Week 3 Article Critique Use the Campbellsville University Library databases to do research on peer-reviewed journal articles on the topic of Proj
Week 3 Article Critique
Use the Campbellsville University Library databases to do research on peer-reviewed journal articles on the topic of Project Management (do not use Google or Wikipedia). Choose an article that includes all parts listed in the Article Critique Rubric located on the Moodle course page. Download the file in the attachment below to type in your responses, then upload the completed file.*After downloading the word document below, type your responses directly into the word file.
KESHAVARZIAN, S., & SILVIUS, G. (2022). The Perceived Relationship between Sustainability in Project Management and Project Success. Journal of Modern Project Management, 9(3), 66–85.
,
*Students should type directly into the chart below.
ARTICLE CRITIQUE
Parts of Article Critique |
Student Responses |
Author(s) First and Last Name |
|
Article Title |
|
Publication Date: Year (within last 10 years) |
|
Journal Name |
|
Journal Volume |
|
Journal Number |
|
Journal Pages (range, ex. 1-10) |
|
Article Abstract: highlight and copy the exact abstract from the article chosen and paste the abstract here |
|
Takeaway: In a bulleted list, write complete sentences about three things you have learned from the article. *The takeaway should be written in your own words with no similarity. |
· · · |
PAGE 67
JOURNALMODERNPM.COM JANUARY/APRIL 2022#28 ISSUE VOL. 09 NUM. 03
DOI NUMBER: 10.19255/JMPM02805
Abstract: Sustainable project management is one of the most important
global project management trends today. And despite several studies
addressing the relationship between sustainable project management and
success, this relationship is still inadequately addressed. Following the
suggestion that project success is just as much influenced by subjective
perceptions as it is by objective performance data, this study focuses on the
subjective perception of the relationship between the dimensions of
sustainable project management and the criteria of project success.
Based on a quantitative survey-based research design, the study found a
positive perceived relationship between sustainable project management
and all criteria of project success. However, the participants of the study
differentiated this positive relationship for the different criteria of project
success. The study also found that practitioners perceive sustainable project
management as a single integrated construct and do not differentiate
between the different dimensions of sustainable project management.
THE PERCEIVED RELATIONSHIP
W I T T E N B O R G U N I V E R S I T Y O F A P P L I E D S C I E N C E S , T H E N E T H E R L A N D S , A N D U N I V E R S I T Y O F J O H A N N E S B U R G , S O U T H A F R I C A
BETWEEN SUSTAINABILITY IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND PROJECT SUCCESS
GILBERT SILVIUS
Keywords: Sustainability; Project management; Project success
W I T T E N B O R G U N I V E R S I T Y O F A P P L I E D S C I E N C E S , T H E N E T H E R L A N D S SARA KESHAVARZIAN
1. INTRODUCTION The awareness that sustainable development of society
requires a more conscious use of natural resources, and a
balance between economic, environmental and social
impacts, is now firmly established in businesses and
organizations. The 2019 'State of 'Sustainability' business
survey indicates that CEOs are increasingly pursuing the
integration of sustainability into the strategies and practices
of their businesses (BSR/GlobeScan, 2019). This integration
impacts a wide range of functional areas in the organization,
such as strategy, research and development, human
resources management, supply chain management and
finance (Tulder et al., 2014). The transition towards more
sustainable business practices requires organizational
change, in which projects play an instrumental role
(Marcelino-Sádaba et al., 2015).
The pivotal role of projects in the transition towards
sustainability of businesses, organizations and society
require a reconsideration of the way projects are planned,
organized, executed, managed, and governed (Silvius and
Schipper, 2014). This sustainability perspective on project
management (Silvius, 2017) is addressed in a growing
number of studies (Aarseth et al., 2017; Sabini et al., 2019;
Silvius and Schipper, 2014). An open question, however, is
how sustainability impacts project success (Silvius and
Schipper, 2016). Considering sustainability in project
management may increase the quality of the deliverable of
the project and/or the satisfaction of stakeholders, but
considering sustainability also comes at a price (Silvius et
al., 2012). Khalifeh et al. (2019), therefore, conclude that the
relationship between sustainability and project success is still
inadequately addressed in the literature and that more
research is needed. It is this gap in the literature that the
study reported in this paper addresses.
