PAPERS The Relationship Between Project Success and Project Efficiency Pedro Serrador, Serrador Project Management, Toronto, Canada Rodney Turner, SKEMA Business School, Lille, France ABSTRACT Many researchers have suggested that meeting time, scope, and budget goals, sometimes called 'project efficiency,' is not the comprehensive measure of project success. Broader measures of success have been recommended; however, to date, nobody has determined empirically the relationship between efficiency and overall success or indeed shown whether efficiency is important at all to overall project success. Our aim in this article is to correct that omission. Through a survey of 1,386 projects we have shown that project efficiency correlates moderately strongly to overall project success (correlation of 0.6 and R2 of 0.36). Efficiency is shown through analysis to be neither the only aspect of project success nor an aspect of project success that can be ignored. KEYWORDS: project; success; efficiency; project success; project and industries Project Management Journal, Vol. 46, No. 1, 30-39 2015 by the Project Management Institute Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21468 30 February/March 2015 INTRODUCTION P roject success criteria have been measured in a variety of ways. Although the conventional measurement of project success has focused on tangibles, the current thinking is that, ultimately, project success is best judged by the stakeholders, especially the primary sponsor (Turner & Zolin, 2012). As Shenhar, Levy, and Dvir (1997) and Turner and Zolin (2012) note, assessing success is time-dependent: \"As time goes by, it matters less whether the project has met its resource constraints; in most cases, after about one year it is completely irrelevant. In contrast, after project completion, the second dimension, impact on the customer and customer satisfaction, becomes more relevant.\" (Shenhar et al., 1997, p. 12) Building on that work, Shenhar and Dvir (2007) suggested a model of success based on five dimensions (Table 1). In a similar vein, Cooke-Davies (2002) differentiated between project success and project management success. Project management success is the traditional measure of project success, measured at project completion, and is primarily based on whether the output is delivered to time, cost, and functionality (Atkinson, 1999). Following Shenhar and Dvir (2007), we call this 'project efficiency.' Project success is based on whether the project outcome meets the strategic objectives of the investing organization. In this article we focus on overall project success, which is measured by how satisfied key stakeholders are about how well the project achieves its strategic objectives. Munns and Bjeirmi (1996) noted that much of the project management literature considers \"projects end when they are delivered to the customer\" (p. 83). They continued: \"That is the point at which project management ends. They do not consider the wider criteria, which will affect the project once in use\" (p. 83, our italics); this focus on the end date of the project is understandable from a project and project manager's standpoint. The definitions of a project imply an end date; at that time the project manager is likely to be released or move on to another project. Also, the reward structure in many organizations encourages the project manager to finish the project on cost and time and little else (Turner, 2014). Gareis (2005) and Gareis, Huemann, and Martinuzzi (2013) are very specific that project closing occurs with the delivery of the new asset (the project output) to the client, and that the project process is only part of the overall investment process. Thus the success of the project itself is measured by project efficiency, but the success of the investment is measured by the wider measures, as suggested by Turner and Zolin (2012). The literature has also examined the wider impact of projects on the business. Customer satisfaction has long been a part of the project management literature (Kerzner, 1979, 2009) but it has not usually been included in the formal measures of success. Shenhar et al. (1997) note that of the three traditional dimensions of project efficiencytime, budget, and scopescope Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj Success Dimension Measures Project efficiency Meeting schedule goal Meeting budget goal Team satisfaction Team morale Skill development Team member growth Team member retention Impact on the customer Meeting functional performance Meeting technical specifications Fulfilling customer's needs Solving a customer's problem The customer is using the product Customer satisfaction Business success Commercial success Creating a large market share Preparing for the future Creating a new market Creating a new product line Developing a new technology Table 1: The five dimensions of project success after Shenhar and Dvir (2007). has the largest role, because it also has an impact on the customer and his or her satisfaction. They note: \"Similarly, project managers must be mindful to the business aspects