Technovation, 9 (1989) 49-62 49

Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd. England-Printed in the United Kingdom

Critical factors in project implementation:

a comparison of construction and R&D
projects

Jeffrey K. Pinto
College of Business Administration, Universitv of Maine, Orono, ME w469 IU. S. A. /

Jeffrey G. Covin
College of Management, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332 CU. S. A. I

ABSTRACT
The theoretical literature on project management tends to assume that certain
organizational rules, executive procedures, and environmental conditions (we call
them ‘critical success factors’) are essential to the success of all types of projects.
Mean while, management practitioners frequently ignore such general rules, because
they are convinced that their particular projects pose entirely unique kinds of prob-
lems. This study, based on 408 responses to an extensive questionnaire, explores
managerial perceptions about project characteristics. For this purpose. we chose two
types of projects apparently lying at opposite ends of a spectrum of characteristics-
construction and R&D. We were interested additionally in whether/actors considered
crucial to successful execution varied over the life cycles of projects. The findings
suggest that while some critical success factors appear to be common to both types
of projects, there also exist significant differences; and, furthermore, that these fac-
tors tend to vary with stages in the Ii/e cycle. We conclude that practitioners may
derive benefit from paying attention to normative project-management theory, but
that theoreticians must also descend from the level of broad generalizations to take
into account the peculiarities of various classes of projects.

INTRODUCTION
Research on project management and the implementation of projects in organiza-
tions has shown evidence of a curious dichotomy in the approaches employed by
academic researchers and practitioners. The prevailing tendency among the majority
of academics has been to characterize all projects as fundamentally similar. In other
words, for the purpose of project management research, the implicit view of many
academics could be represented by the axiom ‘a project is a project is a project.’

Olf%-4972/89/503.50 0 1989 Elsevier Science Publishers Ltd

SO Jeffrey K. Pinto and Jeffrey G. Covin

Except for differences in goals and in the degree of uncertainty confronted, all are
assumed to have similar characteristics and properties. Indeed, it could be argued
that many academics lose sight of the individual trees by focusing their efforts too
broadly on the larger forest. They tend to perceive and study organizational projects
in the aggregate rather than pursuing their research issues with a more overt regard
for the fundamental differences among various classes or types of projects.
Practitioners (principally project managers), on the other hand, can exhibit an
entirely different perspective: they are convinced that the properties, characteristics,
and problems relating to their projects are unique and impossible to reproduce
within a larger framework. Because each project is, in their view, fundamentally
unique, little in the way of general project management prescriptions and theory can
be carried over and made applicable to their own specific situation.
The purpose of this study is to attempt to blend the perspectives of both
academics and practitioners within a research framework for assessing project
managers’ perceptions of the critical success factors in project implementation.
Specifically. this research attempts to determine if there are systematic differences in
managerial perceptions about the factors influencing success and failure of various
types of projects. Two distinct research questions are addressed: (i) what are the dif-
ferences in the opinions of project managers about factors critical to the successful
implementation of two different types of projects (R&D and construction)?; (ii) do
these opinions vary with the stages in a project’s life cycle?
Answers to these questions would go far toward reconciling the approaches to
project management and implementation currently exhibited by researchers and
practitioners. A fundamental finding of this study is that all projects are not, in fact,
similar. Rather, care must be taken to consider their underlying differences, lest one
attempt to draw overly general conclusions. For managers, the results demonstrate
that, while there are characteristic differences between classes of projects, there are
also patterns of similarities within project types which may apply to their projects.
Such a finding enables project managers to make use of a wider range of decision
rules and project management techniques which they may have previously con-
sidered inappropriate for their particular ventures.

