How to Your Business Success?

Hi friends, 

You can see how to your business success any time in your country. In the case of the second additional criterion, a measure of business success, de Wit (1988) argued for distinguishing between project success and project management success. The latter is determined by the triple constraints of time, cost, and quality, but the former is a measure of the degree to which the project objectives are met and benefits accrue to the investing organization. Other researchers refer to this additional criterion as the business or organizational objectives criterion (e.g., Ballantine et al., 1996; Shenhar, Dvir, Levy, & Maltz, 2001). 

 

Describing these objectives as business or organizational objectives rather than project objectives begins to resolve the problem raised by de Wit (1988) of multiple stakeholder objectives relating to a project. Simplistically, project objectives relate to the goals in the project plan while business or organizational objectives relate to the goals in the business plan. 

Taking information systems, ultimately, businesses do not invest per se in a new computer system for the right system to be installed on time, within budget, to specification, and the satisfaction of users. Instead, they aim to solve a particular business problem (albeit in a timely, cost-efficient, and effective manner). If the project does not deliver an acceptable solution to that problem then investment stakeholders are likely to view the project as a failure. Naturally, the business success criterion also permits the perverse possibility encountered in practice of a project failing on project management and/or project deliverable criteria but still achieving business objectives in some acceptable way and, therefore, being considered a success. This reinforces the counterintuitive view that project management success and even project deliverable success are neither necessary nor sufficient for project success. Not all researchers support this three-tiered view of project success, as presented so far. 

For example, discussing information systems failure (rather than success), Lyytinen and Hirschheim (1987) argued for the notion of expectation failure (“the inability of an IS to meet a specific stakeholder group’s expectations,” p. 263) in favor of what they called process failure (the IS is not designed within time and cost constraints), interaction failure (the IS is not used), and correspondence failure (the IS does not match goals). 

Stakeholders are defined as “all those claimants inside and outside the organization who have a vested interest in the problem and its solution” (p. 261). Their view is that failure (success) is the embodiment of a perceived situation, and stakeholder perception/expectation is a superset of the other three criteria. This view is inconsistent with a definition of project success based on a single criterion, but it is consistent with a multilevel project success framework that permits multiple stakeholder interests at different levels of perception and at different timeframes as proposed in this paper. It is also consistent with de Wit’s (1988) view that stakeholders have many different objectives of a project. This leads us to a fourth success criterion.