One of the issues in studies on the relationship between
sustainable project management and project success is the
operationalization of success. Studies on project success
point out that success is multidimensional (Ika, 2009),
evolving over time (Pinto and Slevin, 1988; Shenhar et al.,
2001) and perceived differently by different stakeholders
(Prabhakar, 2008). PS is therefore not easy to measure.
Pirozzi (2021) points out that, perhaps even more important
than the objective measurement of success, the subjective
perception of project success may be essential. In line with
this, Silvius and de Graaf (2019) found that the more
favorable the project manager beliefs the outcome of
considering sustainability in the project will be, the more
likely he or she is willing to consider sustainability. For the
consideration of sustainability in project management,
therefore, the perceived impact on project success plays an
important role. The study reported in this paper, therefore,
focuses on exploring the perceived relationship between
sustainable project management and success. This focus
presents a novel approach compared to the earlier studies
on this topic, and the therefore makes a contribution to the
understanding of the aspects and effects of integrating
sustainability into project management.
The research question of the study was formulated as How
does considering sustainability in project management
influence the perceived success of projects?
The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. In the
following paragraph, the main variables of the study,
sustainable project management (SPM) and project success
(PS) will be described based on the literature on these
topics. The largest part of the review of the literature will be
devoted to the discussion of earlier studies on the
relationship between sustainable project management and
project success. The design and methodology of the study
are revealed in the third paragraph of this paper, after which
the following paragraph will discuss the findings and the data
analysis. The paper will be concluded with a reflection on the
findings and the answering of the research question.
2. BACKGROUND LITERATURE In this paragraph, the main variables of our research
question, SPM and PS will be explored. We used Google
Scholar as the search engine in our search for relevant
literature. As PS is a frequently studied topic in academic
literature, we relied on earlier published literature reviews on
the topic, specifically Ika (2009), to guide the
operationalization of this variable. On SPM, a number of
recently published structured literature reviews, specifically
Silvius and Schipper (2014), Chofreh et al. (2019), Sabini et
al. (2019) and Kiani Mavi et al. (2021), provided a solid
T H E P E R C E I V E D R E L A T I O N S H I P . . . PAGE 69
JOURNALMODERNPM.COM JAN/APR 2022
foundation for the understanding of the concept of SPM.
For the analysis of literature that specifically focuses on the
relationship between SPM and PS, we formulated a series of
search strings that were all variations of the main search
string ""PROJECT+SUCCESS+SUSTAINABILITY"". We
expanded our search based on the sources used in the
publications that were found. In total 66 publications were
identified that based on their abstracts, were reduced to 18
relevant studies. After reading the full papers, our analysis
focused on 15 articles that specifically addressed the
relationship between SPM and PS variables.
This paragraph will first discuss the characteristics of SPM
shown in the literature. Following this, the concept of
success in projects and project management will be
discussed. The literature review will be completed with a
discussion of earlier studies on the relationship between
SPM and PS.
2.1 Sustainability Project Management SPM is defined as "the planning, monitoring and controlling
of project delivery and support processes, with consideration
of the environmental, economic and social aspects of the
lifecycle of the 'project's resources, processes, deliverables
and effects, aimed at realizing benefits for stakeholders, and
performed in a transparent, fair and ethical way that includes
proactive stakeholder participation" (Silvius and Schipper,
2014). This definition integrates the consideration of familiar
sustainability concepts, such as the 'Triple Bottom 'Line'
(TBL) of economic, social and environmental perspectives
(Elkington, 1994), lifecycle orientation (Labuschagne and
Brent, 2005) and stakeholder orientation (Freeman, 1984)
into project management, which is defined as the planning,
monitoring and controlling of project delivery and support
processes.
