22 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. EM-34, NO.

I, FEBRUARY 1987

Critical Factors in Successful Project

Implementation
JEFFREY K. PINTO AND DENNIS P. SLEVIN

Abstract—This paper describes a process used to determine critical a framework along with a potential measurement instrument
success factors that are felt to be predictive of successful project for use by both researchers and practicing project managers.
management. Full time managers who have had experience with projects
were used to generate critical success factors that they felt to be crucial to
BACKGROUND LITERATURE
successful project implementation. Ten factors were discovered that
relate well to previous theoretical formulations in the literature. In There is currently a wealth of project management literature
addition, these ten factors have been linked together in an interdependent
in the field of organizational research. Several authors, writing
quasi-sequential framework. This research has provided the basis for
developing a behavioral instrument to be used as a diagnostic for on project management, have developed sets of critical success
assessing the status of any project as determined by the ten factor model. factors, or those factors which, if addressed, will significantly
Key Words—critical success factors; project management; implementa- improve project implementation chances. However, in many
tion; project implementation profile; project monitoring; resource utiliza- cases project management prescriptions and process frame-
tion.
works are theoretically based, rather than empirically proven.
For example, Cleland and King [6], Archibald [1], Martin
INTRODUCTION [10], and Taylor and Watling [18] all present strong theoreti-

T HE MANAGER of engineering and R&D projects faces

increasing challenges today in his/her project management
tasks. The environment has become more dynamic with
cal frameworks in denoting critical project success factors.
However, evidence supporting these sets of factors is often
anecdotal, single-case study, or theory-derived, rather than
increasing uncertainties in technology, budgets, and develop- empirical. While there sometimes exists strong intuitive
ment processes. Highly trained and well-educated experts evidence supporting the conceptual frameworks of the project
must be coordinated so that their technical inputs integrate management process as developed by these and other authors,
well into the human system in which they are operating. Thus there is relatively little empirical basis for the resulting models
the project manager must be increasingly aware of any early and theories of project management and implementation.
signs of problems in either the technical or organizational More recently, work by Shank et al. [16] has attempted to
subsystems [14]. The manager increasingly needs tools for more systematically generate critical success factors as they
monitoring and feedback that enable a proactive response to relate to MIS projects. These factors can be of great benefit to
troubled areas. Numerous computer software project manage- managers but are time-consuming to generate and must be
ment aids have been developed to help manage the technical discovered on a case-by-case basis. It would be useful to have
aspects of projects (the critical paths, interdependencies, a more generic framework of critical success factors that is
budgets, schedules, and so forth). Additional progress is both compatible with the literature and is empirically sup-
needed in the identification and measurement of critical ported. In fact, such a generic model could serve as a starting
success factors for project success. These factors are inher- point for the critical success factor interview process of Shank
ently i O r e "organizational and behavioral" than technical et al. [16].
issues uut it is essential that the project manager be able to Although studies on project management have separately
understand, measure, and monitor them. Currently in the field developed lists of critical success factors, it is possible to
most project managers attend to these critical success factors determine similarities, or patterns of communality, between
in an intuitive and ad hoc fashion as they attempt to manage them. Table I shows a sample of five attempts by different
and allocate resources across various project areas. What is researchers to determine critical factors for project implemen-
needed is a more refined and specific model of these critical tation ([2], [6], [8], [10], [13]). The factor lists vary in degree
success factors and their interrelationships. Also required ÏS an of comprehensiveness, ranging from general guidelines to
approach to the measurement of these factors to assist the specific points of consideration. Nevertheless, through deter-
manager in allocation of resources and early detection of mination of patterns of responses, some general factors may be
problem areas. This report describes the development of such seen to emerge. These factors represent specific points raised
by two or more of the research examples listed.
Manuscript received February 13, 1986; revised June 8. 1986.
J. K. Pinto is with the College of Business Administration, University of 1) Clearly defined goals: including the general project
Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH 45221. philosophy or general mission of the project, as well as
D. P. Slevin is with the Graduate School of Business, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260. commitment to those goals on the part of project team
IEEE Log Number 8612327. members.

