a practical use of key success factors to improve the effectiveness of project management

A practical use of key successfactors to improve the e�ectivenessof project management

Angela ClarkeWarwick Manufacturing Group, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK

In a world where change is becoming increasingly important, tools such as project management,if used properly, can provide a useful way for organisations to manage that change e�ectively.Whilst there is a clear understanding of the need to achieve the required cost, time and qualityobjectives, surprisingly little is published on how these objectives can practically be met. Further-more, many of the major issues and problems concerning project management in practice candetract from the main objectives of the project.

This paper aims to show how, by focusing on number of key success factors, such problemscan be overcome or minimised. The problems addressed here are based on observations from anaerospace engineering company. However, they are typical of those seen in a variety of organis-ations who use project management for managing change. # 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd andIPMA. All rights reserved

Introduction

The process of change can be very disruptive and pain-

ful for organisations.1 More and more companies are

beginning to understand the bene®ts that can be de-

rived from using project management tools and meth-

odologies2 to help drive large scale planned change.

Nevertheless, there is a need to avoid becoming pre-

occupied with project management and seeing it as the

end goal. Project management is merely a tool to help

the process of change. When used correctly, however,

it can o�er the opportunity to shift through various

distractions to focus on the critical issues.3

As with many tasks, the management of a large pro-

ject involves the planning, organisation and control of

a large number of complex factors, activities and their

interrelations.4 Figure 1 illustrates some of them.

Managing them simultaneously and giving them all

equal attention is virtually impossible. However, by

adopting the Pareto rule of separating out the ``im-

portant few from the trivial many'' to focus attention

on the key factors, success is more likely.5

Use of project management for managing change

Numerous organisations report on the advantages ofusing project management.6, 7 It has provided a soundbasis for change management over the last decadeÐfor example, in the integration and re-organisation ofmajor businesses and for developing new initiativesbetween a company, its customers, suppliers and part-ners. Even so, there are opportunities for making it amore e�ective tool. Many organisations will admit tohaving problems or issues that limit their use of pro-ject management for managing change.8±11 By under-standing these issues and working to eliminate orminimise the problems associated with them, it may bepossible to improve the e�ectiveness of project man-agement.There is evidence in the literature to support the

existence of critical or key success factors for projectmanagement. For example, Pinto and Slevin's ®nd-ings12 concluded that 10 factors were critical to thesuccess of R&D projects. There is, however, littleadvice on how such key success factors can be used tohelp alleviate the many problems that occur with pro-ject management in practice.This paper aims to investigate how a number of key

success factors, identi®ed in a previous study,* can beapplied to `problem' areas in project management.

Identi®cation of key success factors

From the study,13 which investigated change projectsbeing undertaken by a variety of organisations, four

International Journal of Project Management Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 139±145, 1999# 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd and IPMA. All rights reserved

Printed in Great Britain0263-7863/98 $19.00+0.00

PII: S0263-7863(98)00031-3

*The survey was carried out on a number of Teaching Companiesinvolved in change. The Teaching Company Scheme was establishedin the UK in 1975 to bridge the gap between industry and academia.The overriding goal of all Teaching Companies is to improve com-pany performance. A paper entitled Key Success Factors in theProject Management of Change outlines the survey. It is availablefrom the Teaching Company on 01367 242822.

139

factors were identi®ed as critical to the success of theseprojects:

. Communication throughout the project

. Clear objectives and scope

. Breaking the project into `bite sized chunks'

. Using project plans as working documents.

Communication throughout the project

The importance of communication in organisations, inparticular its in¯uence on the acceptance of anythingnew, is well documented.14 It can occur within an or-ganisation in a number of ways, playing a vital role inin¯uencing not only those immediately involved in thechange, but also those across the whole organisationwho may be a�ected.Ironically, though, it is also regarded as one of the

most neglected parts of corporate operations.14, 15 Lackof communication has been cited as the biggest reasonfor the failure of many change projects to meet theirexpectations.16, 17 Having a better understanding of thebene®ts and limitations of each of the main methodsfor communication (see Figure 2) is a ®rst step toachieving more e�ective communication within an or-ganisation.16

There are many reasons why communication isnecessary for the successful management of a changeproject. These range from ensuring an increased under-standing to eliminating waste and motivating thoseinvolved in the change.Successful communication needs to be focused

rather than broad-brush18 and timing is of crucial im-portance.19 Used e�ectively, it can reduce non-pro-ductive e�ort, avoid duplication and help eliminatemistakes.20 It can help to manage uncertainty,21 maylead to problems being identi®ed sooner22 or may gen-erate ideas that lead to better solutions.22

Furthermore, it will encourage team-work, increasemotivation and ensure the involvement of all keyplayers.23 The end result will be a project which ismore likely to meet its objectives within the allocatedtime and resources.