SPM is considered one of the most important global project
management trends today (Alvarez-Dionisi et al., 2016;
Gemünden, 2016) and several authors (Silvius and
Schipper, 2014; Aarseth et al., 2017; Sabini et al., 2019)
report a growing number of studies that address the topic.
From this emerging literature base, it appears that the
relationship between sustainability and project management
can be interpreted in two ways (Sabini et al., 2019; Silvius
"Sustainability by the project": the sustainability of the
deliverable or result that the project realizes;
"Sustainability of the project": the sustainability of the
delivery and management processes of the project.
and Schipper, 2015). These two interpretations are
characterized by Huemann and Silvius (2017) as:
In Sustainability by the project, sustainability is mainly
considered with regards to the deliverable or result of the
project. Frameworks of sustainability are used to define or
assess the content related aspects of the project (Silvius and
Schipper, 2014), such as the specifications and design of the
'project's deliverable (Aarseth et al., 2017; Brones et al.,
2014) materials used (Akadiri, 2015) benefits to be achieved
(Silvius et al., 2012; Weninger and Huemann, 2013), quality
and success criteria (Martens and Carvalho, 2017). Studies
on the integration of sustainability into project management
that take this content related perspective, often focus on
operationalizing the TBL concept (Elkington, 1994), by
developing sets of indicators on the different perspectives
(For example, Bell and Morse, 2003; Edum-Fotwe and Price,
2009; Fernández-Sánchez and Rodríguez-López, 2010;
Keeble et al., 2003; Labuschagne and Brent, 2008; Martens
and Carvalho, 2017).
In Sustainability of the project studies, the sustainability
perspective is applied to the processes of project delivery,
management and governance, such as the identification and
engagement of stakeholders (Eskerod and Huemann, 2013),
the process of procurement in the project (Molenaar and
Sobin, 2010), the development of the business case
(Weninger and Huemann, 2013), the monitoring of the
project (Sánchez, 2015), the identification and management
of project risks (Silvius, 2016) the communication in and by
the project (Pade et al,.2008; Barendsen et al., 2021) and
the selection and organization of the project team (Silvius
and Schipper, 2014).
In one of the first publications on sustainability and project
management, Labuschagne and Brent (2005) link the two
interpretations, Sustainability by the project and
Sustainability of the project, by elaborating on the lifecycle
orientation of sustainability. Project management logically
considers the life cycle of a project, from its initiation to its
closure. However, Labuschagne and Brent argue that from a
sustainability perspective, project management should not
only consider the life cycle of the project, but also of the
deliverable or result the project realizes, for example a
change in products, assets, systems, processes or behavior.
This deliverable, in their words: the "asset", should also be
considered over its full life cycle, for example: design–
develop–manufacture–operate–decommission–disposal. In
the context Labuschagne and Brent studied, this asset would
in its "operate" phase, produce products or services that
would have a life cycle on their own. Considering
sustainability in a project would therefore suggest that all
three lifecycles, "project life cycle", "asset life cycle" and
"product life cycle", are considered, as these lifecycles
interact and influence each other. The definition of
sustainable project management referenced above, refers to
these interacting lifecycles by stating that in sustainable
project management the sustainability perspective is applied
to the life cycles of "the project's resources, processes,
deliverables and effects" (Silvius and Schipper, 2014).
2.2 Project Success The concept of success in projects or project management is
one of the most studied concepts in project management
research (Ika, 2009). In the literature, a distinction is made
between project success criteria and project success factors.
Project success criteria are the measures used to measure
and judge the success or failure of a project (Müller and
Jugdev, 2012). They may also be referred to as the
performance indicators of the project. Project success
factors are the elements of a project which, when influenced,
increase the likelihood of success (Müller and Jugdev,
2012). These are the input factors or circumstances that
make success more likely.
