Junta de Reforma Municipal

Even though there is no consensus on how to define project success (Bredillet, 2008; Müller &

Jugdev, 2012), factors do exist that contribute to attaining defined criteria. Studies have been conducted to identify project success factors (Baccarini, 1999; Fortune & White, 2006; Pinto &

Slevin, 1987) of which are identified leading up to the handover or delivery stage. Prior to this stage, it is less attached to project management success (Cooke-Davies, 2002; Ika, 2009; Munns &

Bjeirmi, 1996).

Previous reviews on success criteria have shown two different stages during the post-handover period: (i) outcome; and (ii) impact. At the impact phase, project outputs are expected to demonstrate their ‘real’ contributions to achieving strategic objectives (Cooke-Davies, 2002). A number of factors influences these contributions. As discussed earlier, a number of studies have been conducted to identify critical success factors at the post-handover stage.

A review of studies conducted in the area of success factors at the post-handover stage identified several points, the most common being senior or top management responsibility and support. A meta-analysis study by Paul (1995) identified senior management responsibility as the key factor.

His study on total quality management demonstrated an urgent need to maintain quality throughout the process. This maintainability can be realised by improving the link between key performance indicators (KPIs), business plan and objectives. Paul’s study also suggested that it is the

responsibility of senior management to ensure that business plans and organisational strategic objectives are well translated into KPIs at the initiation stage. By doing this, a link can be formed and evaluated.

Moreover, by translating the plan and objectives in KPIs, success factors at the post-handover stage can be identified, which is made possible by comparing the plan and its actual realisation. Both successful and unsuccessful achievements can be identified regarding factors that have contributed to the end result. In other words, internal factors contribute to the success criteria, as illustrated in Figure 2.4. However, these criteria can differ from those identified at the handover stage due to factors that are not included in the implementation stage.

This thesis shares a similar perspective to the study earlier on senior management responsibility.

One responsibility is to ensure KPIs of an ID project align with the strategic objectives of project recipients or beneficiaries. Nevertheless, this research needs to specify success factors at the impact phase of the post-handover stage of an ID project, therefore, Paul’s (1995) study is considered limited in specifying these factors.

In terms of senior or top management support and responsibility, this thesis also reviews a study from Dong et al. (2009) that emphasised the use of a qualitative approach to reveal success factors at the post-handover stage, namely, support from top management is crucial. These supports consist of a need to provide resource, to consider change management, and to allow for vision-sharing.

This thesis values the study by Dong et al. (2009) because it identified success factors at the post-handover stage, as well as, importantly, the use of a qualitative method, which is used in this research to define success factors. However, this thesis aims to identify these factors specifically at the impact phase from an ID project perspective. These two reasons lead the basic differences from previous studies, particularly the Dong et al. study.

Other identified success factors at the post-handover stage include portfolio and program management, a line of sight feedback, and learning from experience. These success factors were covered by the Cook-Davies (2002) study, which included two of these factors: (i) portfolio; and (ii) program management, as well as learning from experience, all perceived to be relevant to this thesis. This thesis perceives that a project, including an ID project, is a part of an organisation’s portfolio. Managing portfolios and programs allows an organisation to realise project output benefits at the impact phase. This ability can also demonstrate the level of an organisation’s experience and expertise in managing additional resources.

Unfortunately, the Cooke-Davies study only mentions an implicit post-handover stage that includes

is essential. This thesis anticipates a lack of capability of former project recipients after an ID project ended. These recipients should be able to sustain output benefits for the longer term.

In terms of the level of experience, newly-introduced outputs should allow users to be well trained and educated. This thesis relates an identified factor – learning from experience – to other factors, namely, training and education that should also be a part of an organisation’s learning process. A well-established organisation should have gained experience in the learning process, especially associated with training and education programs to ensure the adoption and adaptation of any newly-developed system, for example, standard operating procedures (SOPs) or a finance IS. By utilising post-implementation enterprise resource planning, Ram et al. (2013) pointed out that training and education, as well as system integration, are key factors at the post-handover stage.