0018-9391/87/0200-0022$01.00 © 1987 IEEE

PINTO AND SLEVIN: CRITICAL FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 23

TABLE I
CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS IN PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION

Cleland and Say!es and Baker, Murphy,

Martin [ioj Locke [81 King [6] Chandler [13] Fisher [2]

Define goals Make project Project summary Project manager's Clear goals
commitments known competence
Select project Operational concept Goal commitment
organizational Project authority Scheduling of project team
philosophy from the top Top Management support
Control systems On-site project
General management Appoint competent Financial support and responsi­ manager
support project manager bilities
Logistic requirements Adequate funding
Organize and delegate Set up communications Communication to completion
authority and procedures Facility support
Monitoring and Adequate project
Select project team Set up control Market intelligence feedback team capability
mechanisms (Who is the client?)
Allocate sufficient (schedules, etc.) Continuing Accurate initial
resources Project schedule involvement cost estimates
Progress meetings in the project
Provide for control Executive development Minimum start-up
and information and training of difficulties
mechanisms personnel
Planning and
Require planning Manpower and control techniques
and review organization
Task (vs. social)
Information and orientation
communication channels
Absence of
Project review bureaucracy

2) Competent project manager, the importance of initial works developed by these researchers and this classification
selection of a skilled (interpersonally, technically, and scheme are essentially theoretical, based on synthesis of
administratively) project leader. previous efforts. It would be useful, therefore, to test this
3) Top management support: top or divisional manage­ conceptually generated factor list to determine whether there is
ment support for the project that has been conveyed to all indeed an empirical basis for the critical success factors which
concerned parties. have been identified. It may be found that there exist additional
4) Competent project team members: the importance of factors which have not been considered. On the other hand,
selecting and, if necessary, training project team mem­ this testing may demonstrate that project managers are
bers. concerned with a significantly different list of success factors
5) Sufficient resource allocation: resources, in the form than have been generated in the project management literature
of money, personnel, logistics, etc., are available for the to this point in time.
project. What seems to be needed then, is an empirically based
6) Adequate communication channels: sufficient infor­ model of the project implementation process, as well as an
mation is available on project objectives, status, instrument to measure the status of a project implementation.
changes, organizational coordination, clients' needs, Such a model might be described as follows:
etc.
7) Control mechanisms: (including planning, schedules, S=f(x u x,
2 -·,χ )
η

etc.)—programs are in place to deal with initial plans and where

schedules.
5 project success, and
8) Feedback capabilities: all parties concerned with the
.V/ critical success factor /.
project are able to review project status, make sugges­
tions, and corrections through formal feedback channels As will be described in the process used to determine the
or review meetings. independent variables, it is assumed that each relates
9) Responsiveness to clients: all potential users of the positively to project success. This study only attempts to
project are consulted with and kept up to date on project identify the critical success factors, but does not measure the
status. Further, clients receive assistance after the strength of their relationship with project success. In this
project has been successfully implemented. sense, the model" is incompletely specified. While we do
4k

not specify relative "importance" of the various factors, we

The above list represents an attempt to isolate some of the suggest some fundamental interrelationships among the criti­
critical success factors for project implementation, based on a cal factors.
comparative analysis of the conceptual models developed by The resulting model would suggest a potentially empirically
these researchers. As was stated previously, both the frame­ grounded basis for determining critical success factors for
24 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. EM-34, NO. 1, FEBRUARY 1987

