This paper reports the results of a project management practices study in the U.K. social housing sector. A five-factor model of project priorities is established, comprising traditional measures of project cost, time, and quality, in combination with a need to focus on stakeholders and to develop a customer and project team orientation. This model supports and integrates previously fragmented notions of project performance measurement. The relationship between these five project management criteria and the effectiveness and use of a performance management system (PMS) is then explored, with some limited evidence found that PMS effectiveness is an antecedent to practices that focus on the customer, the project team members, and other stakeholders
AtkinsonR. (1999). Project management: Cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 337–343.
2.
BeloutA., & GauvreauC. (2004). Factors influencing project success: The impact of human resource management. International Journal of Project Management, 22(1), 1–11.
3.
BoehmB.W., & RossR. (1989). Theory-W software project management: Principles and examples. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 15(7), 902–916.
4.
BourneM., MillsJ., WilcoxM., NeelyA., & PlattsK. (2000). Designing, implementing and updating performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 20(7), 754–771.
5.
BrydeD. J. (2005). Methods for managing different perspectives of project success. British Journal of Management, 16(2), 119–131.
6.
ChanA. P. C., ChanD.W. M., & HoK. S. K. (2003). Partnering in construction: Critical study of problems for implementation. Journal of Management in Engineering, 19(3), 126–135.
DaiC. X., & WellsW. G. (2004). An exploration of project management office features and their relationship to project performance. International Journal of Project Management, 24(7), 622–634.
9.
DeWitA. (1988). Measurement of project management success. International Journal of Project Management, 6(3), 164–170.
10.
EganJ. (1998). Rethinking construction.London: Department of the Environments Transport and the Regions, HMSO.
11.
FullertonR. R., McWattersC. S., & FawsonC. (2003). An examination of the relationships between JIT and financial performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(4), 383–404.
12.
GardinerP. D., & StewartK. (2000). Revisiting the golden triangle of cost, time and quality: the role of NPV in project control, success and failure. International Journal of Project Management, 18(4), 251–256.
13.
GhalayiniA. G., & NobleJ. S. (1996). The changing basis of performance measurement. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 16(8), 63–80.
14.
HainesV. Y.III, St-OngeS., & MarcouxA. (2004). Performance management design and effectiveness in quality-driven organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 21(2), 146–161.
15.
HairJ. F., AndersonR. E., TathamR. L., & BlackW. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
16.
HendricksK. B., & SinghalV. R. (2001). Firm characteristics, total quality management and financial performance. Journal of Operations Management, 19, 269–285.
17.
KaplanR. S., & NortonD. P. (1992). The balanced scorecard—Measures that drive performance. Harvard Business Review, 40(1), 7–9.
KaynakH. (2003). The relationship between total quality management practices and their effects on firm performance. Journal of Operations Management, 21(4), 405–435.
20.
MaylorH. (2001). Beyond the Gantt chart: Project management moving on. European Management Journal, 19(1), 92–100.
21.
McKoneK. E., SchroederR. G., & CuaK. O. (2001). The impact of total productive maintenance practices on manufacturing performance. Journal of Operations Management, 19(1), 39–58.
22.
NeelyA., AdamsC., & CroweP. (2001). The performance prism in practice. Measuring Business Excellence, 5(2), 6–14.
23.
NgS. T., RoseT. M., MakM., & ChenS. E. (2002). Problematic issues with project partnering—The contractor perspective. International Journal of Project Management, 20(6), 437–449.
24.
PintoJ. K., & PintoM. B. (1991). Determinants of cross-functional cooperation in the project implementation process. Project Management Journal, 20(4), 13–20.
25.
PockT., WestlundA., & FahrniF. (2004). Gaining bilateral benefit through holistic performance management. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 15(5/6), 557–567.
26.
ShenharA. J., DvirD., LevyO., & MaltzA. C. (2001). Project success: A multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Planning, 34, 699–725.
27.
ShiehH.-M., & WuK.-Y. (2002). The relationship between total quality management and project performance in building planning phase: An empirical study of real estate industries in Taiwan. Total Quality Management, 13(1), 133–151.
28.
SoltaniE., van der MeerR., & WilliamsT. M. (2005). A contrast of HRM and TQM approaches to performance management: Some evidence. British Journal of Management, 16(3), 211–230.
29.
TerziovskiM., & SamsonD. (1999). The link between total quality management practice and organizational performance. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 16(3), 226–237.
30.
ThompsonR. L., SmithH. J., & IacovouC. L. (2007). The linkage between reporting quality and performance in IS projects. Information & Management, 44(2), 196–205.
31.
TukelO. I., & RomW. O. (2001). An empirical investigation of project evaluation criteria. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(3), 400–416.
32.
TumanJ. (1993). Models for achieving success through team-building and stakeholder management (DinsmoreP. G., Ed.). New York: AMACOM.
33.
WhiteD., & FortuneJ. (2002). Current practice in project management—An empirical study. International Journal of Project Management, 20(1), 1–11.