Scheers et al.’s (2005) quantitative study also emphasised two main points regarding good support of, and cooperation with, central agencies concerned with financial reforms, results-oriented culture and the acknowledgment of the necessity to report cash transactions. Their study suggested the tendency to prioritise financial reporting systems, especially when a project is conducted within a multilevel agency. This type of condition relates to this thesis where an ID project is usually run across the country, but the project had a single-roof reporting system at an appointed ministry.

Importantly, Scheers, et al.’s study (2005) indicated that post-financial reviews play a major role that is certainly relevant to this thesis because an ID project is usually sourced from foreign loans.

The financial performance of key beneficiaries could be the focus of a project sponsor or donor.

This performance includes the increase of financial management capabilities in response to beneficiaries’ business changes. Still, Scheers, et al.’s study only mentioned a post-handover stage where success factors were identified.

All in all, this thesis views organisational support as an essential factor because it covers a total support ecosystem from the lowest to the highest managerial level. An example of a study that demonstrates this factor came from Veiga et al. (2014) who examined the adoption period of users after project outputs were handed over and they became proficient with its procedures. Even though their study was conducted in the banking sector, involving a reasonable number of financial analysts, the focus was on a newly-introduced system. As a new system, they concluded that greater organisational support played a significant role to ensuring a smooth adoption process until users were proficient in understanding its process. In other words, this resulted in a wider context of a critical factor at the post-handover stage. This thesis widely perceives this adoption process as

This thesis views that the identified factor from Veiga et al. (2014) study as a comprehensive perspective. Previous studies have certainly identified senior or top management’s support and responsibilities that can be expressed by supporting training and education programs to ensure a smooth process of adopting and adapting produced outputs, including system integration. However, as suggested by Veiga et al. (2014), this thesis considers that greater organisational support can be viewed as support from an entire organisational structure, that is, from basic managerial support to the most senior managerial level. In other words, organisational support covers a wider range than top management support.

By referring to the studies above, success factors should be able to clearly identify the impact phase once success criteria and factors are identified. Unfortunately, most studies have generalised success factors identified at the post-handover stage (Patanakul & Milosevic, 2009; Ram et al., 2013; Wateridge, 1995). Therefore, this thesis views the need for identifying success factors of an ID project at the impact phase.

To identify success factors of an ID project, a review of extant literature on this area needs to be undertaken. Previous elaborations have indicated specific characteristics of ID projects. This uniqueness can lead to complex factors that could contribute to the achievement of strategic objectives. Factors identified in the following studies are summarised in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 Project success factors for ID projects

Success factors for ID projects

Political, legal, cultural, technical, managerial/organisational, economic, environmental, social, corruption, and physical factors (Kwak, 2002).

Trust and communication (Diallo & Thuillier, 2004, 2005).

Degree and consistency of local leadership, policy characteristics, availability of resources, number of implementing actors, alignment of clients, learning opportunity among implementers and between projects, past experience of implementers, and local environment (Struyk, 2007).

Policy supports of donors and recipient government; adequate institutional competencies, and strong ownership and institutional commitments (Khang & Moe, 2008).

Team building, local environment, implementation approach, learning opportunities, policy

characteristics, availability of resources, and stakeholder/beneficiary satisfaction (Hermano et al., 2013).

These factors were identified by various stakeholders (Diallo & Thuillier, 2004, 2005), mainly at the handover stage. Arguably, Khang and Moe’s (2008) study identified factors at the

post-Reviews in this chapter indicate the absence of clarity in terms of the timeframe for identified success factors, resulting in vague context of ID projects, considering its complex environment (Ahsan & Gunawan, 2010; Crawford & Bryce, 2003; Diallo & Thuillier, 2005; Hermano et al., 2013), as indicated in the supervision of World Bank projects (Chauvet et al., 2010; Chauvet et al., 2013; Dollar & Levin, 2005). Hence, a post-project evaluation cannot be proposed to identify success criteria at the post-handover stage, nor can success factors may contribute to the achievement of success criteria be planned.

In a general project environment or ID project context, post-implementation evaluation is usually conducted up to the handover stage. The possibility of extending the evaluation to assess the ‘real’

project success is necessary, especially when literature have limited attention on exploring success factors at the post-handovers stage, specifically for ID projects. Section 2.3 reviews post-project evaluation, commencing with basic discussions on reasons for conducting an evaluation.