of their company. They can no longer avoid looking at the big picture and just concentrate on getting the job done. They must understand the business environment and view their project as part of the company's struggle for competitive advantage, revenues, and profit\" (p. 10). This view was reiterated by Jugdev and Mller (2005), who reviewed the project success literature over the past 40 years and found that a more holistic approach to measuring success was becoming more evident. Researchers increasingly measure success by impact on the organization rather than just meeting the triple constraint. Dvir, Raz, and Shenhar (2003) state that \"there are many cases where projects are executed as planned, on time, on budget and achieve the planned performance goals, but turn out to be complete failures because they failed to produce actual benefits to the customer or adequate revenue and profit for the performing organization.\" (p. 89). They also found that \"all four success-measures (meeting planning goals, end-user benefits, contractor benefits, and overall project success) are highly inter-correlated, implying that projects perceived to be successful are successful for all their stakeholders\" (p. 94). Thomas, Jacques, Adams, and Kihneman-Woote (2008) state that measuring project success in not straightforward. \"Examples abound where the original objectives of the project are not met, but the client was highly satisfied. There are other examples where the initial project objectives were met, but the client was quite unhappy with the results\" (p. 106). Collyer and Warren (2009) cite the movie Titanic, which was touted as a late, over-budget flop but went on to be the first film to generate more than US$1 billion. Munns and Bjeirmi (1996) also note that a project can be a success despite poor project management performance. Zwikael and Globerson (2006), using data collected from 280 project managers showed that aspects of success show a similar frequency distribution. Figure 1 shows a highly similar distribution between technical performance (a partial though not full measure of project efficiency) and stakeholder satisfaction. In addition, they reported a linear correlation between two components of success: technical performance and customer satisfaction with an R2 of 0.37 (p < 0.001). This result showed a strong relationship between the two components, though this was not generalized to overall success. The importance of broader success measures for projects is now the norm. A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide) - Fifth Edition, as an example, no longer just mentions the triple constraint (Project Management Institute, 2013) and now includes project constraints such as scope, quality, schedule, budget, resources, and risks. It also refers to stakeholder satisfaction as well as other constraints that are not mentioned but may impact project success. Now that the most recent edition of the PMBOK Guide (Project Management Institute, 2013) recognizes stakeholder satisfaction as an additional measure of project success, it is timely to ask what the correlation is between that and project efficiency. Thus we see there are two competing measures of success on projects, what Cooke-Davies (2002) calls 'project management success' and 'project success.' We adopt more current terminology, which uses 'project efficiency' instead of 'project management success' (Shenhar et al., 1997; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007) and define the two competing measures as: Project efficiency: meeting cost, time, and scope goals; and Project success: meeting wider business and enterprise goals as defined by key stakeholders Apart from the work of Zwikael and Globerson (2006), few people have investigated to what extent these two measures of success are correlated. Turner and Zolin (2012) suggest project efficiency is important to success, because if the project is completed late and over budget it will be more difficult for it to be a business success. Prabhakar (2008) notes: \"There is also a general agreement that although schedule February/March 2015 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj 31 PAPERS The Relationship Between Project Success and Project Efficiency Percentage of Questionnaires 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 2 4 6 8 10 Levels of Performance Customer Satisfaction Technical Performance Figure 1: Frequency distribution of technical performance and customer satisfaction, after Zwikael and Globerson (2006). and budget performance alone are considered inadequate as measures of project success, they are still important components of the overall construct. Quality is intertwined with issues of technical performance, specifications, and achievement of functional objectives and it is achievement against these criteria that will be most subject to variation in perception by multiple project stakeholders\" (p. 7). As we saw above, however, the components of project efficiency are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions of success (Dvir et al., 2003; Thomas et al., 