The study reported in this paper focuses on the perceived
impact of considering sustainability, as an input factor, on
project success, as a resulting performance of the project.
Therefore, we will elaborate in this section on the criteria and
variables of measuring project success: the project success
criteria.
Few people would disagree with the statement that project
success is interpretable in many ways. It is, simply put, a
rather "elusive concept" (Prabhakar, 2008). Most early
research on project success seems to emphasize the three
traditional criteria of success: realizing the deliverable of the
project according to specifications within the agreed
schedule and budget (Albert et al., 2017). This threesome of
success criteria, quality, schedule/time and cost/budget,
sometimes also referred to as the 'iron triangle', remains
often used, "despite the fact that this method is currently
subject to widespread criticism" (Bakker et al., 2010).
Starting around the early 80s of last century, however, also
other criteria of success emerged from literature, such as the
benefits that the use of the project's deliverable generates
for the user organization, or the "effectiveness of the project
from the perspective of the stakeholder" (Jugdev and Müller,
2005). Ika (2009) analyzed the development of criteria used
to assess project success, as visualized in Figure 1.
FIGURE 1 EVOLUTION OF PROJECT SUCCESS
CRITERIA (BASED ON IKA, 2009).
From the overview in Figure 1, it appears that the criteria of
PS evolved from the iron triangle of time, cost and quality to
a more holistic set of criteria that also included the benefits
that the project generates and the satisfaction of
stakeholders. In addition to the success criteria identified by
Ika, Almahmoud et al. (2012) conclude that criteria for
health, safety, and environmental performance should be
included in the assessment of PS. Sustainability, therefore,
may be starting to be included in the criteria for PS.
2.3 The Relationship between SPM and PS Following the distinction made above between project
success factors and success criteria, the publications that
relate SPM to PS also can be distinguished in these two
perspectives. For example, Michaelides et al. (2014) and
Daneshpour (2015) conclude that sustainability should be
T H E P E R C E I V E D R E L A T I O N S H I P . . . PAGE 71
JOURNALMODERNPM.COM JAN/APR 2022
considered a critical success factor for projects, whereas
Kometa et al. (1995); Lim and Mohamed (1999); Chan and
Chan (2004) and Almahmoud et al. (2012) assert that
sustainability-related aspects should be included in the
criteria for PS.
Despite this suggestion that considering sustainability should
be considered as a factor or criterion for success, the actual
relationship between SPM and PS has only received limited
coverage in the emerging academic literature on
sustainability in project and project management. Dubois and
Silvius (2020) provide an overview of studies that specifically
address the relationship between SPM and PS. Table 1
elaborates on their overview by presenting the 15 articles
that our literature search delivered.
Table 1 shows that most of the initial studies were
conceptual in nature. For example, Mishra et al. (2011) link
PS to ethics in business. They conclude that "The project
manager should make sure that he is completing the project
while keeping the ethical standards and social impact in
mind". Craddock (2013) also links PS to business and
therefore aligns the criteria of PS with business excellence
models, such as the European Foundation for Quality
Management (EFQM) model. And as one of the EFQM
model's fundamental concepts of excellence is "Taking
responsibility for a sustainable future", he concludes that
sustainability should be integrated in the criteria for PS and
that SPM would therefore positively impact PS.
The other conceptual studies, Martens and Carvalho (2014)
and Silvius and Schipper (2016), both build up a conceptual
model of the relationship between SPM and PS that later
was used in empirical studies (in Martens and Carvalho,
2016b, resp. Khalilzadeh et al., 2016). Based on their
conceptual model, Silvius and Schipper (2016) also provided
a conceptual mapping of the different relationships between
the dimensions of SPM and the criteria of PS. This mapping
showed that most of the relationships are expected to be
positive, however, the expected relationship between SPM
and the PS criteria time and budget are labelled "uncertain".
