Abstract

The study’s goal is to identify factors that may have an impact on the project’s success or failure. In our study, we focused on two problems: a lack of creativity and a disconnect between the organization and its constituents. Optimism bias and business case exaggeration are just two of the key challenges that were examined in this literature review; additional depth was provided by discussions on the definition of project success and decision making in relation to the planning fallacy. We use a desktop approach to critically examine how these issues are dealt with in the area of project management, how they connect to one another, and how they impact the success of a certain project. Despite the fact that the many factors that determine a project’s performance are only weakly connected to one another by uncertainty, the authors conclude that project management is based on a rigid, deterministic worldview centered on control and certainty. Project managers, according to the study’s findings, need to pay less attention to the process and more attention to the results if they want to reduce the frequency with which projects fail.

Introduction

Project management (PM) is “a set of procedures” used to guarantee a project’s successful conclusion, as described by ….”Successful implementation” in the context of development initiatives means achieving the planned result within the allocated time period. For the linguists among us, “project management” is “the process of managing start to finish of a project to insure its delivery on time, within budget, and fulfils all quality criteria required by the customer.” As will be illustrated in the major body of this book, the fundamental distinctions between research projects and development projects are the (lack of) defined needs in the former and the inability to design a result in the latter. Allocating scarce resources is an additional hurdle to overcome.

Only a small number of developments in project management and innovation studies have been disseminated to other disciplines. Researchers have paid less attention to the question of how and why certain attempts are more inventive than others (whether functional or hierarchical). Since innovation management is increasingly structured as projects inside organizations, studying the correlation between the two is vital.

Nowadays, project management) is utilized to implement projects in almost every market conceivable. Prominent professional organizations have well-established knowledge bodies and engage in continuing study and development of project management methodologies and standards. When compared to this, project management is still in its infancy and lacks a universally accepted definition (Pellegrinelli, 2011, p.234). APM defines project management as “the use of procedures, techniques, knowledge, skills, and experience to realise project goals.” As described by Kerzner, project management is “the planning, organising, directing, and managing of corporate resources for a relatively short-term purpose to accomplish stated goals and objectives.” In light of these criteria, it’s clear that certain initiatives may use some assistance from techniques, procedures, and strategies. The usefulness and limitations of conventional project management approaches are being questioned because “they have not offered expected benefits” (Joslin & Müller, 2015). Project management, according to Gardiner, “combines business, management, and operational disciplines to generate organizational advantages via complex and unpredictable real-world projects and programmers.” Hodgson and Cicmil claim that “the idea of a project and the profession of project management have been socially manufactured” (2006, quoted in Pellegrinelli, 2011, p.234). Since projects are “intangible” because they are socially constructed, this has “implications for the way we view projects,” as Maylor (2010) puts it. People “are crucial to the effective conception and execution of a project” since they are the ones who generate problems and initiate initiatives. It’s not surprising that a universally accepted definition of “project” or “project management” is elusive; after all, people’s perceptions of these concepts vary not just from person to person but also from project to project, organization to organization, and industry to industry. In support of the claim that theory has no role in project management, this is an additional piece of evidence. It has been decided to go further into this problem as part of the literature evaluation because of its potential to elucidate the reasons for project failure and guide the creation of more successful methods for the future.

This study focuses on three areas: project management; research, development, and innovation; and innovation. Increased focus on these issues may be attributed to their inclusion in national agendas and company strategy papers.

Numerous articles in the economics literature attest to the connection between technological innovation and GDP growth. The previous two decades have seen substantial increases in productivity and GDP growth due to the advent of cutting-edge technologies, new economic sectors, and innovative management strategies. Research and development (R&D) used to be linked with innovation, but that’s no longer the case. New ideas and deeper knowledge of the world can only come about via research and development. The high-tech sectors of advanced economies are not the only ones where innovation is taking place; the low-tech sectors of countries striving to catch up to the West are also seeing a surge in creative activity.

Yet, research and development (R&D) and innovation connections are often the focus of innovation research.

