I.

INTRODUCTION
Projects have been executed since ancient civilizations, evidenced by monumental
accomplishments such as the Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and medieval cathedrals,
which suggest a long-standing history of structured efforts to achieve defined goals (Morris,
1994). This historical continuity leads to the reasonable assumption that project-related practices
have matured into established methodologies over time. However, despite the evolution of
project management as a formal discipline, especially since the mid-20th century—questions
remain about the theoretical underpinnings of its practices. Koskela and Howell (2002) critically
argued that modern project management is underpinned by a narrow, implicit theory, lacking a
comprehensive and explicit theoretical framework. They contend that the current paradigm,
although structured around widely adopted best practices, fails to consistently deliver measurable
value and requires further theoretical development and conceptual enrichment.
Traditional project management approaches, such as the waterfall model, often result in what
may be termed "self-inflicted problems," including rigidity in planning, inadequate stakeholder
engagement, and poor adaptability, all of which can negatively impact project outcomes or even
lead to project failure (Koskela & Howell, 2002; Thomas & Mengel, 2008). This critique has
sparked an ongoing debate in academic and professional circles regarding the actual contribution
of project management methodologies to project success. Although there exists a voluminous
body of literature on project management, significant ambiguity persists regarding its efficacy in
ensuring successful outcomes. For instance, Turner and Zolin (2012) noted that despite the
increased formalization of project processes, the relationship between project management and
project success is not definitively established.
Compounding this issue is the lack of universally accepted definitions for both "project
management" and "project success," leading to inconsistencies in how success is measured and
reported (Ika, 2009). Some researchers emphasize time, cost, and scope (the iron triangle) as
primary success indicators, while others argue for broader criteria, including stakeholder
satisfaction, long-term value, and strategic alignment. These diverging perspectives highlight a
significant theoretical and practical gap. While certain foundational elements of project success
—such as meeting deadlines and budgets—achieve consensus, there remains substantial
disagreement about the overall determinants and dimensions of success, as well as the exact role
project management plays in achieving it (Atkinson, 1999; Müller & Jugdev, 2012). This lack of
consensus underscores the need for more integrated theoretical models and empirical
investigations to clarify the contributions of project management to the realization of successful
project outcomes, particularly in complex and dynamic sectors such as construction.
What is a Project
The concept of a project has been subject to extensive academic and professional discourse,
particularly as project-based work becomes increasingly central to organizations across various
industries. According to the international standard BS ISO 10006:1997, a project is defined as “a
unique process consisting of a set of coordinated and controlled activities with start and finish
dates, undertaken to achieve an objective conforming to specific requirements, including
constraints of time, cost and resources” (British Standards Institution [BSI], 1997). This
definition encapsulates several critical attributes of projects: uniqueness, temporality, goal
orientation, and the need to balance multiple constraints.
Projects differ markedly from routine operational activities in that they are non-repetitive, finite
in duration, and established to produce a specific output or outcome (Turner, 2009). Unlike
operations, which are ongoing and cyclical, projects are temporary endeavors with clearly
defined start and end points, often involving teams assembled specifically for the purpose of
executing the project. These temporary project teams are typically disbanded upon project
completion, with members either reassigned or released (Cleland & Ireland, 2007). While this
temporality offers flexibility, it also introduces challenges such as short-term commitment and
limited organizational learning continuity since team members know their involvement is finite
(Lundin & Söderholm, 1995).
Contemporary literature emphasizes that every project is inherently unique, even when they
appear similar on the surface (PMI, 2021). The goals, stakeholders, environmental context, risks,
and constraints differ from project to project. Shenhar (2001) strongly criticizes sthe
oversimplified assumption that all projects can be managed using a one-size-fits-all approach. He
argues that a critical reason behind project failures is the reliance on standardized tools and
methodologies without accounting for the project's contextual differences. Projects vary in
complexity, uncertainty, and strategic importance, and thus require tailored management
approaches that are responsive to their unique demands.
Furthermore, the dynamic nature of project objectives—often influenced by changing
stakeholder expectations, technological advancements, and external factors—makes it difficult to
apply a static management framework across all projects. Each project essentially represents a
“moving target,” necessitating adaptive and context-specific planning, execution, and control
mechanisms (Morris & Pinto, 2010). Consequently, a deep understanding of what constitutes a
project, and how its inherent characteristics impact its management, is foundational to
developing robust theoretical and practical approaches to project management.
Management of Projects
Project management as a discipline encompasses the structured application of knowledge, skills,
tools, and techniques to project activities to meet project requirements effectively and efficiently
(PMI, 2021). While its primary goals appear straightforward, completing projects on time, within
budget, and according to specified quality standards—real-world outcomes often diverge
significantly. Projects frequently exceed cost estimates, miss deadlines, and fall short of strategic
or client expectations (Flyvbjerg, 2014). The paradox of well-defined goals and persistent
failures underscores a deeper challenge within project management: the mismatch between
standardized methodologies and the dynamic nature of real-world projects.