Clear objectives and scope

The importance of having clear objectivesÐincludingdeliverablesÐand scope in project management issometimes overlooked.24, 25 For example, some of the

early problems in the Rover/Honda collaborationoccurred because they had clear objectives but an ill-de®ned scope.26 ``Scope and objectives are the guidingprinciples that direct the e�orts of the project team''27

and ``they will determine a project's success or fail-ure.''28

Although objectives and scope as often regarded asseparate entities (because one is concerned with theoutcomes of the project and the other is concernedwith the limits of the project), there is good reason forgrouping them together. Without a well-de®ned scope,the project objectives can become fuzzy and peoplemay start to lose sight of what they are trying toachieve.29

De®nition and agreement of objectives must includea common understanding by all people involved.30 Theproject will become goal and results-oriented, ratherthan activity-based.26 Having a few key objectivesfocuses the team on the target and creates commitmentand agreement about the project goals.27, 31 The resultis that the progress of a project can be monitorede�ectively. Ultimately, its success will be measuredmore easily because the objectives are clearly stated atthe outset of the project.If the scope is de®ned at the start of the project, the

project should stay within its intended boundaries andnot expand to include more than originally planned.17

If not, mission creep occurs, i.e. the project boundariesextend beyond the intended limits.32 A well-de®nedscope means also that there is less likelihood of a vitalpart of the project being missed.

`Bite sized chunks'

Breaking large projects down into sub-projects orwork packages is regarded as one of the most import-ant tasks in new or development projects.33, 34 Itensures greater ownership by all those owning a`chunk' of the project, spreading responsibilities andaccountability across a greater number of people.Furthermore, it is easier to manage in a number ofways: delegating responsibilities to the project team,monitoring against the objectives, communicating pro-gress of the project, identifying problems upfront andmaking modi®cations to the project (changes maya�ect only one work package rather than the wholeproject). However, care must be taken not to have too

Figure 1 Some factors to consider in project management

Figure 2 Principal methods for organisational communi-cation (from Oakland, 1989)

Factors improving project management: A. Clarke

140

many work packages which then make the projectunmanageable.

Using the project plans as dynamic documents

Project requirements may change drastically through-out the life of a projectÐ``no project ever goes 100%according to plan''.27 This is particularly true forchange projects which involve `people' issues.Caparelli1 talks about the process of change being dis-ruptive, di�cult and uncomfortable. Consequently,people need to be involved in the change and aware ofwhat is happening in the project, to be able to acceptit readily.In order to ensure that a project is completed suc-

cessfully, project plans need to be updated regularly.However, if they are too detailed, every time someaspect of the project changes, the plans will need to beupdated to re¯ect that changeÐeven though the out-comes or objectives may be una�ected. Updating pro-ject plans then becomes time-consuming andine�ective. As a result, they are often abandoned andbecome `dust-collectors'.35 Keeping the plans simple,with the right level of detail, can encourage a projectto be reviewed regularly and easily. This makes themuseful communication tools and e�ective monitoringdevices for the project.

Inter-relationship of the key success factors in projectmanagement

None of the key success factors described are respon-sible, on their own, for ensuring a project's successÐthey are all inter-dependent and a require a holisticapproach to be taken.3 This, in turn, needs an under-standing of the whole system and how all the parts ofthe system ®t together.36 For example, a dynamic pro-ject plan serves as a good communication tool andhaving clear objectives and scope make the process ofcommunicating progress much easier. ``Groups of suc-cess factors and their interactions are of prime import-ance in determining a project's success or failure.''37

Consequently, although it is important to know andrecognise individually each of the key success factorsdriving a project, they should not be considered inde-pendently of one another.