2008; Turner & Zolin, 2012; Xue, Turner, Lecoeuvre, & Anbari, 2013). Many projects are finished on time and cost but are abject failures, and many finish late and over spent but are considered successful. So what, if anything, is the relationship between project efficiency and project success? To date there is little empirical work to investigate this relationship. An exploratory study is warranted and this leads to our research question: To what extent is project efficiency correlated with overall project success? where a completely objective solution can be found and phenomenology, where all experience is subjective (Trochim, 2006). Because perception and observation are based on subjective opinion, our results cannot be fully objective. Some concepts such as project success are not fully quantifiable and are impacted by subjective judgment. Post-positivism understands that although positivism cannot tell the whole truth in business research, its insights are still useful. Research Methodology Which industry does it come from? In which country was it performed? Was it a national or international project? We adopted a post-positivist approach. Post-positivism falls between positivism, 32 February/March 2015 Survey To gather the data we conducted a survey. The questions are shown in Table 2. We asked the respondents to judge success in three categories: Overall project success rating; Project success as perceived by four groups of stakeholders: the sponsor, the project team, the client, and the end users; and Performance against the three components of project efficiency: time, cost, and scope. We also asked demographic questions about the nature of the project: Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj Data collection ran for 12 weeks. A total of 865 people started the survey, with 859 completing at least the first portion, which requested information on one more successful project. The sources of participants were PMI's community of practice organizations (638), LinkedIn groups focusing on project management (197), the PMI Survey Links site (18), and personal networks (12). Participants reported filling a variety of roles on projects: project manager (304), senior project manager (141), program manager (72), project coordinator (66), project team member (58), senior manager (36), senior program/portfolio manager (22), and C level management (14); 146 chose not to answer. Responses were received from 60 countries. The largest percentage of respondents were from the United States (36%), followed by Canada and India. More than 10 responses were received from Australia, Spain, Brazil, Singapore, and Germany; 183 respondents chose not to answer the question. Each participant was asked to provide data on two projects, one more successful and another less successful. However, not all participants entered data for two projects; therefore, the total number of projects available for study was Question Project success: meeting timeline goals How successful was the project in meeting project time goals? Project success: meeting budget goals How successful was the project in meeting project budget goals? Project success: meeting scope/ requirements goals How successful was the project in meeting scope and requirements goals? Project success rating: sponsor assessment How did the project sponsors rate the success of the project? Project success rating: project team assessment How do you rate the project team's satisfaction with the project? Project success rating: client assessment How do you rate the client's satisfaction with the project's results? Project success rating-end user assessment How do you rate the end users' satisfaction with the project's results? Overall project success rating: How do you rate the overall success of the project? Response Ranges 7-point scale: > 60% over time 45%-59% over time 30%-44% over time 15%-29% over time 1%-14% over time on time ahead of schedule 7-point scale: > 60% over budget 45%-59% over budget 30%-44% over budget 15%-29% over budget 1%-14% over budget on budget under budget 7-point scale: > 60% requirements missed 45%-59% requirements missed 30%-44% requirements missed 15%-29% requirements missed 1%-14% requirements missed requirements met requirements exceeded 5-point scale: failure not fully successful mixed successful very successful 5-point scale: failure not fully successful mixed successful very successful 5-point scale: failure not fully successful mixed successful very successful 5-point scale: failure not fully successful mixed successful very successful 5-point scale: failure not fully successful mixed successful very successful Reference Dvir et al. (2003) Zwikael and Globerson (2006) Dvir et al. (2003) Zwikael and Globerson (2006) Dvir et al. (2003) Mller and Turner (2007a); Shenhar and Dvir (2007) Mller and Turner (2007a) Mller and Turner (2007a) Mller and Turner (2007a) Shenhar and Dvir (2007a) Table 2: Questions in the survey. February/March 2015 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj 33 1,539. After removal of outliers and bad data, the usable total was 1,386 projects. Outlier