Historically, modern project management gained prominence during the Manhattan Project in the
1940s, which necessitated unprecedented coordination of resources, timelines, and personnel
(Morris, 1994). However, tools and concepts central to project management, such as scheduling
charts, predate this era. For instance, Henry Gantt’s development of the bar chart in 1916
significantly influenced planning practices (Wilson, 2003), although similar tools were
reportedly used even earlier by Swiss engineer Hermann Schürch in 1912 for bridge
construction. These historical accounts suggest that foundational project management tools were
in use decades before the discipline gained formal recognition, implying a longer evolutionary
trajectory than commonly acknowledged.
Some scholars argue that project management principles can be traced back to ancient large-scale
undertakings such as the construction of the Egyptian pyramids around 2550 BCE. These
projects featured elements akin to modern methodologies, including hierarchical planning,
resource allocation, and lifecycle approaches (Wideman, 2001). Despite this ancient lineage,
project management remains a relatively young academic discipline, often critiqued for its
underdeveloped theoretical foundations and over-reliance on practice-based heuristics (Koskela
& Howell, 2002).
One of the persistent challenges in the management of projects is the inadequacy of universal
methodologies to address contextual differences. The PMBOK® Guide (2000) itself
acknowledges that its methodologies are applicable to “most projects most of the time,” thereby
conceding their limitations. This admission gives rise to critical questions regarding
methodological adaptability—namely, what methods should be applied under what
circumstances, and why? Surprisingly, such fundamental questions remain largely unresolved in
both theory and practice (Bredillet, 2004).
Moreover, projects are inherently complex and exposed to a wide range of uncertainties, which
distinguishes them from routine operations. Unlike operational work, project tasks require
custom planning and adaptive execution strategies, demanding more from project teams in terms
of strategic thinking and problem-solving (Turner, 2009). When standardized methodologies are
applied rigidly, without sensitivity to project-specific variables such as scope, complexity,
stakeholder influence, and risk levels, the likelihood of failure increases.
In this context, project management methodologies must not be viewed as one-size-fits-all
solutions. Instead, their value lies in their adaptability to the unique characteristics of each
project. The effectiveness of a project management approach is contingent on its contextual
relevance and the capability of practitioners to tailor it accordingly (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007).
Thus, two critical conclusions emerge: either project management practices are often misapplied
due to inadequate customization, or the methodologies themselves are insufficiently robust to
influence project outcomes consistently. In either case, there is a clear need for a more nuanced
and theory-informed approach to the management of projects.

Project Success
The aim of implementing project management methodologies is to enhance consistency in
project success; however, the field remains challenged by the absence of a universally accepted
definition of what constitutes project success. This definitional ambiguity presents a significant
complication for researchers and practitioners alike, as success is frequently measured by
differing and sometimes conflicting criteria (Müller & Turner, 2007). While traditional project
management paradigms tend to measure success through the so-called "iron triangle" of time,
cost, and quality, such metrics often fall short in capturing the broader value or impact a project
delivers (Atkinson, 1999). In practice, it is not uncommon for projects to fail on one or more of
these metrics and still be considered successful by stakeholders, especially when business
objectives or strategic benefits are realized post-completion.
The literature offers diverging views on the factors that contribute to project success. Munns and
Bjeirmi (1996) emphasize that although project management plays a vital role, several critical
success factors fall outside its direct control. These may include external environmental
influences, market conditions, organizational politics, and sponsor involvement. Similarly, Peters
and Horner (1997) argue that the constructions of time, cost, and quality should not be treated as
absolute measures of success, but rather as context-dependent expectations that are frequently
subjective or externally imposed. They posit that these metrics can act as constraints or traps,
which obscure more nuanced outcomes such as stakeholder satisfaction or long-term impact.
Further extending this argument, Dvir, Raz, and Shenhar (2006) note that projects that meet
traditional constraints may still fail to satisfy user requirements or business goals. Conversely,
some projects that overrun budgets or deadlines are nonetheless deemed successful due to the
value they ultimately deliver. This discrepancy between conventional metrics and actual
stakeholder satisfaction challenges the relevance of rigid performance frameworks in dynamic
project environments. In response, Baccarini (1999) proposes a bifurcated model distinguishing
between project management success (i.e., adherence to time, cost, and quality constraints) and
product success (i.e., achievement of broader objectives). He asserts that true project success can
only be realized through the integration of both dimensions.
Lim and Mohamed (1999) further elaborate on this dual perspective by introducing the concepts
of micro and macro views of project success. The micro perspective evaluates success at the
point of project completion, focusing on execution and process efficiency. In contrast, the macro
perspective assesses the project’s performance based on long-term outcomes and stakeholder
satisfaction, extending the temporal scope of evaluation beyond project closure. This echoes De
Wit’s (1988) earlier conceptual differentiation between project management success and project
success, in which the latter is judged based on the achievement of the project’s strategic
objectives rather than mere technical delivery.
The experience and competence of the project manager are also shown to be critical factors
influencing success outcomes. Empirical studies suggest a positive correlation between
managerial experience and project performance (Turner & Müller, 2005), reinforcing the idea
that human capabilities remain central in navigating complexity and uncertainty. Nevertheless,
the literature reveals ongoing disagreement about how success should be defined, who should
define it, and at what point it should be evaluated. This unresolved discourse highlights the
evolving nature of success criteria and suggests that a more holistic and context-sensitive
framework is needed to effectively evaluate the performance of projects in diverse industries,
particularly in complex sectors such as construction.