project implementation, rather than relying on past research PROJECT MISSION. Several authors have discussed the
which has remained predominantly conceptual. For the project importance of clearly defining goals as well as ultimate
manager, such a tool would be a valuable aid in assisting him/ benefits at the outset of a project. For example, Morris [11]
her in assuring the likelihood of project implementation classified the initial stage of project management as consisting
success through providing a series of prescriptive actions to be of a feasibility decision. Are the goals clear and can they
taken at critical points in the project. succeed? For these authors and the purposes of our study.
Project Mission has been found to refer to a condition where
THE STUDY
the goals of the project are clear and understood, not only by
Research Setting and Sample
the project team involved, but by the other departments in the
This study was performed at the University of Pittsburgh organization. Sample responses classified under this factor
using part-time evening MBA students as a sample. All sample include "The basic goals of the project are clear to me," and
subjects were employed on a full-time basis, predominantly "The goals of the project are in line with the general goals of
with locally based Fortune 1000 companies. As a result of our the organization." As can be seen, underlying themes of
concern with maintaining a research sample of subjects who responses classified into this factor include statements con­
were also employed fuii-time, our original sample size of 60 cerning clarification of goals as well as belief in their
gave us a final sample of 52 usable responses. All had been a congruence with overall organizational objectives.
member of a project team in their respective organizations The second factor discerned was that of TOP MANAGE­
within the last two years. MENT SUPPORT. As noted by Schultz and Slevin [15],
Procedure management support for projects, or indeed for any implemen­
Subjects were given a packet containing instructions and 10 tation, has long been considered of great importance in
blank 3 x 5 cards. The subjects were asked to consider a distinguishing between their ultimate success or failure. Beck
project they had been involved in in the last two years. A [5] sees project management as not only dependent upon top
successful project was defined as one that resulted in organiza­ management for authority, direction, and support, but as
tional change. (While project success has several pragmatic ultimately the conduit for implementing top management's
definitions, including meeting schedule, budget, aad perform­ plans, or goals, for the organization. Further, Manley [9]
ance criteria, the subjects were involved in a projective shows that the degree of management support for a project will
exercise and consequently were permitted to interpret success lead to significant variations in the degree of acceptance or
according to their own past project experiences.) Participants resistance to that project or product. Top management's
were asked to briefly describe the project as well as their own support of the project may involve aspects such as allocation of
involvement as a check against inclusion in the sample of sufficient resources (including financial, manpower, time,
"trivial" or inappropriate projects. The subjects were then etc.) as well as project management's confidence in their
asked to put themselves in the position of a project manager support in the event of crisis. Sample statements classified in
charged with the responsibility for the successful implementa­ this factor include "I agree with upper management on the
tion of the project. They were then asked to select the first degree of my authority and responsibility for the project" and
blank 3 x 5 card, labeled Successful Project 1, and write on it "I have the confidence of upper management."
something they could do that would substantially help imple­ The third factor to be classified was that of PROJECT
mentation success. Next, the participants chose the second SCHEDULE/PLAN. Project schedule refers to the impor­
blank card, labeled Successful Project 2, and described tance of developing a detailed plan of the required stages of the
another action they could take to substantially help implemen­ implementation process. Nutt [12] emphasizes the importance
tation success. This process continued through the set of five of process planning, breaking down planning into four stages:
cards, each listing an action to be taken to aid project formulation, conceptualization, detailing, and evaluation. As
implementation. This procedure, sometimes called Project developed in our model, Project Schedule/Plan refers to the
Echo, was developed by A. Bavelas [3]. degree to which time schedules, milestones, manpower, and
equipment requirements are specified. Further, the schedule
Responses were then classified into categories, or factors,
should include a satisfactory measurement system as a way of
by two experts. The set of cards ccntaining actions leading to
judging actual performance against budget and time allow­
implementation success were sorted first by one expert into 10
ances. A sample of the type of statements considered in this
categories. Subsequently, a second sort by the other expert
factor include "I have identified the important manpower
also led to a 10 factor classification. Interrater agreement,
skills required for successful project completion," and "I
based on the percentage of cards similarly sorted across the
have contingency plans in case the project is off schedule."
total number of cards, was 0.50, or 119 out of 236.
Eliminating duplications and miscellaneous responses, a total The fourth factor that was determined is labeled CLIENT
of 94 usable responses were classified across the 10 factors. CONSULTATION. The "client" is referred to here as
(The number of classified responses ranged from a maximum anyone who will ultimately be making use of the result of the
of 12 in one factor to a minimum of 5 in another.) project, as either a customer outside the company or a
department within the organization. The need for client
FACTOR DEFINITIONS consultation has been found to be increasingly important in
The first factor that was developed was related to the attempting a successful project implementation. Indeed, Man-
underlying purpose for the implementation and was classified ley [9] found that the degree to which clients are personally
PINTO AND SLEVIN: CRITICAL FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 25