The rationale behind the uncertain effect of SPM on two of
the three iron triangle criteria of project success comes from
the expectation that a more sustainable project may require
additional investments, for example in better materials
(Packard Foundation, 2002), that are projected to deliver a
benefit in the medium to long term from lower operation
costs. However, these future benefits are by nature
uncertain, where the higher investment is not uncertain. In
some cases, the higher investment may therefore result in
the project not being taken beyond the initial concept and
design phases (Pearce, 2008).
Besides this assumed higher investment risk, incorporating
environmental and social considerations into projects
suggests extra requirements and specifications (Maltzman
and Shirley, 2010; Taylor, 2010), which may increase the
complexity of the project. For example, Hwang and Ng
(2013) conclude that incorporating sustainability in
construction projects makes planning harder, causes more
variations in design, causes difficulty in selecting
subcontractors, causes uncertainty in the required materials
and equipment, requires more coordination with different
parties, and leads to more unexpected circumstances at
project closure. This increases the pressure on project
managers and decision makers (Knight and Jenkins, 2009).
Moreover, it has been argued that incorporating
sustainability raises the level of expectations of stakeholders
of the project (Marcelino-Sádaba et al., 2015) and may
increase tensions between them (Brandoni and Polonara,
2012; De Brucker et al., 2013; Singh et al., 2007; Tam et al.,
2007). Therefore, the expected impact of SPM on the iron
triangle criteria of PS is considered uncertain.
Next to the conceptual studies, Table 1 also shows 10
empirical studies on the relationship between SPM and PS.
Table 2 presents how these studies define or operationalize
the variables SPM and PS, and what the studies concluded.
PS is more than the iron triangle.
The operationalization of SPM is diverse
From the studies presented in Table 2, a couple of
observations can be made.
The studies listed in Table 2, mostly operationalize PS in a
holistic set of criteria that cover both the traditional 'iron
triangle' criteria of project success, time – quality – budget,
as well as criteria related to the project's deliverable and the
benefits this deliverable enables. This is in line with the
evolution of PS criteria that Ika (2009) observed.
In most of the empirical studies, the TBL perspectives of
economic dimension, environmental dimension and social
dimension, are recognizable in the operationalization of
SPM. This is in line with the observations of Silvius and
Schipper (2014) that concluded that the TBL was the most
used concept of sustainability in studies on SPM. However,
the same authors concluded that SPM is more than
considering the TBL perspectives. SPM also includes
dimensions that are derived from the literature on (corporate)
TABLE 1. PUBLISHED STUDIES ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPM AND PS.
Table 2. Overview of empirical studies on the relationship between SPM and PS. (continue)
T H E P E R C E I V E D R E L A T I O N S H I P . . . PAGE 73
JOURNALMODERNPM.COM JAN/APR 2022
The relationship between SPM and PS is mostly
considered positively.
social responsibility (Silvius, 2017). Based on this broader
understanding of SPM, Silvius and Schipper (2014)
developed nine dimensions of SPM that are also used in a
number of studies on the relationship between SPM and PS.
In line with the analysis of Khalifeh et al. (2019) the overview
provided in Table 2 shows support for the conclusion that
SPM supports PS, and that no negative impacts of SPM
were observed. However, the limitations of the available
studies, lead Khalifeh et al. (2019) to comment that the
relationship between SPM and PS is still inadequately
addressed in the literature and that more research is
needed. Since this comment, four more empirical studies
have been published that all concluded a positive correlation
between SPM and PS. However, whether this empirical
evidence is sufficient to convince project managers and
project owners about the positive effects of SPM is still
unknown. And in addition, it should be noted that the
perception of the relationship between SPM and PS is not
studied yet.
Studies mostly focus on traditional project industries.