Applying the key success factors to problems inproject management

Having established the existence of key success factors,the next stage is to look at how they might help com-panies using project management to do so more e�ec-tively. Although the examples used here are from anaerospace engineering company who have been usingproject management for a number of years, many ofthe examples described, are common to a number oforganisations.38±40 Targeting the main problems andissues using the key success factors as a focus couldmake a signi®cant di�erence to the e�ectiveness ofproject management.

Problem 1: Striving for `standardisation'

There are a number of reasons why an organisation(particularly a multi-site organisation) would aim to

standardise: It sets out what the organisation regardsas best practice. It can improve inter-site communi-cation, ensuring that everyone is talking the `samelanguage' in project management.41 It also minimisesduplication of e�ort and waste,42 for example, by hav-ing common resources, documentation and training.However, in an e�ort to create some degree of stan-

dardisation across an organisation, project manage-ment approaches used can often end up being veryprescriptiveÐbased on a series of checklists, guidelinesand mandatory reporting forms. Furthermore, in try-ing to create a common standard across the company,no allowance is made for local or cultural variationswhich, in a multi-national, multi-cultural company canbe substantial. Some sites may have no clear idea ofhow their performance relates to the `standard'. In ad-dition, some may have had a greater exposure and alonger history of project management than others. Forthose with little experience or skills in project manage-ment, having to adopt a corporate standard is a daunt-ing prospect.

SolutionÐfocus on key success factors as a ®rst stageto standardisation. Based on the Pareto rule of concen-trating on the few things which deliver the greatestbene®ts, it may be more useful for those parts of theorganisation who are furthest from achieving the `stan-dard' to focus their improvements on the key successfactors (see Figure 3).They should ensure that improvements concentrate

on achieving good communication, clear objectivesand scope, breaking the project into `bite sized chunks'and using the plans as dynamic documents. Then, asthe business becomes more experienced and developsmore project management skills, it can work towardsachieving the standard or `best practice'.

SolutionÐdevelop an auditing tool for project man-agement. Traditionally, the measurement of the successof a project is expressed in terms of meeting its objec-tives within an agreed timescale and budget.43

Although this is the most important measure of a pro-ject's success, there are also bene®ts to be gained frommeasuring the e�ectiveness of project management as atool for achieving that success.The development of a simple tool to audit against

the standard would ful®l this need.44 It would allow abusiness to measure itself against best practice, againstother parts of the organisation and also identify areasfor improvement. In addition, `pockets' of good prac-tice in project management across the organisationcould be identi®ed, providing an opportunity for cor-porate learning to take place.

Problem 2: Perceived return from project managementis poor

In some organisations, project management has areputation for using considerable time and resource tomanage. The perceived bene®ts from investing in themanagement of this system are minimalÐi.e. the ben-e®ts have not yet been fully recognised within the or-ganisation. There are two aspects to this problemÐone is concerned with the need to educate peopleacross the whole organisation on the potential bene®ts


141

of e�ective project management.45 The second is thatthe actual bene®ts are not made visible.

Solution: increase awareness of both perceived andactual bene®ts. One way in which this can be improvedis by increasing awareness of the bene®ts of good pro-ject management. This can be carried out throughmore e�ective communication:45, 46

. communication of the potential bene®ts of projectmanagement, for example, through awareness cam-paigns, so that people's perception changes of whatcan be achieved.

. communication by example, to improve visibility ofthe actual bene®ts. This could be done by publicis-ing parts of the organisation in which project man-agement has been successful, looking at the reasonsbehind their successes or by translating the bene®tsinto measures that everyone in the organisation canunderstand. For example, Hewlett Packard convertproject bene®ts into cash ¯ow because it is ameasure that everyone in the company is familiarwith.47

. showing results quickly from the projects. This isbelieved to be one of the best motivators forchange.48 If people can see that using a structuredproject management methodology to manage changedelivers signi®cant bene®ts, then they will be moreinclined to use that methodology.

. focusing on the important issues in project manage-ment rather than taking a blanket approach to com-munication. This ensures that people are not`overloaded' with information on project manage-ment. The bene®ts become diluted if every aspect ofproject management is reported rather than thosewhich make most di�erence.

Problem 3: Project management is regarded as a`corporate reporting' tool

In many organisations, the project management meth-odology is regarded as a corporate reporting toolrather than a useful system that the various parts ofthe organisation can use to help themselves. Oftenthere is little or no feedback from headquarters and noinformation is supplied on the progress of projects atother sites.