involved in the implementation process will cause great usefulness of the project," and "Adequate advanced prepara­
variation in their support for that project. It is, therefore, tion has been done to determine how best to "sell" the project
important to determine whether clients for the project have to clients."
been identified. Once the project manager is aware of the The eighth factor to be considered is that of MONITORING
major clients, he/she is better able to accurately determine if AND FEEDBACK. Monitoring and feedback refer to the
their needs are being met. Some examples of statements project control process by which, at each stage of the project
contained in the Client Consultation factor include "I have implementation, key personnel receive feedback on how the
solicited input from all potential clients of the project/' and Τ4
project is comparing to initial projections. Making allowances
understand the needs of those who will use the project." for adequate monitoring and feedback mechanisms gives the
The fifth factor was concerned with PERSONNEL issues, project manager the ability to anticipate problems, to oversee
including recruitment, selection, and training. An important, corrective measures, and to ensure that no deficiencies are
but often overlooked, aspect of the implementation process overlooked. From a budgeting perspective, Souder et al. [17]
concerns the nature of the personnel involved. In many emphasize the importance of constant monitoring and "fine-
situations, personnel for the project team are chosen with less- tuning" the process of implementation. For our model,
than-full regard for the skills necessary to actively contribute Monitoring and Feedback refers not only to project schedule
to implementation success. Some current writers on imple­ and budget, but also to monitoring performance of members of
mentation are including the personnel variable in their the project team. Sample statements for the Monitoring and
equation for project team success. Hammond [7] has devel­ Feedback factor include "When the budget or schedule
oped a contingency model of the implementation process requires revision, I solicit input from the project team," and
which includes "people" as a situational variable whose "All members of the project team know if I am satisfied/
knowledge, skills, goals, and personalities must be considered dissatisfied with their work."
in assessing the environment of the organization. For our The ninth factor was that of COMMUNICATION. The
framework, Personnel, as a factor, is concerned with develop­ need for adequate communication channels is extremely
ing a project team with the requisite skills and commitment to important in creating an atmosphere for successful project
perform their function. Examples of statements for the implementation. Communication is not only essential within
Personnel factor include "The personnel of my project team the project team itself, but between the team and the rest of the
are committed to the project's success," and "The lines of organization a.s well as with the clients. As the factor
authority are well defined on my project team." Communication has been developed for our framework, it
The sixth factor to be discussed was labeled TECHNICAL refers not only to feedback mechanisms, but the necessity of
TASKS. It is important that the implementation be well exchanging information with both clients and the rest of the
managed by people who understand it. In addition, there must organization concerning project goals, changes in policies and
exist adequate technology to support the project. Technical procedures, status reports, etc. Examples of statements that
Tasks refers to the necessity of not only having the necessary have been classified under the Communication factor include
personnel for the implementation team, but ensuring that they "Input concerning project goals and strategy have been sought
possess the necessary technical skills and have adequate from members of the project team, other groups affected by
technology to perform their tasks. By way of illustration, the project, and upper management," and "All groups
examples of Technical Task statements would include "The affected by the project know how to make problems known to
technology that is being implemented works well," and me."
"Experts, consultants, or other experienced project managers The tenth and final factor to emerge from classification of
outside the project team have reviewed and criticized my basic the model is TROUBLE-SHOOTING. As the participants in
plans/approach." the study often pointed out, problem areas exist in almost
In addition to Client Consultation at an earlier stage in the every implementation. Regardless of how carefully the project
project implementation process, it remains of ultimate impor­ was initially planned, it is impossible to foresee every trouble
tance to determine whether the clients for whom the project area or problem that could possibly arise. As a result, it is
has been initiated will accept it. CLIENT ACCEPTANCE important that the project manager make adequate initial
refers to the final stage in the implementation process, at arrangements for îroubîe-shooîing mechanisms to be included
which time the ultimate efficacy of the project is to be in the implementation plan. Such mechanisms would make it
determined. Too often project managers make the mistake of easier to not only react to problems as they arise, but to foresee
believing that if they handle the other stages of the implemen­ and possibly forestall potential problems areas in the imple­
tation process well, the client (either internal or external to the mentation process. Examples of statements classified under
organization) will accept the resulting project. In fact, as the Trouble-Shooting factor include, "I spend a part of each
several writers have shown, client acceptance is a stage in day looking for problems which have just begun or are about
project implementation that must be managed like any other. to begin," and "Project team members are encouraged to take
Bean and Radnor [4] examine the use of "intermediaries" to quick action on problems on their own initiative."
act as a liaison between the designer, or implementation team,
THE FRAMEWORK
and the project's potential users to aid in client acceptance.
Examples of statements referring to Client Acceptance would As Fig. 1 shows, a process framework of project implemen­
include "Potential clients have been contacted about the tation has been developed for heuristic purposes, based on the
26 IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. EM-34. NO. I, FEBRUARY 1987