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
It has long been acknowledged that the effectiveness of an organization depends,
in large part, upon the successful management of its projects. As a result, the search
for factors and issues that influence project success has been of interest to both
managers and researchers. A large body of research suggests that many of the
reasons behind project success can be found in the existence (or lack) of several
critica success factors (e.g., top management support, communication, sufficient
resources) [1,2]. Unfortunately, the use of these factors as predictors of project suc-
cess may be contingent upon an additional set of issues often ignored by researchers.
We are referring to the importance of the type of project being studied and the stage
of its development.
 Critical/actors in project implementation 51

Recent research has demonstrated that the importance of project success factors
can vary dramatically as projects move through their life cycles [3]. This finding
reinforces the need to adopt a contingency approach to project management theory
and practice. Some critical success factors are most important early in the project’s
life, while other factors become ‘critical’ at later project life cycle stages.
Because the constructs of critical success factors, project life cycle, and project
type are central to our model, each of these constructs will be discussed in detail in
the following sections.

Critical success factors

In attempting to explain the causes of project success and failure, many project
management researchers have generated sets of ‘success factors’ that are assumed to
account for much of the variance in project performance. These sets of factors have
been identified through a variety of methods, including single-case studies, anec-
dotal evidence, and multi-project empirical studies. In the majority of cases,
however, the methods identifying these critical success factors tend to be theory
based rather than empirically proven. In order to address the question of the practical
relevance of many of these success factors, a method has recently been developed for
generating implementation-related critical success factors on a company-by-
company basis [4]. This approach identifies the unique, company-specific critical
factors through a series of in-depth interviews with key members of an organization.
Because of the wide range of organizational personnel (in terms of function, level,
and background) needed to identify project-critical success factors, the cross-
sectional generalizability of many of these factors is subject to question. When
critical factors are determined on a company-by-company basis, they may be so
specific as not to be useful in other settings. Pinto and Slevin [5] recently addressed
this issue through a large-scale field research project in which they identified four-
teen factors that are commonly related to implementation success across a wide
range of companies and project types. These factors are listed and briefly defined in
Table 1.
To a greater or lesser extent, the first ten of these factors are within the control of
the project team. For example, the project team will often make the effort of involv-
ing the prospective user in the early project formulation process (Client Consulta-
tion) in the expectation that the client will then be more satisfied with and make use
of the project’s output. The final four factors, while also having a significant impact
on ultimate project success or failure, may not be within the control of the project
team. For example, external events (Environmental Effects) can have important im-
plications for project implementation, but may remain unforeseen until they actually
occur.

Project life cycles

Life cycle models have been utilized in the study of organizations for a variety
of purposes. Life cycles have been drawn upon to explain a wide range of
52 Jeffrey K. Pinto and Jeffrey G. Covin

TABLE 1. Project critical success factors

I Mission - Initial clarity of goals and general directions.

2 Top Munugement Support - Willingness of top management to provide the necessary resources and
authority/power for project success.

3 Project Schedule/Pluns - A detailed specification of the individual action steps required for project
implementation.

Client Consultation - Communication. consultation, and active listening to all impacted parties.

Personnel - Selection, recruitment, and training of the necessary personnel for the project team.

Technicul Tasks - Availability of the required technology and expertise to accomplish the specific
technical action steps.

7 Client Acceptonce - The act of ‘selling’ the final project to its ultimate intended users.

g Monitoring und Feedbuck - Timely provision of comprehensive control information at each stage in
the implementation process.

9 Communicufion - The provision of an appropriate network and necessary data to all key actors in
the project implementation.

10 Troubleshoofing - The ability to handle unexpected crises and deviations from plan.

II Churucferisficr 01 the frojecf Team Leuder - Competence of the project leader (administratively,
interpersonally, and technically) and the amount of authority available to perform his/her duties.

12 Power und Polifics - The degree of political activity within the organization and the perception of
the project as furthering an organization member’s self-interests.

13 Environmenful ufects - The likelihood of external organizational or cnvironmcntal factors

impacting on the operations of the project team. positively or negatively.