removal included the removal of projects that were cancelled or not completed. The breakdown of projects by success rating is shown in Table 3. If we create a histogram (Figure 2), we can see that the methodology has resulted in an acceptable range of projects. When the projects were consolidated, we confirmed there was a range of projects available in a usable distribution. Results were similar for the two success measures. Although there are aspects of project success that are temporal (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; Turner & Zolin, 2012), this research did not specifically measure the impact of time on judgments of project success. Data were selected for completed projects to ensure that enough Valid N Failure 98 Not Fully Successful 259 Mixed 345 Successful 451 Very Successful 233 All Groups 1,386 Table 3: Project success rating for all projects. time had passed to have a reasonable assessment of overall project success. With most studies of project success using questionnaires or interviews, the results rely on participants stating how successful a project was, which is subjective by nature. There may be ways to measure success in objective ways, but this may only apply to project efficiency; therefore, this article is mainly concerned with perceived project success as reported by participants. To measure this factor, questions in the survey were based on a combination of the success dimensions defined by Mller and Turner (2007b) and Shenhar and Dvir (2007). It is the nature of an anonymous, open global survey that there may be single respondent bias. Each project is described by one respondent and for the sake of privacy the names of the projects or organizations were not sought. It is not possible to completely remove the single respondent bias, but to minimize the impact, each respondent was asked to provide information on one more successful and one less successful project. This was intended to ensure respondents did not just provide information on their most successful project. Mono-source bias and other response biases can occur in self-rated Histogram: Project Success Rating 500 Expected Normal 450 Analysis 350 To facilitate further analysis, the success measures were grouped into three measures of success. These were the measures of project success used throughout the analysis: Efficiency measure = mean of the following three responses as a summated scale: 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 Figure 2: Histogram of project success rating compared with normal distribution. 34 performance measures, as discussed by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) and Conway and Lance (2010). By targeting project managers, we intended to receive information from the individual who would have a chance to provide the best overall view of the project. Questions also used varied scales, as recommended by Podsakoff et al. (2003). In addition, factor analysis and Cronbach's alpha analysis were completed where appropriate. To avoid social desirability issues related to project success, respondents were asked to provide data for both a more successful and less successful project. Finally, the use of PMI's community of practice groups, LinkedIn, and personal contacts ensured there were no convenience sample issues; hence, mono-source bias was assumed not to be an issue for this research. Survey questions, in general used a 5- or 7-point Likert-like numerical scale (Cooper & Schindler, 2008). Pure Likert scales were not used because there were several questions where numerical responses were appropriate. The varying scale was partially due to following the scales from the existing literature, using 7-point scales to allow optimum ordinal value for numerical ranges and 5-point scales for subjective ratings. Since a variety of scales were used this ensured that item context effects as per Podsakoff et al. (2003) were not an issue. Results and Analysis 400 No. of observations PAPERS The Relationship Between Project Success and Project Efficiency February/March 2015 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj 5.0 1. Project success: meeting timeline goals 2. Project success: meeting budget goals 3. Project success: meeting scope and requirements goals As project success is best judged by the stakeholders, especially the primary sponsor (Turner & Zolin, 2012), we will use the following project success measure: Project Success measure = mean of the following four responses as a summated scale: 1. Project success rating: sponsor assessment 2. Project success rating: project team assessment 3. Project success rating: client assessment 4. Project success rating: end-user assessment In addition, we will compare these measures to the single overall project success rating given by respondents. Although these measures were based on the findings of previous researchers, a confirmatory factor analysis was also completed (Table 4). Factor 1 clearly corresponds to project success; factor 2 corresponds to project efficiency. This factor analysis confirms our selection of measures, with the exception