Sustainability is about balancing or harmonizing social,
environmental and economic interests
Sustainability is about both short-term and long-term
orientation
With regards to the industries covered in the empirical
studies, the traditional project industries, such as
construction and oil & gas, show up more prominently than,
for example, information technology or financial services
3. RESEARCH STRATEGY
3.1 Research approach and model The authors choose a quantitative survey-based research
design for the investigation of the perceived relationships
between SPM and PS. The conceptual model of the study
was taken from the studies of Silvius and Schipper (2016)
and Khalilzadeh et al. (2016). In this model, SPM is
operationalized in nine dimensions of sustainability in project
management, that was developed by Silvius and Schipper
(2014) in the first structured literature review on the topic:
TABLE 2. OVERVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPM AND PS.
Table 2. Overview of empirical studies on the relationship between SPM and PS. (continue)
T H E P E R C E I V E D R E L A T I O N S H I P . . . PAGE 75
JOURNALMODERNPM.COM JAN/APR 2022
H1. Project managers perceive the relationship between
sustainable project management and more controlled
execution of the project as positive.
H2. Project managers perceive the relationship between
sustainable project management and completing the
project on time and within budget as positive.
H3. Project managers perceive the relationship between
sustainable project management and the project's
deliverable is fit for purpose as positive.
H4. Project managers perceive the relationship between
sustainable project management and the realization of
Based on earlier studies the impact of SPM on the
product/benefits related criteria of PS is more positive than
on the iron triangle related criteria. The previous studies
therefore provide an indication that scenario C might be the
best depiction of the relationship between SPM and PS. The
study therefore adopts scenario C for the formulating the
hypotheses of this study. However, in the data analysis, all
four scenarios A – D will be considered, by analyzing the
internal consistency of both the SPM and the PS
composites.
The hypotheses for the study were formulated as:.
Sustainability is about local and global orientation
Sustainability is about values and ethics
Sustainability is about transparency and accountability
Sustainability is about stakeholder participation
Sustainability is about risk reduction
Sustainability is about eliminating waste
Sustainability is about consuming income, not capital
As these dimensions were developed by synthesizing a
broad array of publications on SPM, they provide a well-
developed conceptualization of sustainability in projects and
project management.
In the study PS was operationalized in six project success
criteria, that are summarized in Table 3 (Silvius and
Schipper, 2016).
These criteria summarize the criteria suggested in earlier
studies, including the frequently referenced works of Pinto
and Slevin (1988), Baccarini (1999), Atkinson (1999),
Shenhar et al. (2001), Nelson (2005) and Müller and Turner
(2007).
The resulting conceptual model of the relationship between
SPM and PS is shown in Figure 2
TABLE 3. CRITERIA OF PROJECT SUCCESS (SILVIUS AND SCHIPPER, 2016)..
FIGURE 2. CONCEPTUAL MODEL OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SPM AND
PS (BASED ON SILVIUS AND SCHIPPER, 2016).
A. 54 hypotheses for all perceived relationships between
individual SPM dimensions and individual PS criteria.
B. Nine hypotheses for the relationships of the individual
dimensions of SPM with the overall concept of PS.
C. Six hypotheses for the relationships of the overall
concept of SPM with the individual criteria of PS.
D. One hypothesis for the perceived relationship
between overall concept of SPM and overall concept of
PS.
In this model, SPM is operationalized in the above
mentioned nine dimensions, and PS in six criteria, resulting
in 9 x 6 = 54 relationships between the different dimensions
of SPM and the different criteria of PS. And as our study was
aimed at exploring the perceived relationship between SPM
and PS, these 54 relationships provided the foundation for
the development of the questionnaire.
3.2 Hypothesis development Based on the research model, the hypotheses on the
relationship between SPM and PS can be developed in four
possible scenarios:
H5. Project managers perceive the relationship between
sustainable project management and the satisfaction of
project's stakeholders as positive.
H6. Project managers perceive the relationship between
sustainable project management and how the project
prepares the organization for its future as positive.
project's benefits as planned in the business case as
positive.
Figure 3. shows the hypotheses plotted on the conceptual
model of the study.
3.3 Questionn
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.