Solution: improve information ¯ows throughout theorganisation. Two-way information ¯ows need to beimproved, through a better sharing of informationbetween the sites and from headquarters to site46 (seeFigure 4). Whilst there is a need to retain con®dential-ity of some information at a strategic level, much of itcould be declassi®ed and disseminated to a wider audi-ence. Many organisations have taken the view thatmaking strategic information available to everyone inthe organisation produces a more motivated and betterinformed work-force.Companies, such as the UK Post O�ce, produce

corporate information (including details of plannedand existing change) in a format that can be easilyunderstood company-wide. They actively encouragefeedback of this information.49 A knock on e�ect ofthis increased awareness is an improvement in corpor-ate learning, through the sharing of information andgood practices.

Problem 4: Inadequate formal completion of changeprojects

Initially with change projects, there is usually a highlevel of commitment, shown through resourcing for

Figure 3 Working towards a corporate standard


142

the project. However, this high initial level of commit-ment to the project can disappear as the project pro-gresses. Inadequate planning or poor resourcing meanthat it can end up behind schedule and with unfore-seen slippage of milestones.50 As a result, many of theimportant elements of the project are implementedeither badly or not at all. One of the biggest problemsis that the importance of the ®nal stages of a projectare not communicated to people involved in the pro-ject, including those involved in making decisions.Figure 5 summarises the four main stages in a

change project and the level of e�ort required at eachstage to ensure successful change.51 Although the over-lap between each stages varies from project to project,it illustrates the importance of the latter stages in theoverall project.The sustainment stage of the project includes having

a formal `completion' for the project. If this is not car-ried out, then much of the e�ort put into the otherstages in the project may be wasted.

Solution: communicate the importance of the ®nalstages in a project. Communicating the importance ofthe ®nal stages in a project may be achieved in a num-ber of ways, including through example.7, 46 This mayinvolve learning from parts of the organisation orother businesses who have a reputation for completingprojects successfully, and where the changes havebecome institutionalised.52

Problem 5: Project overload syndrome

In many organisations project overload syndrome canoccur, caused by having too many large change pro-jects running at any one time. This results in resourcecon¯icts (particularly if the resource pool for changeprojects is already limited), delays in the completion ofthe project and a general weariness of change acrossthe organisation.This problem has been recognised in some organis-

ations and the resulting action has been to reduce thenumber of change projects being undertaken at onetime. However, many of these projects, such as

Business Process Re-engineering, tend to be very largeand the number of sub-projects associated with eachof these projects is high. Consequently, the resourcerequirements for even one large project can becomeunmanageable, and many of the sub-projects end upunder-resourced with the same problems as before.

Solution: de®ne the `bite sized chunks' at the outset ofthe project. The long term solution to this is either tolimit the number of projects further or to increase theresource pool, so that the project tasks can be carriedout properly.53 The problem can also be reduced byhaving a greater awareness of the true resourcerequirements for each project. Breaking the large pro-

Figure 4 Communication ¯ows

Figure 5 Main stages in a project


143

jects down into `bite sized chunks' at the outset mayallow a better estimate to be made of the time and theresource requirement to manage the projects e�ectivelyand can help identify in advance any potential resourcecon¯icts.

Problem 6: Cultural and individual issues

The counter-productive e�ects of individualism withinorganisations has long been recognised. This is largelycaused by individual sites within a multi-site organis-ation wishing to retain their own identity and dothings `their way' rather than conform to an imposedstandard.54 Also, people within the sites (sometimes ata very senior level) are often unwilling to conform toan imposed standard. This is usually a direct con¯ictwith the corporate need for process integration andstandardisation.

Solution: build on individualism through e�ective com-munication. Rather than trying to impose a corporateculture, there are a number of ways in which individu-alism can be managed and its e�ects harnessed.55 Thiscan be done through the encouragement of employeeparticipation, rede®ning group boundaries and lever-aging the strengths of the national and corporate cul-ture.54 These build on, rather than break theindividualism within the organisation, with one com-mon factorÐthey all require e�ective communicationto work.

Problem 7: Motivation

People often do not see project management as some-thing to help them but rather something which is man-datory, serving little useful purpose.56 Previous historyof problems, a weariness of change and lack of com-mitment have all contributed to a general lack of mo-tivation to be a part of the change.