Monitoring end
Feedback

Trouble­
shooting

Fig. 1. Ten key factors of the project implementation profile.

ten factors discovered in our analysis. The factors appear to be The process framework we have generated through the
both time sequenced and interdependent. They were found analysis also makes practical sense in that it has important
conceptually to be essentially temporal in that in many cases implications for project managers. The project manager is
they are sequenced to occur in a certain order instead of presented with a sequential check-list or set of milestones that
randomly or concurrently. To illustrate, consider that, accord­ enable him/her to track the project through each stage of its
ing to our framework, it is first important to set the goals or implementation process. Further, as a result of this tracking,
define the mission and benefits of the project before seeking or monitoring process, the project manager is better able to
top management support. Further, one could argue that unless make judicious use of resource allocation. Project team
consultation with the project's clients has occurred early in themembers' time can be better apportioned to deal with specific
process, chances of subsequent client acceptance and use, project trouble areas. A final point concerning the model is
denoting a successful implementation [14] will be negatively that the aforementioned sequence of a project implementation
affected. is an important consideration for any project manager. This
Related to the temporal aspect, the factors for a project sequencing enables the manager to determine where the
implementation can be laid out in a framework with suggested project is in terms of its life cycle process.
sequential relationships. In addition to the set of seven factors An additional, important outcome of this study was an
along the "critical path," ranging from Project Mission to empirical verification of the initial conceptually-based critical
Client Acceptance, other factors such as Communication and success factors generated from the five earlier frameworks
Monitoring and Feedback are hypothesized to necessarily (See Table I). As can be seen, with the exception of selecting a
occur simultaneously and in harmony with the other sequential competent Project Manager, the other factors were all
included in the empirical framework. Because subjects were
factors. As several of the participants in the study indicated, it
is important that Communication always occur or that Trou­ asked to respond from the viewpoint of project manager, it is
ble-Shooting be available throughout the entire implementa­ perhaps understandable why this factor was not included as
tion process. It should be noted, however, that the "arrows" well. Respondents saw themselves in the role of project
in the flow chart represent information flows and sequences, manager, therefore, appointment of this individual was taken
not necessarily causal or correlational relationships. for granted. In some instances, the empirically-derived factors
were composed of characteristics of two of the conceptual
IMPLICATIONS items and vice versa. For example, in the empirical model,
The framework initially developed by the process applied in Top Management Support is a combination of Top Manage­
this study may be viewed both from a conceptual and a ment Support and Sufficient Resource Allocation. On the other
practical standpoint. Conceptually, the model argues for both hand, Responsiveness to Clients was broken down in our study
the sequential and interdependent aspects of factors found into Client Consultation and Client Acceptance. In summary,
critical to project implementation success. Empirically, as this study seems to demonstrate adequate empirical justifica­
well as intuitively, it may be contended that a logical tion for several of the theoretical success factor lists of project
sequenced order should be considered when investigating implementation as developed in the project management
project implementation success factors. Further, these factors literature.
are seen as arising for consideration separately, but as often A further benefit from the study was the potential develop­
having strong influence on each other. For example, the ment of an instrument for measuring project success. Each of
theoretical literature suggests that initial client consultation the 10 critical success factors was empirically "defined" by
shows a strong relationship to subsequent client acceptance. 6-12 items that generated it. We have developed an initial
PINTO AND SLEVIN: CRITICAL FACTORS IN SUCCESSFUL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION 27