of the scope question. This question could fit with either the efficiency or success measure. This is in keeping with Shenhar et al. (1997) who stated that scope was the most important of the triple constraint for overall success. Since the result for scope is somewhat higher for factor 2 (efficiency), we will continue to use it as part of the efficiency measure. Reliability A Cronbach alpha analysis was performed on the success measures. The Cronbach alpha coefficient is a number that ranges from 0 to 1; a value of 1 indicates that the measure has perfect reliability, whereas a value of 0 indicates that the measure is not reliable and variations are due to random error. Ideally the alpha value should approach 1. In general, an alpha value of 0.9 is required for practical decision-making situations, whereas a value of 0.7 is considered to than 0.90. In practical terms, this meant there was a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the data collected and it is accurate and meaningful for the purposes of this research. This indicates that all of the factors are interrelated to some extent. The results for the efficiency measure (Table 6) were lower than those for the success measure; however, they are still adequate for research purposes (Nunnally, 1978). The factor would have been marginally improved by removing scope; however, as scope is defined as part of the triple constraint be sufficient for research purposes (Nunnally, 1978). Three items measured project efficiency and four measured overall project success. All measures showed a high Cronbach alpha score, which shows that they are correlated (Table 5). The results of the Cronbach's alpha analysis supported the initial assumptions that the elements identified for measuring success (Dvir et al., 2003; Zwikael & Globerson, 2006; Mller & Turner, 2007) were valid measures for this survey and accurately measured the judgments of respondents. Each variable achieved an alpha score greater Factor 1 Factor 2 Project sponsors and stakeholders success rating 0.893* 0.267 Project budget goals 0.162 0.877* Project time goals 0.288 0.845* Scope and requirements goals 0.522 0.524 Project team's satisfaction 0.836* 0.299 Client's satisfaction 0.916* 0.256 End users' satisfaction 0.897* 0.202 Factor Loadings (Varimax normalized). *Marked loadings are > 0.700000. Table 4: Confirmatory factor analysis of success measures. Mean if deleted Var. if deleted Std. Dv. if deleted Itm-Totl -Correl. Alpha if deleted Sponsors success rating 10.112 9.651 3.107 0.886 0.921 Project team's satisfaction 10.151 10.490 3.239 0.818 0.942 Client's satisfaction 10.081 9.671 3.110 0.915 0.912 End users' satisfaction 10.126 10.227 3.198 0.849 0.933 Summary for scale: Mean = 13.495; Std. Dv. = 4.18; Valid N:1378. Cronbach alpha: 0.945; Standardized alpha: 0.944; Average inter-item corr.: 0.815. Table 5: Cronbach alpha analysis of success measure. Mean if deleted Var. if deleted Std. Dv. if Itm-Totl deleted - Correl. Alpha if deleted Project time goals 9.214 8.484 2.913 0.605 0.686 Project budget goals 9.667 7.477 2.734 0.690 0.584 Scope and requirements goals 9.001 9.733 3.120 0.521 0.774 Summary for scale: Mean = 13.941; Std. Dv. = 4.158; Valid N:1386. Cronbach alpha: 0.769; Standardized alpha: 0.767; Average inter-item corr.: 0.529. Table 6: Cronbach alpha analysis of efficiency measure. February/March 2015 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj 35 PAPERS The Relationship Between Project Success and Project Efficiency in the literature (Atkinson, 1999; Cooke-Davies, 2002; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007), there is adequate justification to keep it part of the efficiency measure as defined. Subgroup Analysis The means of these measures were reviewed using subgroup analysis. First, the measures were compared by industry (Table 7). In addition, to the three calculated measures of success, the respondents' response to the single question: \"Overall project success rating\" was examined. We see that construction has the highest project success measure. This is in agreement with the literature in general that construction has better perceived rates of success than other industries (Zwikael & Globerson, 2006). However, other trends are more difficult to see, and ANOVA analysis does not indicate that any of the measures are significantly related to industry. Next, subgroup analysis was completed by geographic region, which showed similar results, supporting the overall results. Next, we examined the correlation between the respondents' project success ratings and the success measures (Table 8). The analysis shows close to 90% correlation between this one question and the project success measure and 0.58 to the efficiency measure, which indicates a very close correlation between the respondents' overall rating of project success and measures combining the wider success components. However, the efficiency measure only shows a 0.58 correlation with the manager's assessment; this appears to indicate that project managers also believe the overall success of their projects is most closely