14 Urgency -The perception of the importance of the project or the need to implement the project as
soon as possible.

organizational activities, including product or brand management, the rise and

decline of organizations, and changes in strategic decision priorities. The life cycle
concept has also been applied in project management theory and research. For ex-
ample, Thamhain and Wilemon [6], found that the propensity toward conflict can
vary with the stage of a project in its life cycle. Additionally, Adams and Barndt [7]
have argued that the leadership style of the project manager as well as the general
project-group ‘climate’ must change as projects move through different stages of
development.
For this study, a four-stage life cycle has been employed. The initial stage, Con-
ceptuolization, refers to the period when strategic needs are recognized by top
management and suggest the development of a project. The major concerns in this
stage typically include (i) the establishment of preliminary goals and implementation
 Criticalfactors in project implementation 53

plans, and (ii) the provision of the resources required to implement the project. The
second project stage is referred to as PI4nning. During this stage, detailed plans are
developed specifying how the stated goals are to be accomplished, and budgets are
established to provide direction and control for these plans. Among the important
activities in this stage is the enlistment of top management support to commit a
variety of organizational resources (budgetary, human, technical, and so forth) to
the project.
The third stage in the project life cycle is referred to as the Execution stage. Dur-
ing this stage the actual ‘work’ of the project is performed. Specifically, materials
and resources are procured, the project is carried out, and performance capabilities
are verified. Finally, during the Termination stage, the activities and concerns in-
volving project completion are of highest priority. Unused resources assigned to the
project are released for other organizational purposes, project team members may
be reassigned to other duties, and the project is transferred to its intended users.

Project differences: construction versus R&D

Although the project management literature is filled with specific descriptions of
the unique characteristics which identify project-based work, the general consensus
seems to suggest that projects usually have the following attributes: (i) a specified,
limited budget; (ii) a specified time frame or duration; (iii) a preordained perfor-
mance goal or set of goals; and (iv) a series of complex, interrelated activities [S].
Clearly, a wide variety of organizational activities could be considered as projects.
Two of the more common types of organizational projects are those relating to con-
struction and R&D.
While the basic differences between construction and R&D projects are intuitively
obvious to many, it is helpful to identify some parameters to distinguish more
systematically between these two project types. At the most basic level, construction
projects involve the planning and building of some physical facility. R&D projects,
on the other hand, usually involve the creation, evaluation, and/or refinement of
some process, service, or product [9]. Obviously, there can be substantial within-
group variability in the subsets of both construction and R&D projects in terms of
such considerations as size, complexity, problem orientation, and duration. In par-
ticular, the term ‘R&D project’ can encompass a wide range of project types.
However, these two classes of projects are also characterized by some fundamental
between-group differences. Although the following generalization does not hold for
all cases, construction projects are often more routine, less innovative, and more
predictable than R&D projects [lo].
A variety of characteristics can be cited to illustrate why these two types of pro-
jects pose different sets of problems and, consequently, need to be treated and ad-
dressed separately. Among these issues are the following:

- Overt risk. R&D projects often involve greater overt risks than construction pro-
jects throughout their development process. Risk has been defined by Alter [ 111,
54 Jeffrey K. Pinto and Jeffrey G. Covin