More and more professionals are opting to organise their work around individual projects rather than on a continuous, functional basis, and this trend is leading to the “projectification” of the globe. R&D has always relied on effective project management. Most modern project management techniques have their roots in the administration of research and development, often for military applications (Lorell, 1995). The Public Sector Research and Development (R&D) Project Management (PRINCE2) approach stands head and shoulders above the competition (UK OGC, 2005).

Research and development efforts should be distinguished from innovation initiatives for the reasons stated above. Innovation may or may not always be the product of formal R&D spending, and technology is not always the driving factor behind innovation.

Innovation

Innovation is the deliberate pursuit of and application of innovative ideas and the creative recombination of existing knowledge with the purpose of gaining a sustainable advantage over competitors. Furthermore, innovation and R&D initiatives are unique from other sorts of projects. In light of this, the practise of managing innovation in projects with the use of project management tools and methods deserves its own area of study: Innovation Project Management (IPM).

Despite innovation studies’ heavy emphasis on the intricacies of creativity and collaborative efforts, the difficulties of managing innovation in projects are rarely specifically addressed. In his insightful article, “innovative ideas and project management are often considered in the literature as different difficulties,” Anbari (2005) makes a valid point. But as will be demonstrated in the next section, there has lately been substantial academic interest in the link between creativity and project management. The concept of innovation initiatives has also been formalised in policy texts (e.g., European Commission, 2004, 2006). Nonetheless, further investigation, both theoretical and empirical, is required. This research aims to bridge the gap between innovation studies and project management by establishing common ground between the two bodies of literature and providing new conceptual models and typologies for each.

Lack of data, data that is unreliable, and a lack of data all hinder the study of innovation and project management. Insufficient information on the number and nature of PM activities done by corporations and governments precludes a macro-level examination of PM. The inability to clearly define projects and the overall lack of transparency that permeates most businesses are major contributors to workplace stress. The field of project management has made extensive use of case studies and other forms of specialized, small-sample surveys. The field of PM suffers from a dearth of rigorous empirical studies (Söderlund, 2004), as is well acknowledged.

Literature Review

Examination of failed attempts at managing innovation by management may help inform future efforts. Businesses that had a higher rate of successful innovation initiatives reported higher shareholder returns and increased worker expertise. The impact of several organizational traits on an organization’s effectiveness in this sector of innovation is explored, as is the relationship between innovation and project-based organizations.

There are several points of view on what determines the success or failure of an internal project. In the field of management studies, self-elaboration questionnaires are a common tool. Some studies look at the big picture and try to determine what makes a project successful or not, while others focus on individual case studies and the characteristics that contribute to management success. Toby Cooke-Davies (2002) more study is required to identify the precise elements that make for innovative businesses. The results of creative efforts and the

The ability of a business to break into new markets, increase its market share, and differentiate itself from competitors depends on the degree to which it is creative. Since businesses now compete on a worldwide scale, there is even more need to innovate consistently? This is because the value of legacy goods and services plummets in the face of accelerating technological advancements and intense global competition. Manufacturing output, market performance, customer brand impression, and long-term competitive advantage are all areas where businesses may stand to benefit from a more innovative approach to doing business. Because of its pervasiveness in contemporary life, researchers have spent the greater part of the last two decades attempting to define creativity and its influence on productivity. Despite the odds being against them, businesses still have a chance at success if they are willing to try new approaches and think outside the box (Kuratko et al., 2005). Creative thinking might be useful in many areas of company, including product development, process improvement, management, and overall strategy. Schumpeter (1934) provided a long number of examples of innovation, including new goods, industrial methods, supply networks, markets, and even organizational structures. Peter Drucker, writing in 1985, first used the word “innovation” to describe the “process of developing greater capabilities or a larger return on investment.” The OECD Oslo Manual (2005) provides guidelines for recognising and assessing innovation activities, as well as collecting and using related data, which has led to a uniform description, recognition, and categorization of innovations at the business level.

Theories

Two competing theories attempt to account for the phenomenon of some internal initiatives’ success while others’ failure. Self-elaboration questionnaires are used to examine management practices. Authors: Nicholas Bloom and Jeanne Van Reenen (2010). In contrast, some look into the causes of project success or failure by analyzing case studies and managerial criteria. More study is needed to establish a connection between the characteristics of innovative companies and the innovations those companies develop, as suggested by the work of (Cooke-Davies, T. (2002).