correlated with the stakeholder's views. project success measure and 0.58 with the respondents' self-reported overall success rating. Table 9 shows the correlation of the individual measures of project efficiency, time, cost, and scope with the measures of project success. The correlation with the overall project Efficiency Measure success rating and the project success measure is between 0.4 and 0.6. The highest correlation is with meeting scope goals, as we would expect (Shenhar et al., 1997). We can also look at how this relationship varies by industry (Table 10). It is interesting to note that efficiency Project Success Measure Overall Project Rating Valid N Construction 4.630 3.660 3.528 41 Financial services 4.618 3.354 3.355 257 Utilities 4.535 3.553 3.455 42 Government 4.731 3.438 3.423 152 Education 5.080 3.530 3.480 42 Other 4.455 3.233 3.231 157 High technology 4.784 3.538 3.477 223 Telecommunications 4.805 3.458 3.393 133 Manufacturing 4.298 3.295 3.286 122 Healthcare 4.895 3.408 3.303 113 Professional services 4.685 3.292 3.352 69 Retail 4.367 3.000 2.933 35 All groups 4.656 3.397 3.361 1386 p(F) 0.397 0.496 0.882 Table 7: Descriptives by industry with ANOVA results. Means Std Dev Overall Project Success Rating Efficiency Project Success Measure Measure Overall project success rating 3.333 1.165 1.000 Efficiency measure 4.647 1.386 0.584* 1.000 Project success measure 3.376 1.044 0.870* 0.602* 1.000 *p < 0.05. Table 8: Correlations between project success measures. Overall Project Success Rating Efficiency Measure Project Success Measure Project time goals 0.508* 0.880* 0.506* Project Efficiency versus Project Success Project budget goals 0.408* 0.830* 0.417* The success measure that had the lowest correlation with the other success measures was the efficiency measure, which had a correlation of 0.60 with the Scope and requirements goals 0.537* 0.768* 0.578* 36 February/March 2015 *p < 0.05. Table 9: Correlation of individual efficiency measures to project success measures. Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj is most highly correlated to project success in utilities, healthcare, and professional services and is the least correlated for government and high technology. This result for high technology may surprise some people, although the result for government might not surprise many. Again, this is perceived success and perceptions may differ by industry (Mller & Turner, 2007b). We can compare which components of efficiency were most important by industry (Table 10). Kerzner (2009, p. 736) suggests which industries are most likely to sacrifice time, cost, or scope (performance) when trade-offs are required. Table 11 suggests budget goals and project success were most correlated for utilities, financial services, and healthcare, which is in agreement with Kerzner (2009) for utilities and healthcare, though not for financial services and were the least important for government and retail. The finding for government is also in agreement with Kerzner (2009). Time goals were most correlated for construction and healthcare and least correlated with government and high technology. Scope goals were most correlated for education and utilities and least correlated with government and construction. Finally, we completed a regression analysis of the efficiency measure versus the project success measure (Table 12). This analysis indicates with a quite low p value that the two are related with an R2 of 0.362. The coefficient of determination R2 provides a measure of how well future outcomes are likely to be predicted by a model. This could indicate that 36% of the variation in project success can be explained by meeting a project's time, budget, and scope goals. This is concordance with and further generalizes the result of R2 = 0.37 reported by Zwikael and Globerson (2006) who studied the relationship solely between technical goals and customer satisfaction. A similar analysis was completed for a modified efficiency measure where scope had been removed, leav- ing only time and budget. It has been suggested by a number of authors that scope is more closely related to project success measures (Turner & Zolin, 2012; Shenhar et al., 1997). In this case, the correlation was 0.512, whereas R2 = 0.262. Therefore, even with scope removed, there is a clear correlation Overall Project Success Rating Project Success Measure Valid N Construction 0.530 0.635 41 Financial services 0.635 0.680 257 Utilities 0.744 0.706 42 Government 0.465 0.410 152 Education 0.592 0.627 42 Other 0.507 0.579 157 High technology 0.498 0.515 223 Telecommunications 0.664 0.651 133 Manufacturing 0.692 0.687 122 Healthcare 0.606 0.694 113 Professional services 0.658 0.673 69 Retail 0.598 0.616 35 All results above were significant at p < 0.001. Table 10: Correlation of efficiency versus other success measures by industry. Budget Goals Time Goals Scope Goals Valid N Construction 0.465 0.714 0.442 41 Financial services 0.496 0.566 0.660 257 Utilities 0.552 0.552 0.697 42 Government 0.304 0.300 0.424 152 Education 0.094* 0.572 0.701 42 Other 0.405 0.473 0.568 157 