Narasimhan and Schroeder [12]. and others as the likelihood of encountering

potentially severe project-development and implementation difficulties. Among
the factors which contribute to the riskiness of a project are an unwilling user,
loss or lack of project support, uncertain resource requirements, technical
problems, and lack of experienced project team members. These risk factors are
generally thought to be more prevalent in R&D projects than in construction pro-
jects. Construction projects are commonly initiated after the removal of many
uncertainties regarding project funding, client expectations, and procedural
concerns.
The concept of ‘risk’ may be framed differently for construction projects.
Unlike the risk factors found in R&D projects, the implementation risks in con-
struction projects are often the by-product of new or untried architectural designs
and construction technology and techniques. For example, occasional construc-
tion accidents remind us of the fact that innovative designs or techniques can
result in an inherently riskier execution phase than more traditional approaches.
- Projecf learn personnel. R&D projects are typically non-repetitive and character-
ized by unique requirements and processes. Accordingly, people with different
skills and expertise may be specially recruited for different R&D project teams.
These project team members are then reassigned at project termination. The
assignment and reassignment of personnel to different projects is much less
typical of construction projects. Whereas in R&D projects the expertise of in-
dividual personnel is taken into consideration and assignments are made on a
project-by-project basis, in construction projects the same personnel may com-
prise the project teams across many different projects. To illustrate, project
managers for the industrial construction division of a large American corporation
are often involved in either running or serving on an average of over 10 projects
at any point in time. This degree of constancy is possible largely because the same
basic skills and competencies are necessary for the successful completion of dif-
ferent projects.
- Project scheduling. In construction projects, scheduling is a key to success. Fur-
ther, the critical scheduling issues involve the actual execution of the project.
Scheduling activities. such as ordering materials and sequencing sub-contractor
interventions, can have a major impact on the successful execution of construc-
tion projects. In R&D projects, the activities involved in project execution are less
amenable to scheduling. The functions over which the R&D project team can exer-
cise greater control, such as scheduling project transfer to clients during project
termination, are often the areas in which a concern for scheduling will be most
common and related to project success.
- Evaluative/eedback. While an emphasis on control, evaluation, and feedback
activities is necessary for the successful implementation of most projects, the use-
fulness of these activities differs for construction and R&D projects. Evaluative
feedback, particularly when this feedback is negative, has the potential to inhibit
the creativity of the project team [13]. The success of R&D projects often depends
on the creativity and innovativeness of team members. As a result, it is likely that
 Criticalfactors in project implementation 55

an over-emphasis on evaluation and feedback will have a negative impact on

R&D success. On the other hand, since the success of construction projects is less
tied to the creativity of team members, evaluation and feedback generally is more
useful and has a more positive impact on these projects. This phenomenon is
most apparent during the execution and termination stages, when it is necessary
to assess project performance against budget and schedule constraints.
- Top management support. Another issue which demonstrates how construction
and R&D projects can differ is the potential for the withdrawal of top manage-
ment support for the project. The outcomes of R&D projects are, by definition,
difficult to predict accurately and slow to materialize. Resources may be con-
sumed with little, if any, measurable progress. As a result, great faith in these
projects is often required on the part of top management, and top management
support will be particularly critical for project success. While such support is no
less important for construction projects, the likelihood that it will be withdrawn
from ongoing projects is much lower. The resource requirements for construction
projects are generally fairly predictable. Consequently, top management have a
better idea of what they are getting into at the beginning of a construction project
and are more likely to maintain their initial commitment.
Because of the basic differences in the traits distinguishing many construction and
R&D projects, it is reasonable to expect differences in the critical factors required
for successful completion of these projects across their life cycles. Given the paucity
of theory and research on the differences among project types, it would be impos-
sible to argue cogently that specific, stage-by-stage differences exist in the critical
success factors associated with construction and R&D projects. However, as our
discussion has suggested and as this study demonstrates, the relationship between
critical factors and project success depends, in large part, upon both the type of pro-
ject being studied and the stage in its life cycle at which the project resides.

METHODS
Sample
Questionnaires were mailed to 586 members of the Project Management Insti-
tute-a national organization of project managers. Usable questionnaires were
returned by 408 project managers, for a response rate of over 69%. Of the 408 pro-
jects described by the respondents, 335 (82%) were used in the particular research
study. 184 (55 Vo) of these were construction projects and 151 (45 Vo) were R&D pro-
jects. This sample includes projects from both manufacturing and service firms, as
well as private and public-sector projects. The remaining 73 projects not examined
in this study included such miscellaneous types as studies, moves to new facilities,
and special services or tests.