Likert scale instrument that consists of 10 items on each [5] D. R. Beck, "Implementing top management plans through project
management," in Project Management Handbook, D. I. Cleland and
critical success factor. It is theoretically and practically W. R. King, Eds. New York: Van Nostrand, 1983, pp. 166-184.
possible to determine a score (0-100) for each factor of a given [61 D. I. Cleland and W. R. King, Systems Analysis and Project
project. Thus the project manager, by looking at his/her Management. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1983.
[7] J. S. Hammond IU, "A practitioner-oriented framework for implemen­
project's profile can determine which factors have high scores
tation," in The Implementation of Management Science, R. Doktor,
and which have lower scores and are in need of attention. R. L. Schultz, and D. P. Slevin, Eds. New York: North-Holland,
Using the instrument (which is under development and 1979, pp. 35-62.
[8] D. Locke, Project Management. New York: St. Martins, 1984.
called the Project Implementation Profile), the manager might
[9] J. H. Manley, "Implementation attitudes: a model and a measurement
obtain a diagnostic showing a percentile score on each critical methodology," in Implementing Operations Research and Manage­
success factor compared with a sample of successful projects. ment Science, R. L. Schultz and D. P. Slevin, Eds. New York:
For example, a project manager may discover him/herself Elsevier, 1975, pp. 183-202.
[10] C. C. Martin, Project Management. New. York: AMACOM, 1976.
scoring low on one of the factors in relation to other managers [11] P. W. G. Morris, "Managing project interfaces—key points for project
who have had project success. Such a score could act as a success," in Project Management Handbook, D. I. Cleland and W.
signal to the manager that more attention should be paid to that R. King, Eds. New York: Van Nostrand, 1983, pp. 3-36.
[12) P. C. Nutt, "Implementation approaches for project planning," Acad.
particular aspect of the implementation. The Project Imple­ Manag. Rev., vol. 8, 1983, pp. 600-611.
mentation Profile presents a potential practical monitoring [13] L. R. Sayles and M. K. Chandler, Managing Large Systems. New
device for the project manager who has been made aware of York: Harper & Row, 1971.
[14] R. L. Schultz and D. P. Slevin, "A program for research on
critical factors for implementation success but is at a loss as to implementation," in Implementing Operations Research and Man­
how these factors should be considered. agement Science, R. L. Schultz and D. P. Slevin, Eds. New York:
Elsevier, 1975a, pp. 31-52.
[15] R. L. Schultz and D. P. Slevin, "Implementation and organizational
REFERENCES validity: an empirical investigation," in Implementing Operations
[I] R. D. Archibald, Managing High-Technology Programs and Pro­ Research and Management Science, R. L. Schultz and D. P. Slevin
jects. New York: Wiley, 1976. Eds. New York: Elsevier, 1975b, pp. 153-182.
[2] Β. N. Baker, D. C Murphy, and D. Fisher, "Factors affecting project [16] M. E. Shank, A. C. Boynton, and R. W. Zmud, "Critical success
success," in Project Management Handbook, D. I. Cleland and W. factor analysis as a methodology for MIS planning," MIS Quarterly,
R. King, Eds. New York: Van Nostrand, 1983, pp. 669-685. vol. 9, pp. 121-129, June 1985.
[3] A. Bavelas, "Project echo: Use of projective techniques to define [17] W. E. Souder, P. M. Maher, N . R. Baker, C R. Shumway, and A. H.
reality in different cultures," Stanford University, 1968, personal Rubenstein, "An organization intervention approach to the design and
communication. implementation of R&D project selection models," in Implementing
[4] A. S. Bean and M. Radnor, "The role of intermediaries in the Operations Research and Management Science, R. L. Schultz and D .
implementation of management science, *' in The Implementation of P. Slevin, Eds. New York: Elsevier, 1975, pp. 133-152.
Management Science, R. Doktor, R. L. Schultz, and D. P. Slevin, [18] W. J. Taylor and T. F. Watling, Practical Project Management.
Eds. New York: North-Holland, 1979, pp. 121-138. New York: Wiley, 1973.