pp. 105–116, 2012.

[20] D. Stankovic, V. Nikolic, M. Djordjevic, and D. B. Cao, “A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects in former Yugoslavia IT companies,“ Journal of Systems and Software, 2013. [21] R.L. Glass, “Failure Is Looking More Like Success These Days,“

IEEE Software, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 103–104, 2002.

[22] K. El Emam and A. G. Koru, “ A replicated survey of IT software project failures,” IEEE Software, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp. 84–90, 2008. [23] X. Xu, W. Zhang, and R. Barkhi, “IT infrastructure capabilities and

IT project success: a development team perspective,“ Information Technology and Management, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 123-142, 2010. [24] D. Baccarini, "The logical framework method for defining project

success," Project Management Journal, Vol. 30, p. 25, 1999.

[25] J. K. Pinto and D. P. Slevin, “Project success: definitions and measurement techniques,” Project Management Journal, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 67–72, 1988.

[26] G. P. Prabhakar, "Projects and their management: a literature review," Int’ Journal of Business and Management, Vol. 3, No. 8, P3, 2008. [27] A. De Wit, "Measurement of project success," International Journal

of Project Management, Vol. 6, pp. 164-170, 1988.

[28] F. Hartman and R. Ashrafi, "Project management in the information systems and information technologies," Project Management Journal, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 5-15, 2002.

[29] E. M. Howsawi, David Eager, and Ravindra Bagia. "Understanding project success: The four-level project success framework,." In Proceeding IEEM, International Conference on. IEEE, 2011.

[30] R. Atkinson, "Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria," Int’ Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, pp. 337-342, 1999. [31] K. Jugdev and R. MÜller, "A retrospective look at our evolving

understanding of project success," Project Management Journal, Vol. 36, pp. 19-31, 2005.

[32] E. Westerveld, “The Project Excellence Model1: linking success criteria and critical success factors,“ International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, pp. 411–418, 2003.

[33] S. Petter, W. DeLone, and E. McLean, “Measuring information systems success: models, dimensions, measures, and interrelationships,“ European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 17, pp. 236–263, 2008.

[34] G.S.C. Pan, “Information systems project abandonment: a stakeholder analysis,“ International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 25, pp. 173–184, 2005.

[35] A, C. Boynton and R. W. Zmud, “An assessment of critical success factors,“ Sloan Management Review (pre-1986), Summer 1984, Vol. 25, No. 4, 1984.

(6)

[36] T. Van Aken, “De weg naar project success: Eerder via werkstijl dan instrumenten,” De Tijdstroom, p. 411, quoted in E. Westerveld, “The project excellence model: linking success criteria and critical success factors,” International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, 411-418, 2003.

[37] C. Scott-Young and Danny Samson, "Project success and project team management: Evidence from capital projects in the process industries," Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 749-766, 2008.

[38] T. Chow and D. B. Cao, “A survey study of critical success factors in agile software projects,“ Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 81, No. 6, pp. 961-971, 2008.

[39] Ana L. R. F. and Gregg A. T., “A framework for exploring the relationship between project manager leadership style and project success,” The International Journal of Management, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2012.

[40] Farn-Shing Chen, Chin-Wen Liao, Tsai-Hsiu Chen, “Adult distance education students’ perspective on critical success factors of e-learning,” In Proc. of The Second Int’ Conference on Education Technology and Training, ETT’09, Dec. 2009, pp. 140-143, 2009. [41] Goldi Puri, "Critical success factors in e-learning–an empirical

study," International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 149-161, 2012.

[42] N. Sh. Kandelousi, J. Ooi, A. Abdollahi, “Key Success Factors for Managing Projects, World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Issue. 59, pp. 1826-1820, 2011.

[43] W. Bhuasiri, O. Xaymoungkhoun, H. Zo, J. J. Rho and A. P. Ciganek, "Critical success factors for e-learning in developing countries: A comparative analysis between ICT experts and faculty," Computers and Education, Vol. 58, No. 2, pp. 843-855, 2012.

[44] A. Ogwueleka, "The critical success factors influencing project performance in Nigeria." Int’ Journal of Management Science and Engineering Management, Vol. 6, No. 5, pp. 343-349, 2011. [45] C. M. Achterkamp, and Janita F. J. Vos, "Investigating the use of the

stakeholder notion in project management literature, a meta-analysis," Int’ Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26, No. 7, 749-757, 2008. [46] J. Rockart, “Chief Executives Define Their Own Information Needs,“

In Harvard Business Review, March/April 1979, pp. 81-92, 1979. [47] T. Saarinen and Markku Sääksjärvi, "Process and product success in

information systems development." The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, Vol. 1, No.5, 266-275, 1992.