Measures
The questionnaire included measures of the I4 previously mentioned project
critical success factors, project success, and project life cycle stage.
56 Jeffrey K. Pinto and Jeffrey G. Covin

The Project Implementation Profile (PIP) [14] was used to identify critical success
factor scores over the project life cycle. The PIP uses a seven-point Likert scale in
the assessment of 72 questions, covering the 14 critical success factors. Project suc-
cess was measured using an aggregate of 13 items. These multiple items assess pro-
ject success based on a variety of criteria, including adherence to budget and
schedule, perceived quality and utility of the completed project, and client satisfac-
tion with the project. Finally, a four-stage project life cycle measure was used; brief
descriptions of the stages were presented to the participants, who were asked to
classify their projects as currently being in one of these four stages.
The questionnaire asked participants to think of a project in which they were cur-
rently involved or which they had recently completed. This project was to be their
frame of reference in completing the questionnaire. The participants were instructed
to indicate the importance of the items included in the PIP to project success during
the particular life cycle stage in which they had classified their project. This ap-
proach ensured that the participants would respond to the questionnaire with a
specific life-cycle stage in mind.
Stepwise regression analysis was used to identify the most important critical suc-
cess factors at each stage of the construction and R&D project life cycles.

RESULTS
Table 2 presents a summary of the stepwise regression results of the significant
predictors of construction and R&D project success for each life cycle stage. As can
be seen, while there are some similarities in factors across the project life cycle for
the two project types, there also are significant differences between the regression
models at each project stage. The most notable similarity between the two types of
projects is in the perceived importance of Project Mission. A clearly stated mission
was found to be highly important for implementation success across each stage of
the project life cycle. In fact, Mission is the only factor consistently and significantly
related to project success.
For construction projects, in the conceptual stage of the project life cycle, project
mission was the only significant predictor of success, explaining 54% of the total
variance. Project mission, power, politics and technical tasks are the significant
predictors of project success in the planning stage, collectively explaining 84% of the
variance in success. The critical factors in the execution stage of the project life cycle
are project mission. schedules/plans, client consultation, and client acceptance. The
factors have a cumulative r-square of 0.70. Finally, technical tasks, mission, com-
munication, and troubleshooting are the significant critical factors in the termina-
tion stage. Fifty-four percent of the variance in project success is explained by these
four factors. All critical factors which loaded in the various regression models were
significant at fWO.01.
Table 2 also presents the results of the stepwise regression analysis of the signifi-
cant predictors of R&D project success at each life cycle stage. The key predictors of
project success in the conceptual stage are project mission, client consultation,
TABLE 2. A comparison of critical success factors in each stage of the project life cycles of construction and R&D
projecfs

Stage of project Construction R&D

life cycle

Number Factors Cum. Number Factors Cum.

of projects adj. R of projects adj. R

Conceptual 17 Mission 0.54 14 Mission 0.67

Client consult. 0.81
Personnel 0.87
Urgency 0.92

Planning 24 Mission 0.71 30 Mission 0.30

Power & politics 0.82 Environ. effects’ 0.38
Technical tasks O.B4 Schedule 0.50
Monitor % feedbacka 0.54
Client accept. 0.63

Execution a2 MiSSh 0.57 81 Mission 0.46

Schedule 0.66 Technical tasks 0.51
Client consult. 0.69 Top mgmt. support 0.54
Client accept. 0.70

Termination 61 Technical tasks 0.35 26 Mission 0.42

Mission 0.50 Schedule 0.48
Commun.’ 0.53 Client accept.’ 0.56
Trouble-shooting 0.54 Technical tasks 0.61
Personnel’ 0.72
-
‘This factor had a negative regression coefficient
58 Jeffrey K. Pinto and Jeffrey G. Covin