Proposed solution: build con®dence through bettercommunication. One of the biggest ways to motivatepeople and make them more con®dent of what can beachieved, is through more e�ective communication.15, 57

This may be done by adopting a focused communi-cation strategy and using a variety of methods to com-municate.7 As people become better informed andmore aware of what is happening in their organisation,they will become more involved and committed towhat is happening, and as a consequence become bet-ter motivated.One of the most successful ways of communication

for motivating people is to lead by example.7 If thosein senior positions within the organisation use projectmanagement practices and methodologies inherently,then these practices and ways of working will becomemore readily accepted across the organisation aspeople begin to accept that behaviour as the norm.

Summary

There are a number of approaches, methods and ac-tivities which organisations can adopt to improve theire�ectiveness in project management. All of the sugges-tions made here relate in some way to key success fac-tors identi®ed as drivers for successful project

management on the basis that focusing on the `import-ant few' will deliver greater bene®t. However, it is rec-ommended that a holistic approach to projectmanagement is taken, looking overall at project man-agement and the main problems and issues associatedwith its use. Then, applying the Pareto principle ofusing the key success factors to provide solutions tothese problems will help ensure more e�ective projectmanagement.

References1. Caparelli, D., Leading the company through the chokepoints of

change. Information Strategy: the Executive's Journal,, 1991,12(3), 36±44.

2. Pinto, J. and Kharbanda, D. P., How to fail in project manage-ment (without really trying). Business Horizons, 1996, 39(4), 45±53.

3. King, I., The road to continuous improvement: BPR and pro-ject management. IIE Solutions, Oct. 1996.

4. Lock, D., Project Management, 6th Edition. Gower, 1996.5. Morris, C., Quantitative Approaches in Business Studies. Pitman

Publishing, 4th Edition, 1996.6. Peattie, K., The teaching company scheme: e�ecting organiz-

ational change through academic/practitioner collaboration.Journal of Management Development, 1993, 12(4), 59±72.

7. Oakland, J., Total Quality Management. ButterworthHeinemann, 1989.

8. Newman, M. and Saberwal, R., Determinants of commitmentto information systems development: a longitudinal investi-gation. MIS Quarterly, 1996, 20(1), 23±24.

9. Clarke, J., Corporate Change. Accountancy Ireland, 1997, 29(2),10±14.

10. Kahn, W. A., Facilitating and undermining organizationalchange: a case study. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science,1993, 29(1), 32±55.

11. Burke, D., Project Management, Planning and Control, 2ndEdition, 1994.

12. Pinto, J. K. and Slevin, D. P., Critical success factors in R&Dprojects. Research Technology Management, 1989, 32(1), 31±33.

13. Clarke, A., The key success factors in project management.Proceedings of a Teaching Company Seminar, London,December 1995.

14. Dieckmann, M., Making new technology investments pay o�.Managing O�ce Technology, 1996, 41(7), 11±14.

15. Toney, F. and Powers, R., Best practices of project manage-ment groups in large functional organizations. ProjectManagement Journal, 1997, 33.

16. Pardu, W., Managing change in a project environment. CMAMagazine, May 1996, 6.

17. Orr, A. J. and McKenzie, P., Programme and project manage-ment in BT. British Telecommunications Engineering, Jan. 1992,10.

18. Feiner, A. and Howard, K. A., An overview of quality and pro-ject management processes at AT&T. AT&T Technical Journal,May/Jun. 1992.

19. Meredith, J. and Mantel, S. J., Project Management: AManagerial Approach, Wiley and Sons, 1995.

20. Beavers, D., Communication breakdown. Supply Management,1997, 2(12), 34±35.

21. Lanfer, A., Kusek, J. and Cohenca-Zall, D., Taking the stingout of project surprises. Optimum, 1997, 27(3), 1±7.

22. Dahle, S., Something to talk about. CIO, 1997, 10(18), 30±33.23. Gannon, A., Project management: an approach to accomplish-

ing things. Records Management Quarterly, July 1994, 28(3).24. Neal, R. A., The soft systems approach. International Journal

of Project Management, 1995, 13(1), 5±9.25. Reiss, G., Project Management Demysti®ed: Today's Tools and

Techniques, Chapman and Hall, 1994.26. Schill, R. L., Bertodo, R. G. and McArthur, D. N., Achieving

success in technology alliances: the Rover±Honda strategic col-laboration. R&D Management, 1993, 24(3), 261±277.