[48] D. Milosevic and Peerasit Patanakul, "Standardized project management may increase development projects success," Int’ Journal of Project Management, Vol. 23, No. 3, 181-192, 2005. [49] A. Subiyakto and A. R. Ahlan, “An alternative method for

determining CSFs of ICT project environment,” 2013, Manuscript is submitted for publication.

[50] B. N. Baker, Dalmar Fisher, and David C. Murphy, "Project management in the public sector: success and failure patterns compared to private sector projects," Project Management Handbook, Second Edition (1983): 920-934.

[51] L. A. Ika, “Project success as a topic in project management journal“ Project Management Journal, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 6-19, 2009. [52] D. Joosten, D. Basten, W. Mellis, “Measurement of information

system project success in organizations–What researchers can learn from practice,” Proceeding of ECIS’11, Paper 177,2011.

[53] W. Belassi and O. I. Tukel, “A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in projects,” International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14, No. 3, pp. 141-151, 1996.

[54] K. T. Yeo, “ Critical failure factors in information systems projects.” Int’ Journal Project Management, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 241–246, 2002. [55] K. Crowston, J. Howison, and H. Annabi, “Information systems

success in free and open source software development: theory and measures,“ Software Process Improvement and Practice Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 123–148, 2006.

[56] E. J. Volschenk, “A critical review of project management success factors in large SA ICT companies,” Doctoral Dissertation, Stellenbosch: University of Stellenbosch, 2010.

[57] Richard Heeks, "Information systems and developing countries: Failure, success, and local improvisations," The Information Society, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 101-112, 2002.

[58] C. W. Kuen, S. Zailani, and Y. Fernando, "Critical factors influencing the project success amongst manufacturing companies in Malaysia," Africa Journal Business Management, Vol. 3, No. 1, 016-027, 2009. [59] M. H. Nasir and S. Sahibuddin, “Critical success factors for software

projects: A comparative study,“ Scientific Research and Essays, Vol. 6, No. 10, pp. 2174-2186, 2011.

[60] A. K. Munns and Bassam F. Bjeirmi, "The role of project management in achieving project success," International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 81-87, 1996.

[61] Ulrich Remus and Martin Wiener, "Critical success factors for managing offshore software development projects," Journal of Global Information Technology Management, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp.6-29, 2009. [62] M. Amiri et. al. “Investigation the Critical Success Factors of CRM

Implementation in the Urban Management; Case Study: Tehran Municipality,“ International Bulletin of Business Administration, Issue 9, pp. 120-132, 2010.

[63] L. McLeod and S. G. MacDonell, “Factors that affect software systems development project outcomes: A survey of research,“ ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), Vol. 43, No. 4, p. 24, 2011.

[64] J. D. Bryde, “Project management concepts, methods and application“ International Journal of Operation Product Management, Vol. 23, No. 7, pp. 775–93, 2003.

[65] T. M. Qureshi, A. S. Warraich, and S. T. Hijazi, “Significance of project management performance assessment (PMPA) model,“ Int’ Journal of Project Management, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 378-388, 2009. [66] J. S. Reel, "Critical success factors in software projects." IEEE

Software, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 18-23, 1999.

[67] Ronggui Ding and Yanwei Wang, "An empirical study on critical success factors based on governance for IT projects in China." Wireless Communications, Networking and Mobile Computing, 2008 (WiCOM'08), 4th International Conference on. IEEE, 2008. [68] J. Wateridge, “How can IS/IT projects be measured for success,“

International Journal of Project Management, 16, No. 1, 59–63, 1998. [69] J. Heo, and I. Han, “Performance measure of information systems

(IS) in evolving computing environments: an empirical investigation,“ Information & Management, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 243-256, 2003.

[70] F. Hayfield, “Basic factors for a successful project,” 6th Internet Congress, Garmisch-Partenkirchen FRG, 1979.

[71] Lim, C. S., M. Zain Mohamed, “Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-examination,” International Journal of Project Management, 17, 4 243-248, 1999.

[72] R. Holland, Ben Light, “A critical success factors model for ERP implementation,” Software, IEEE , 16, 3, 30-36, 1999.

[73] A. J. Shenhar, Dov Dvir, Ofer Levy and Alan C. Maltz, "Project success: a multidimensional strategic concept." Long Range Planning, Vol 34, No. 6, 699-725, 2001.

[74] H. Ghapanchi and A. Aurum, “The impact of project capabilities on project performance: Case of open source software projects,“ International Journal of Project Management Vol. 30 (2012) pp. 407– 417, 2012.