personnel, and urgency. These four factors explain 92% of the variance in project
success. During the planning stage, 63% of the variance in project success is ex-
plained by project mission, environmental effects, schedule/plans, monitoring and
feedback, and client acceptance. Project mission, technical tasks, and top manage-
ment support are the significant critical success factors during the execution stage,
having a cumulative r-square of 0.54. Finally, during the termination stage, project
mission, schedule/plans, client acceptance, technical tasks, and personnel explain
72% of the variance in success.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to compare changes in the perceived importance of
critical success factors at each stage in the life cycle of two common, yet fundamen-
tally different, types of organizational projects-construction and R&D. The results
of the analysis revealed that, as theory would suggest, the importance of factors
varies widely, depending upon the stage in its life cycle a project occupies. It was fur-
ther shown that different sets of factors predict success in the various life cycle
stages of the two project types. These findings corroborate many of the conceptual
distinctions between R&D and construction projects which have been discussed
previously.
R&D and construction projects were argued to differ in terms of a variety of
characteristics, including those involving degree of innovation, risk, and scheduling.
It was found that there exist systematic differences in the factors which managers
perceive to be critical to the success of these projects. To illustrate, consider the mat-
ter of the recruitment, selection, and training of project team personnel. It was
argued previously that ‘personnel,’ as a critical success factor, has a considerably
greater impact on the success or failure of R&D projects than on construction pro-
jects. The results of our study bear out this contention. In fact, they show that per-
sonnel (the assessment of availability and subsequent recruitment) are crucial during
the conceptualization phase of R&D projects. Further, the personnel factor was
perceived as key during the termination phase, when project team members are
typically reassigned to other duties. On the other hand, at no point in the life cycle of
a construction project was the factor ‘personnel’ perceived as critical to successful
implementation.
In addition to demonstrating fundamental differences in perceived importance of
critical success factors between construction and R&D projects, this study reinforces
earlier work in the area of project implementation. Our research confirms earlier
theory used in the development of lists of critical success factors. In general, these
factors were perceived by project managers to be important to the implementation
process, but differentially so, depending on the stage in its life cycle at which the pro-
ject resides. In other words, the importance of these critical factors varied not only
ucross project type, but also within the stages of these projects. Many of those factors
that were critical at one life cycle stage changed markedly from those perceived as
critical at other life cycle stages.
 Criticalfactors in project implementation 59

The findings of this study have important implications both for project manage-
ment researchers and for practitioners. The first implication highlights the need to
adopt a more project-specific, contingency approach to the study of project im-
plementation in organizations. Both project type and stage in the organizational life
cycle are important contingency variables in the perceived importance of various
critical success factors. As a result, this study reinforces the view that different
managerial approaches are essential to the effective implementation of projects in-
volving fundamentally different goals and techniques. Clearly, management
theorists and researchers must be cautious in offering general prescriptions for the
management of diverse types of projects.
An additional finding of this study suggests, however, that while there exist
significant differences between project type, there are fundamental similarities in
perceived importance of critical factors within classes of projects. For example,
follow-up interviews with a group of construction project managers indicated a high
level of agreement with the critical success factors uncovered, in spite of the fact
that, as a group, they were involved in a wide variety of different construction pro-
jects. As a result, it may be possible for many project managers, heretofore con-
vinced of the fundamentally distinct nature of their projects, to make use of a range
of project management theories, prescriptions, or process frameworks that they may
have, at one time, considered too general to be useful in addressing their specific
concerns.

CONCLUSIONS
Successful implementation of projects by organizations requires a wide range of
skills, expertise, technology, and resources. The difficulties involved in this process
have often been exacerbated by the implicit, yet fundamentally opposite, ap-
proaches to project management and to the implementation of innovations that are
taken by theoreticians and practitioners. Too often academics have sought par-
simony in generalizable decision rules for organizational phenomena, while practi-
tioners have insisted on the unique nature of their concerns, rendering many such
decision rules and generalized frameworks unusable.
This study has demonstrated a useful middle ground between the attitudes of
academics and practitioners when applied to the field of project implementation.
Our research demonstrates that while there are basic similarities within classes of
projects with similar task objectives (i.e., construction and R&D), there arecharacter-
istic differences between those factors perceived as critical to thesuccessful implement-
ation of construction and R&D projects, supporting the use of different managerial
approaches in attempting to implement these different types of projects. Further,
this study demonstrates how the perceived importance of these critical factors is sub-
ject to dramatic change at different stages in the project life cycle.
In conclusion, the effectiveness of project management activities is, to a large
degree, contingent upon both the life cycle stage and specific attributes, or task ob-
jectives, of the project. Clearly, the successful implementation of projects requires
60 Jeffrey K. Pinto and Jeffrey G. Covin

that the consequences of any managerial action be considered in light of the specific
circumstances surrounding the project. Though the identification of a set of general
critical success factors is of benefit both to managers and to academics, indiscrim-
inate or rigid adherence to these factors may not always facilitate effective project
implementation. Therefore, future research efforts might continue to focus fruitfully
on the identification and verification of those contingency factors which affect pro-
ject success.