High technology 0.387 0.431 0.461 223 Telecommunications 0.396 0.557 0.684 133 Manufacturing 0.492 0.673 0.563 122 Healthcare 0.463 0.566 0.607 113 Professional services 0.450 0.564 0.662 69 Retail 0.349 0.474 0.702 35 *Marked result was not significant at p < 0.05. All others were significant. Table 11: Project success measures versus efficiency components by industry. Beta Intercept Efficiency Measure 0.602 B Std.Err. of B t(1384) p-level 1.267 0.078 16.159 0.000 0.454 0.016 28.068 0.000 Regression Summary for Dependent Variable: Success Measure. R = 0.602; R = 0.362; Adjusted R = 0.362 F(1,1384) = 787.82 p < .001. Table 12: Regression analysis for efficiency measure versus project success. February/March 2015 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj 37 PAPERS The Relationship Between Project Success and Project Efficiency between measures of time and budget success and project success. Conclusions As suggested by many authors (Collyer & Warren, 2009; Cooke-Davies, 2002; Jugdev & Mller, 2005; Shenhar et al., 1997; Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; Thomas et al., 2008; Turner & Zolin, 2012), overall project success is a much wider concept than the traditional so called 'iron triangle' of project efficiency (Atkinson, 1999). In this article we have investigated to what extent project efficiency is correlated with overall project success. Through a survey of 1,386 projects we found that project efficiency is 60% correlated with project success; this falls to 51% if efficiency is defined as time and budget only. This supports the assertion that project efficiency is an important contributor to project success, but shows quite clearly that other factors contribute significantly as well. We can postulate that these other factors might include: Performance of the project's output post implementation and achievement of the project's output and impact (Turner et al., 2010; Turner & Zolin, 2012; Xue et al., 2013) Whether the project's output was what the stakeholders were actually expecting, or whether there was an omission in or misinterpretation of the specification Risks that were not considered or changes to the environment that were not anticipated (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996; Thomas et al., 2008; Collyer & Warren, 2009) Acts of God beyond the project team's control. Academic Implication It has long been postulated that project success is more than the achievement of project efficiency measures, but we believe this is the first time the relationship has actually been measured and analyzed using a large dataset. 38 February/March 2015 Practical Implications Whether we will ever be able to wean project practitioners off their beloved iron triangle we cannot know. This supports the work of Turner and Zolin (2012) that project managers need project control parameters that look beyond completing the scope of the project on time and within budget. Practitioners should be aware that when they plan and control the project broader success measures need to be taken into account and made parts of the planning and control process. This will improve project and project manager perceived success, especially over the long term. These results also demonstrate that practitioners cannot ignore project efficiency goals if they want to maximize overall success. Future Research There are aspects of the relationship between efficiency and success that could be further explored: How do timeframes impact project success? Do the sponsor's views of project success change over time and how long before that does the view crystallize or become the final view? Are there any moderators or contingency factors in the relationship between efficiency and success? This could also become a topic for future research. A similar study could be undertaken with a wider array of project participants. This would require more of a case study approach but would give a broader view of how project success is perceived. References Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: Cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria, International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 337-342. Collyer, S., & Warren, C. M. (2009). Project management approaches for dynamic environments. International Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj Journal of Project Management, 27(4), 355-364. Conway, J., & Lance, C. (2010). What reviewers should expect from authors regarding common method bias in organizational research. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 325-334. Cooke-Davies, T. J. (2002). The real success factors in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20(3), 185-190. Cooper, D., & Schindler, P. (2001). Business research methods. New York, NY: Irwin/McGraw-Hill. Dvir, D., Raz T., & Shenhar, A. (2003). An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 21(2), 89-95. Gareis, R. (2005). Happy projects! Vienna, Austria: Manz. Gareis, R., Huemann, M., & Martinuzzi, A. (2013). Project management and sustainable development principles. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute. Jugdev, K., & Mller, R. (2005). A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success. Project Management Journal, 36(4), 19-31. Kerzner, H. (1979). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold. Kerzner, H. (2009). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Mller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2007a). Matching the project manager's leadership style to project type. International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 21-32. Mller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2007b). The influence of projects managers on project success criteria and project success by type of project. European Management Journal, 25(4), 298-309. Munns, A., & Bjeirmi, B. (1996). The role of project management in achieving project success. International Journal of Project Management, 14(2), 81-87. Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Podsakoff, P., MacKenzie, S., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology 88(5), 879-903. Prabhakar, G. (2008). What is project success: A literature review. International Journal of Business and Management, 3(8), 3-10. Project Management Institute. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) - Fifth edition. Newtown Square, PA: Author. Shenhar, A., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project management: The diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press. Shenhar, A. J., Levy, O., & Dvir, D. (1997). Mapping the dimensions of project success. Project Management Journal, 28(2), 5-9. Thomas, M., Jacques, P. H., Adams, J. R., & Kihneman-Woote, J. (2008). Developing an effective project: Planning and team building combined. Project Management Journal, 39(4), 105-113. Trochim, W. (2006). Positivism and postpositivism. Research Methods Knowledge Base. Turner, J. R. (2014). The handbook of project-based management (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Turner, J. R., Huemann, M., Anbari, F. T., & Bredillet, C. N. (2010). Perspectives on projects. New York, NY: Routledge. Turner, R., & Zolin, R. (2012). Forecasting success on large projects: Developing reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time frames. Project Management Journal, 43(5), 87-99. Xue, Y., Turner, J. R., Lecoeuvre, L., & Anbari, F. (2013). Using results-based monitoring and evaluation to deliver results on key infrastructure projects in China. Global Business Perspectives, 1, 85-105. Zwikael, O., & Globerson, S. (2006). Benchmarking of project planning and success in selected industries. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 13(6), 688-700. Pedro Serrador, PMP, P.Eng., MBA, PhD, is a writer and researcher on project management topics and owner of Serrador Project Management, a consultancy in Toronto, Canada. He specializes in technically complex and high-risk projects, vendor management engagements, and tailoring and implementing project management methodologies; he has worked on projects in the financial, telecommunications, utility, medical imaging, and simulations sectors for some of Canada's largest companies. His areas of research interest are project success, planning, and agile and he has presented a number of peer-reviewed papers on these topics at academic conferences. He is an author of books and articles on project management and is also a regular speaker at PMI global congresses. He currently teaches project management as a parttime faculty member at Humber College in Toronto. He was the recipient of the PMI 2012 James R. Snyder International Student Paper of the Year Award and the Major de Promotion Award for best PhD Thesis 2012-2013 from SKEMA Business School. He holds an Hons. BSc in Physics and Computer Science from the University of Waterloo, Canada; an MBA from Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland; and a PhD in Strategy, Programme & Project Management from SKEMA Business School (Ecole Suprieure de Commerce de Lille). He can be contacted at pedro@serrador.net Rodney Turner is Professor of Project Management SKEMA Business School, in Lille, France, where he is Scientific Director for the PhD in Project and Programme Management and is the SAIPEM Professor of Project Management at the Politecnico di Milano. He is also Adjunct Professor at the University of Technology Sydney. Rodney is the author or editor of eighteen books, and editor of The International Journal of Project Management. His research areas cover project management in small to medium enterprises; the management of complex projects; the governance of project management, including ethics and trust; project leadership; and human resource management in the project-oriented firm. Rodney is Vice President, Honorary Fellow of the United Kingdom's Association for Project Management, and Honorary Fellow and former President and Chairman of the International Project Management Association. He received a life-time research achievement award from PMI in 2004 and from IPMA in 2012. He can be contacted at Rodney.turner@skema.edu February/March 2015 Project Management Journal DOI: 10.1002/pmj 39