Analyse the merits and demerits of the multipurpose projects.

Many projects have been completed in a technically effective manner, but have failed to provide much benefit.Group of answer choicesTrueFalse

What are the advantages of multiprogramming?

‘Project Integration is the most important element of any project and the PM must be highly adept at synthesizing project functions to maximize effectiveness and efficiency.’” *** Be sure to address the application of technologies in this essay.

Characteristics distinguishing projects:

Though multidimensionality does not always transpire in its assessment, project success constitutes a multi-faceted phenomenon that evolves with time according to the type of project, stakeholder, and context at large (Ika & Donnelly, 2017; McLeod et al., 2012). In accordance with contingency theory, different types of projects have different measures of success (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007). Short-term performance assessments may not work for those projects that need time for commercialization efforts to pan out (e.g., new product developments) or social impacts to turn up (e.g., social infrastructure, international development projects) (Pinto et al., 2021). Even the same type of project may have different measures of success. As Griffin & Page (1996) observed, more than seventy-five separate measures of success for new product development projects exist and there is no consensus on which one works best. National culture may also impact how we assess project success, especially in the long term (Turner et al., 2020).Traditionally, project success has been equated to the “iron triangle” of time, cost and quality (Barnes, 1969); although, ironically, with the first two being characterized as “best guesses” and the latter akin to a “phenomenon” (Atkinson, 1999). Other authors have called the time, cost and quality dimension the “golden triangle”, the “Holy Trinity” or the “triangle of virtue” (Ika, 2009). The most debated cost overrun research nowadays and Flyvbjerg's iron law, which stipulates that projects are “over budget, over and over again,” essentially belong to this project success research tradition (Flyvbjerg, 2017; Love et al., 2019).According to many observers, however, this trilogy is just one dimension of project success. Based on contingency theory and assuming that strategic considerations or complexity characteristics within the project hold different weights, Shenhar & Dvir (2007) propose five overlapping success dimensions: efficiency (e.g., time, cost and performance), impact on team (e.g., specifications and benefits), impact on customer (e.g., morale, growth), business and direct success (e.g., sales and profits), and preparation for the future (e.g., new market and organizational capability).A striking illustration is the case of Kodak's Instant Photo, which was a commercial success one to two years after its introduction but was considered a business failure in the long term (Griffin & Page, 1996). Indeed, a “percussion effect” (Ika, 2009) seems to take place as projects that are hailed as successes in the short term can later become long term, business or strategic disasters, and others that are considered short-term failures may well turn into resounding successes over time (de Wit, 1988; Pinto et al., 2021). For example, projects such as the Hoosac Tunnel, Rideau Canal, Ford Taurus 1, Sydney Opera House ended up becoming great successes, though they were delivered late and over budget at their completion. In contrast, others such as EuroDisney, Ford Edsel, Ford Taurus 2, Google Glass, Iridium, LA Red Line Metro, MS Zune, New Coke, Sony Betamax were delivered within time and cost, yet turned (either immediately or over time) into costly disasters (Ika et al., 2021, 2022).In line with such a paradox, de Wit (1988) invites us to distinguish between project management success – the short-term delivery of the project's outputs within time, cost and quality targets – and project success – the medium-term achievement of project outcomes and impacts. Other scholars have made the related distinction between project management success, that is achieving the project plan, and “project investment success”, that is realizing the business case objectives long after completion (Zwikael & Meredith, 2021). Taking a cue from benefits realization theory, we will call project investment success in this research, “business case success”. And for convenience's sake, we coin project management success “project plan success”.This separation between project plan success and business case success mirrors the common distinction between internal, objective (time, cost, and quality) and external, subjective (project impacts on different stakeholders) measures of success (Jugdev & Muller, 2005; Pinto & Slevin, 1988). In fact, project plan and business case success constitute two sides of the same coin (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007), the first being tactical and the second strategic, in true deliberate strategy theory (Slevin & Pinto, 1987). However, though they are positively and moderately correlated (Serrador & Pinto, 2015), complexity theory suggests that tactical performance may not necessarily lead to the strategic success.This distinction between short-term and medium-term success is not trivial and has, in fact, inadvertently contributed to some of the more rigorous debates in the project management field today. This distinction lies at the heart of the tensions surrounding the so-called “Planning Fallacy debate”, a conversation over the extent to which projects tend to overpromise and under-deliver (e.g., cost overruns and benefit shortfalls). As we learn from Kreiner (2020), the champions of the Planning Fallacy assume that project performance is “causally insulated” from the project management process, and thus we already know what success is (e.g., meeting the criteria established upfront in the project plan) and how to measure it (e.g., budget target) (Flyvbjerg, 2017). In contrast, the critics of the Planning Fallacy take a broader notion of projects, rationality, and success; assume that the project management process is consequential; agency plays a key role in “successfulness”; and thus we cannot presume we know in advance what success is going to be and how to measure it, especially in the face of changing circumstances (Ika et al., 2022).At this juncture, we infer that despite a lack of agreement on the nature of project success, project success measurement has moved from a rather unidimensional, simplistic, and reductionist scale (e.g., the iron triangle), to more multidimensional, holistic, dynamic, and integrative models of success (Pinto et al., 2021).2.3. Project success models: evolution and critiqueIn light of the aforementioned conceptual and definitional ambiguity, our understanding of the concept of project success has undergone a remarkable evolution over the years, as our recognition of the complexity of the theory and practice of project-based work with the temporary organization has expanded. Indeed, the lessons from the longitudinal and historic reviews of project success (see Jugdev & Muller, 2005; Ika, 2009) are instructive. Table 1 portrays trends regarding the predominant