REFERENCES
1 D.I. Cleland and W.R. King, Systems Analysis and Project Management. McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1983.
2 B.N. Baker, D.C. Murphy and D. Fisher, Factors affecting project success. In: D.I. Cleland
and W.R. King (Eds). Project Management Handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, 1983, p. 669-685.
3 J.K. Pinto and J.E. Prescott, Variations in critical success factors over the stages in the pro-
ject life cycle. J. Manage., 14(l) (1988) S-IS.
4 A.C. Boynton and R.W. Zmud. An assessment of critical success factors. Sloan Manage.
Rev., 25(4) (1984) 17-27.
J.K. Pinto and D.P. Slevin. Critical factors in successful project implementation. IEEE
Trans. Eng. Manage., EM-34(i) (1987) 22-27.
H.J. Thamhain and D.W. Wilcmon. Conflict management in project life cycles. Sloan
Manage. Rev.. 17(2) (1975) 31-50.
J.R. Adams and S.E. Barndt. Behavioral implications of the project life cycle. In: D.I.
Cleland and W.R. King (Eds.). Project Management Handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold,
New York, 1983. pp. 183-204.
8 C.J. Tuman. Development and implementation of effective project management informa-
tion and control systems. In: D.I. Cleland and W.R. King (Eds.). Project Managcmcnt
Handbook. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1983. pp. 495-532.
9 M.L. Tushman and R. Katz, External communication and project performance: an in-
vestigation into the role of gatekeeper. Manage. sci.. 26 (1980) 1071-1085.
IO J.W. Meredith and S.W. Mantel, Jr., Project Management: A Managerial Approach.
Wiley, New York, 1985, 494~~.
II S. Alter, implementation risk analysis. In: R. Doktor, R.L. Schultz and D.P. Slevin (Eds.),
The Implementation of Management Science. North-Holland. Amsterdam, 1979. pp. 103-
120.
I2 R. Narasimhan and R.G. Schroeder, An empirical investigation of implementation as a
change process. In: R. Doktor, R.L. Schultz and D.P. Slevin (Eds.), The Implementation
of Management Science. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1979, pp. 63-84.
13 T. Amabile, The social psychology of creativity: a componential conceptualization. J. Pers.
Sot. Psychol.. 45 (1983) 357-376.
14 D.P. Slevin and J.K. Pinto, The project implementation profile: new tool for project
managers. Project Manage. J.. XVIIl(4) (1986) 57-71.
 Critical factors in project implementation 6I

Les facteurs critiques dans I’ex6cution des projets

Une comparaison des projets de construction et de Recherche &
D6veloppement (R&D)

La documentation theorique sur la gestion des projets a tendance a assumer que

certaines regles d’organisation, procedures administratives et conditions ecologiques
(nous les appelons les ‘facteurs critiques de reussite’) sont essentiels pour la reussite
de toutes sortes de projets. En attendant, ceux qui pratiquent la gestion ne tiennent
souvent pas compte de ces regles generales parce qu’ils sont convaincus que leurs
projets particuliers posent des problemes uniques. Cette etude. basee sur 408
reponses a une questionnaire approfondie. examine les perceptions des cadres con-
cernant les characteristiques des projets. Dans ce but nous avons choisi deux genres
de projets qui sont en apparence aux bouts opposes d’une gamme de characteristiques
- construction et R&D. Nous &ions interesses de savoir, en plus, si les facteurs con-
sider& dtcisifs pour une execution reussie variaient quant au cycle de vie des projets.
Les resultats laissent entendre qu’alors que certains facteurs critiques de reussite
semblent 2tre les m<mes pour les deux genres de projets, il existe egalement des
differences considerables; de plus, ces facteurs ont tendance a varier selon les &apes
du cycle de vie. Nous en deduisons que les practiciens peuvent tirer profit s’ils pre-
tent attention a la thcorie normative de la gcstion dcs projets, mais que Its thcori-
ciens doivent Cgalement s’eloigner des grandcs generalisations afin de prcndre en
consideration les particularites dcs divcrscs categories de projets.

