VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY (VTU)

JNANA SANGAMA, BELGAVI-590018

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
ASSIGNMENT 2

SUBMITTED BY:

NAME USN

ABHISHEK CR 1JS18ME002

AKSHAY T 1JS18ME010

AMRITANSHU MISHRA 1JS17ME099

SUBMITTED TO: Dr ANANDKUMAR. R ANNIGERI

JSS ACADEMY OF TECHNICAL

EDUCATION BANGALORE-560060
JSSATE-B Campus, Dr. Vishnuvardan Road, Srinivaspura, Bengaluru, Karnataka 560060

JSS ACADEMY OF TECHINCAL EDUCATION

LITRARY REVIEW ON PROJECT MANAGEMENT
This paper studied articles on project management success from two scientific journals,
PMJ and IJPM. We discovered that project success study can be defined by diversity,
except in epistemological and methodological perspectives: diversity in term definitions,
samples, and data collecting and analysis procedures. This conclusion confirms our
predictions prior to the investigation and validates our contribution. In truth, project
success is a multidimensional, confusing, and encompassing topic of inquiry. It is
difficult to define and measure since no one can agree on what it is. It should necessitate
a variety of approaches to its research, but the "objectivist" approach has been the most
popular thus far.
In our quest for a thorough knowledge of project success, we must distinguish between
project management success and project success. Project management success, on the
one hand, relates to efficiency, which is an internal worry for the project team, and
project success, on the other hand, encompasses all concerns, whether internal or
external, short- term or long-term (Shenhar et al.,1997). Specific project management
objectives and their measurability in terms of time propose some parameters for
distinguishing project success from project management success. The hard dimensions
of a project (e.g., time, cost) are concrete, objective, and measurable, according to
Baccarin (1999), whereas the soft dimensions (e.g., stakeholders' satisfaction) are
subjective, subtle, and difficult to quantify (see Crawford& Pollack, 2004, for a
discussion of hard and soft aspects of projects). The former characteristics are
inextricably linked to a completed project; thus, the proclivity to judge project success
by project management success (Munns &Bjeirmi, 1996). Obviously, from the
perspective of project managers, the completion of a project coincides with the delivery
of a product or service, and there is no need to analyze the project's downstream impacts
(Munns &Bjeirmi, 1996; Wateridge, 1995, 1998).
Success in project management may eventually lead to project success, but the reverse is
not true: it is reasonable to anticipate that project management failure will lead to project
failure, save in unusual situations, but that the project might also fail despite excellent
project management. Project management success, in other words, would neither be a
required nor a satisfactory condition for project success. This is a concerning conclusion
for project managers, who are frequently sacrificed on the altar of efficiency and
effectiveness while simultaneously having to deal with complexity. Because of the
unique and complex character of projects, project managers increasingly resemble
"travel-ers anxiously trying to board a train: they are encumbered with heavy luggage
and laden with paperwork and information," as Hazebroucq (1993) put it (self-
translation)
Despite the fact that this classic triangular perspective of success is still prevalent, the
last several decades have seen a progressive recognition that project success needs wider
definitions than project management success (Jugdev &Müller, 2005). (Turner, 1999).
Although most scholars recognize that there are additional variables for project success,
they would place greater emphasis on the time/cost/quality triangle (White & Fortune,
2002). As the emphasis on the linkages between project, portfolio, and the program
grows (Bredillet, 2006; Cicmil &Hodgson, 2006; Jugdev & Müller, 2005; Shenhar et al.,
2005), we anticipate a trend toward the project, portfolio, and program issues in project
success literature, as seen in Table 2. Indeed, as Shenhar et al. (2005, p. 3) put it,
"strategic initiatives are focused on delivering business goals, whereas operational
projects are focused on getting the work done. With this emphasis on the project,
portfolio, and program success, it is reasonable to anticipate that knowledge production
on project success will rely more on senior management, project sponsors or owners,
and anybody involved in project selection and design. Similarly, because much of the
research is conducted in engineering, construction, and information technology, we
believe that this may have an impact on the dominance of the triangular perspective of
project success. Indeed, in "softer" businesses and the public sector, where the focus is
on portfolio and program management, it is reasonable to predict that the triangle
perspective will evolve toward the project, portfolio, and program success. In any event,
if the triangle has ruled dominant, it is most likely owing to the fact that project
management is still in its infancy
in those industries, and they have been emulating the earlier project-oriented approaches.
Regarding the study's limitations, several remarks are required. First, we ignored
material from other publications, even articles cited by authors published in PMJ and
IJPM, by only looking at articles that appeared in those two journals. Despite the fact
that this is a genuine limitation, it is the dividing line, albeit not always apparent,
between articles about project success (product success) and articles about project
management success. The project quality criterion and the client satisfaction criterion
appear to be incompatible. It's possible that there won't be a consensus on quality as far
as rigorous adherence to functional and technical criteria are concerned. Another
researcher would object, claiming that quality can be found in all of a product's or
service's traits and characteristics, satisfying not only the client's explicit but also
implicit wants. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has
recommended this definition. It would be a justification of the quantitative method to
assessing project success if project success could be reduced to project management
success. On the other hand, the notion that we could come up with a clear way to
quantify achievement is borderline utopian. The time/cost/quality triangle, according to
Hazebroucq and Badot (1996, p. 37), does not account for what François Jolivet, the first
Director General of the Channel Tunnel TransManche Link, called the "breeder" effect
of a project, in which a project generates more total wealth than it consumes in terms of
human, financial, and technical resources for all actors involved, both internal and
external. Project management success is a mechanical view of project success in which
players look for Taylor's "one optimal method" to do things. Fifty years later, the
language that underpins the time/cost/quality triangle appears to have produced an
unrealistic vision that could lead to disaster. a welcome diversion from present concerns,
but it is worth investigating since it will likely offer light on other, less studied aspects of
project success study. The goal would be to gain a better understanding of project
success as it is subjectively viewed and constructed by managers and other stakeholders.
In-depth interviews would be conducted as part of the study, allowing project actors to
explain their professional life stories or discuss
success determinants, for example. Aren't words, by definition, infinitely more rich than
numbers? Is it possible that relying on numbers fails to encapsulate a social reality (the
project) in a rigid structure, limiting project managers to elements subject to the effect of
a group of more or less deterministic forces: project success factors? Building on the
work of the "Scandinavian school," particularly Packendorff (1995), who is extremely
influential, A postmodern perspective on projects and, by extension, project success
could be imagined. Doug DeCarlo's words (quoted by Thomsett, 2002, p. 21) are
particularly instructive in this regard: "Project managers suffer from aNewtonian
neurosis, a pathological desire to give projects form." A quantum view of the world is
required, in which chaos, change, uncertainty, and control relaxation are acknowledged
as means of obtaining control." More importantly, we need to reassess project definitions
and rethink project management itself, even if that is beyond the scope of this project.
Turner's (1996) remark, "Project management is the art and science of converting vision
into reality," should not be overlooked. Will this definition, however, be accepted by all
parties?