success dimensions over three periods (1960s-1980s; 1980s-2000s; and 21st century). Table 2 lists some of the key existing models of success in the project management literature.Table 1. Measuring success across time (Adapted from Ika, 2009).Empty Cell Period 1 Period Period 31960s-1980s 1980s-2000s 21st centurySuccess criteria Iron triangle (time, cost, quality) Iron triangle Iron triangleBusiness case benefits Business case benefitsBenefits to key internal stakeholders (client/funder, owner, end-users, project team, organizational employees) Value of the investment for the funding/owner, the delivery and supply (or other partnering) organizationsBenefits to internal stakeholdersBenefits to external stakeholdersSymbolic and rhetoric evaluations and attributions of success by diverse stakeholdersCommunity, environmental, societal impacts or sustainabilityResults chain Outputs Outcomes ImpactsTime horizon Short-term Medium-term Long-termEmphasis Project plan success Business case success Green efficacyTable 2. Eight models of success (Adapted from Ika & Pinto, 2022)Barnes (1969) Pinto and Slevin (1988) Atkinson (1999) Delone & McLean (2003) Shenhar & Dvir (2007) Maltzman & Shirley (2015) Ika (2018) Zwikael & Meredith (2021)IS New product development Generic International development projects GenericGeneric Generic IS Time, cost, and quality (iron triangle) Time, cost, and performance Iron triangle (Time, cost, quality) Information quality Efficiency Project management success Project management success (efficiency/ time and cost; effectiveness/objectives) Project management success (time, budget, scope, no undesirable impacts by project manager)Perceived quality The IS System quality Impact on customer Project success Deliverable success (relevance country, relevance for beneficiaries, institutional impact, sustainability) Project ownership success (target benefits; business case realized)(Maintainability, reliability, validity, information quality use) Client satisfaction Service quality Impact on team Green success Project investment success (satisfactory results, investment again by funder, overall success)Benefits to organization (Improved efficiency, effectiveness; increased profits, strategic goals, organizational learning, reduced cost Intention to use Business and direct success Benefits to stakeholder Use Preparation for future community (Satisfied users, social and environmental impact, personnel development, professional learning, contractors’ profits, capital suppliers, content project team, economic impact to surrounding community User satisfaction Net benefits While we borrow this table from Ika & Pinto (2022), we have added the Atkinson (1999)’s IS success model, as it is one of the rare models that include most success dimensionsIn the first period (1960s–1980s), the iron triangle was the dominant success dimension and there was a lack of empirical studies as most reports centered on practitioners’ accounts of their experience (Barnes, 1969). The second period (1980s–2000s) focused on empirical studies. For example, Pinto & Slevin (1988)’s model of success includes time, cost, perceived quality, and client satisfaction. The emphasis at the time moved from project plan success to business case success, albeit with some consideration mainly for internal stakeholders. For instance, the Delone and McLean's IS model of success, which was first published in 1992 and then updated in 2003, considers seven dimensions: information quality, system quality, intention to use (attitude), use (behavior), user satisfaction, and net benefits.The ongoing third period 3 has tended to focus not only on business case success but also on multiple and diverse stakeholder, environmental, and societal impacts, including return on investment and competitive advantage for the funding/owner organization (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; Zwikael & Meredith, 2021), added value for both internal and external stakeholders and their individual or collective symbolic and rhetoric evaluations and attributions of success (e.g., Fincham, 2002; Kreiner, 2014). The impacts on the environment, the community or the society as a whole have been accorded greater importance. In other words, there will be more emphasis on “green” efficacy or sustainability (e.g., Carvalho & Rabechini, 2017; Maltzman & Shirley, 2015). Three models of success are noteworthy in this period.•Turner & Zolin (2012), in their model of forecasting performance indicators for managers propose seven scales for different stakeholder groups whose perceptions of project outcomes may change over months and years: stakeholder satisfaction, project executive satisfaction, product satisfaction, product efficiency, satisfaction with specifications, project manager satisfaction, contractor satisfaction, supplier profitability, and public stakeholder satisfaction.•Ika (2018), in his success model for international development projects based on deliberate strategy theory, RBM, and the OECD evaluation criteria, draws a two-by-two matrix that over time relates project management success (time, budget, specific objectives) to deliverable success (relevance for country, relevance for beneficiaries, institutional impact, and sustainability).•Zwikael & Meredith (2021) propose three dimensions of success: Project management success, which is a measure of the project manager's performance in achieving the project plan as judged by the project owner; project ownership success, which is a measure of the project owner's performance in realizing the business case as judged by the project funder; and project investment success, which is a measure of the actual value generated by the project investment as judged by the project funder.As Tables 1 and 2 show, our gradual understanding of success over the years has led to more integrative models. However, we contend that this evolution is akin to a progress from what Schutz (1979) calls “superficial simplicity” to “confusing simplicity”. First, the existing models focus on specific types of projects, but they are rarely generic to cater to broader classes or settings; that is, “these models include generic items that can be used in all projects (for e.g., completion on time and customer satisfaction), and they also include items that are relevant only to certain types of projects but are inappropriate for measuring the success of others” (Zwikael & Meredith, 2021, p. 1746).Second, as we learn from contingency theory, different projects call for different success models (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007) and any generic project success model should be adapted to the specificity of the project and the idiosyncrasy of the project setting (OECD, 2019). Yet, the lack of generic models of success makes it impractical to negotiate a “definition of success among key stakeholders before the start of a project and at several review points during the project's lifecycle” (Thomas & Fernández, 2008, p. 734). As we suggested, stakeholders lack a parsimonious set of success dimensions like the OECD's (2019) evaluation criteria that they may rely upon to forge practical consensus, despite their divergent expectations, and policymakers cannot compare the success rates of projects of different types.