Entscheidende Faktoren bei der Projektdurchfiihrung: Ein

Vergleich zwischen Bauprojekten und F&E-Projekten

ABRISS

Die theoretische Literatur tibcr Projektmanagement tendiert zu der Annahmc,

da8 bestimmte organisatorische Regeln, Unternehmensverfahren und Umweltbed-
ingungen (wir nennen sie entscheidende Erfolgsfaktoren) fur den Erfolg aller Artcn
von Projekten wichtig sind. Dennoch ignorieren Manager oft derartige allgemeine
Regeln, da sie davon tiberzeugt sind. da8 ihre speziellen Projekte einzigartige Prob-
leme mit sich bringen. Diese Studie, die auf 408 beantworteten ausfuhrlichen
Fragebogen basiert, untersucht die verschiedenen Auffassungen der Manager von
Projekteigenschaften. Zu diesem Zweck wahlten wir zwei Projektarten, deren
Eigenschaften offensichtlich grundverschieden sind: Bau und F&E. Wir in-
teressierten uns aunerdem dafur, ob die Faktoren, die fur die erfolgreiche Durchfuh-
rung als wichtig angesehen werden, wahrend des Lebenszyklusses eines Projektes
variieren. Aus den Untersuchungsergebnissen geht hervor, dal3 einige wichtige
Erfolgsfaktoren fur beide Projektarten gleich zu scin scheinen, es abcr such
bedeutende Unterschiede gibt. Aul3erdcm scheinen diese Faktoren wahrend dcr
62 Jeffrey K. Pinto and Jeffrey R. Covin

verschiedenen Abschnitte des Lebenszyklusses zu variieren. Wir schlieRen daraus.

daB Manager Nutzen daraus ziehen, wenn sie normativer Projektverwaltungstheorien
Beachtung schenken, aber such, dal3 Theoretiker sich weg von Verallgemeinerungen
und hin zur Einbeziehung der Besonderheiten verschiedener Projektarten bewegen
mussen.

Factores claves en la implementation de proyectos: una com-

paracion de proyectos de construction y de investigation y
desarollo

RESUMEN

Las teorias escritas con referencia al control de proyectos normalmente suponen

que ciertas normas de organization, procedimientos directives y condiciones del
medio ambiente (Ilamemoslos factores claves de Cxito) son esenciales para el exito en
todo tipo de proyecto. Sin embargo, 10s ejecutivos de direction frecuentemente
ignoran tales reglas generales ya que estan convencidos de que 10s problemas que
surgen en sus proyectos particulares son unicos. Este estudio, basado en 408
respuestas a un amplio cuestionario, explora percepciones de la direction de em-
presa en cuanto a las caracteristicas de 10s proyectos. Ante esto, hemos elegido dos
tipos de proyectos de caractcristicas aparentementc opuestas - de construction y de
invcstigacion y dcsarollo. Ademas estabamos interesados en saber si 10s factores
considcrados clavcs para llevar a cabo con exit0 10s proycctos variaban a lo largo de
10s ciclos de vida de 10s proycctos. Los resultados sugicren quc micntras algunos fac-
Lores claves dcl exit0 parecen ser comunes a ambos tipos de proyectos, tambien ex-
istcn difercncias significativas; y mis alla atin. que cstos factores tienden a variar
segt’m el moment0 de1 ciclo de vida del proyccto. La conclusion obtcnida es que
puede scr beneficioso prcstar atcncion a tcorias normativas dc control de proycctos,
pcro tambien convicne quc 10s tc6ricos dcjen las grandes gcneralizacioncs a un lado
para tomar en cuenta Ias peculiaridadcs de 10s diversos tipos de proyectos.