27. Randolph, W. A. and Posner, B. Z., E�ective Project Planningand Management, Prentice Hall International, 1994.

28. Ward, J. A., Project pitfalls. Information Systems Management,1995, 12(1), 74±76.

29. LaPlante, A., Scope grope. Computerworld, 1995, 29(12), 81±84.


144

30. Bentley, D. and Ra�erty, G., Project management: keys to suc-cess. Civil Engineering, April 1992.

31. Richardson, T., Project management pitfalls. BusinessCommunications Review, 1995, 25(8), 49.

32. Lexington: Hello world, Economist, Nov. 1996, 341(7992), 30.33. Lewis, R., Take the `big' out of big projects: break them into

manageable chunks. InfoWorld, 1996, 18(20), 24.34. Bates, W. S., Strong leadership crucial. Computing Canada,

Oct. 1994, 20(22).35. Gilbreath, R. D., Winning at Project Management: What

Works, What Fails and Why, John Wiley and Sons, 1986.36. Keane, J.F., A holistic view of project management. Systems

Management 3X/400, 1996, 24(6), 58-61.37. Belassi, W. and Tukel, O. I., A new framework for determining

critical success/failure factors in projects. International Journalof Project Management, 1996, 14(3), 141±151.

38. The Roots of Bad Management, Civil Engineering, Jan. 1997,67(1), 12±14.

39. Conroy, G., Managing information and systems risks.Chartered Accounts Journal of New Zealand, 1996, 75(5), 6±9.

40. Phan, D., Vogel, D. and Nunamaker, J., The search for perfectproject management. Computerworld, 1988, 22(39), 95±100.

41. Tangible Bene®ts Drive the Move to Standardization, PEM:Plant Engineering and Maintenance, April 1994, 17(2), 2.

42. Avery, S., Standardizing on controls melts `Iceberg' costs atKodak. Purchasing, 1996, 120(3), 44±46.

43. Arora, M. L., Project management: one step beyond. CivilEngineering, 1995, 65(10), 66±68.

44. Applegate, D. B., Bergman, L. G. and Didis, S. K., Measuringsuccess. Internal Auditor, 1997, 54(2), 62±67.

45. Cox, J. P., Waking a sleeping giantÐthe planning for successof a large project process at a large urban teaching hospital.IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 1993, 36(1),20±23.

46. Aitkin, A., Vision only works if communicated. PeopleManagement, 1995, 1(25), 28±29.

47. Ingoldsby, T., Time waits for no man(ufacturer). Systems,1991, 4±20.

48. Dauphinais, W., When bad things happen to good projects.Across the Board, Nov/Dec. 1995, 46±50.

49. Jackson, S., Re-engineering the Post O�ce. New TechnologyWork and Employment, 1995, 10(2), 142±146.

50. Rakos, J., The multiproject problem. Computing Canada, 1992,18(13), 22.

51. Society of British Aerospace (SBAC) Report entitled Best prac-tice business process re-engineering. DTI Publication, Oct. 1995.

52. Powers, V. J., Benchmarking study illustrates how best in classachieve alignment, communicate change. Communication World,Dec. 1996/Jan. 1997, 14(1), 30±33.

53. Garner, R., Captain of Crunch. Computerworld, 1997, 31(40),81±82.

54. Baba, M. L., Falkenburg, D. R. and Hill, D. H., Technologymanagement and American culture: implications for businessprocess redesign. Research-Technology Management, 1996,39(6), 44±54.

55. Pinto, J. K., The power of project management. Industry Week,1997, 246(15), 138±140.

56. Wojciak, P. J., Don't force changeÐfacilitate it!. MaterielManagement Quarterly, 1997, 19(1), 26±30.

57. Larkin, T. J. and Larkin, S., Reaching and changing frontlineemployees. Harvard Business Review, 1996, 74(3).

Angela Clarke is a ResearchEngineer with WarwickManufacturing Group, based atWarwick University. She is cur-rently completing an EPSRC-spon-sored doctorate in EngineeringBusiness Management. With abackground in aerospace engineer-ing, she is able to o�er a practicaland pragmatic approach to herresearch. She has worked with anumber of companies and researchteams investigating various aspectsof change management, includingthe use of tools such as project man-agement for facilitating change.


145

a practical use of key success factors to improve the effectiveness of project management

Documents