One source of product innovation is the discovery of new information, while another is the development of novel applications of or combinations of well-established fields of study. Goods and services, both tangible and not, may both exist in the product market. The challenge of creating new goods is exacerbated by factors such as increased global competition, shorter product life cycles, and changing consumer preferences. Connections between employees, clients, and vendors are the blood of every company (Akova et al., 1998). When a considerably new or more efficient way of manufacturing or distribution is introduced, we call it a “process innovation.” Changes in hardware, software, and/or technology that have a significant impact on the industry are discussed. The deployment of process innovations may help achieve a wide variety of objectives, such as reducing per-unit manufacturing or distribution costs, improving product quality, or even developing and marketing wholly new and greatly superior products. Process innovation, according to Fagerberg et al., (2004) may have a less effect on revenue and employment growth than new commodity launches since its major purpose is to lower costs

Optimistic/Unrealistic, planning fallacy

The term “planning fallacy” was coined by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky in 1979 to describe a specific kind of cognitive bias. They described it as “the propensity to underestimate the time required to finish a future task, owing in part to the choice of unduly optimistic performance scenarios.”

The planning fallacy occurs when individuals overestimate how long it will take them to complete a job in the future. Even if individuals are aware of the fact that similar jobs in the past have lasted longer than expected, they may still feel this effect. This bias only shows up when making predictions about one’s own behaviour; other people’s estimations of when certain chores will be completed are skewed negatively. Incorrect planning happens when timetable projections are made that are too optimistic.

The following three types of optimistic misperception will be discussed, although it is likely that many more exist and will be uncovered in the literature (such as self-serving bias and wishful thinking; Krizan and Windschitl, 2009; Shepperd et al., 2008). (3) nave optimism, which is “the tendency for people to see the best in themselves and the world at large” (e.g., Langer & Roth, 1975); (1) the illusion of control, which is an overestimation of one’s ability to control independent, external events; (2) the better than average effect, or the superiority illusion, which is an overestimation of one’s positive qualities and those of one’s past behaviour and enduring characteristics (“I am more talented than the a (Shepperd, Carroll, Grace, & Terry, 2002, p. 65). We, like many other writers in the area, often use the terms “unrealistic optimism” and “optimism bias” interchangeably.

DISCUSSION and CONCLUSIONS

Project delays are often the result of insufficient funding (Flyvbjerg, 2006). Flyvbjerg, Garbuio, and Lovallo, among others, have established a link between bad judgment, paranoia, and dishonesty in their own bodies of work. The first one is founded on unrealistic assumptions about which businesses would be successful (Buehler, Griffin & Ross, 1994). To get started, one strategy is to overstate the benefits of the project in comparison to other approaches presented in the business case. This might lead to the incorrect initiatives being approved, jeopardizing potential advantages and undermining the efforts’ credibility and sustainability. Due to the “assumption of a pre-existing company plan, with well-defined goals and constraints, and unambiguous customer expectations,” this is often avoided in the project management literature. Reference class forecasting has been used by the Transportation Department to reduce the effects of overconfidence (also known as soliciting information from third parties). But in reality, managers often employ poor strategies to project management, including risk management, to identify and address the causes of cost overruns and delays.

If adequate information is made accessible, researchers might examine the role of project management in guiding innovation. Scholars in the field of innovation are well aware that many attempts to mainstream scientific innovations end in failure. Many projects can fall short because they are abandoned in the midst of development, wind up costing more than planned, or simply take longer to finish than anticipated.

A competitive manufacturing facility has to take a creative strategy. One approach to enhancing manufacturing processes is via “process innovation,” also known as “technology and organisational transformation” (Reichstein & Salter, 2006). Frishammar and colleagues (2013). You’ll need to make adjustments to your business’s infrastructure and IT systems if you want to increase output through innovating processes. By adopting this strategy, companies have a better chance of gaining a competitive edge via the use of cutting-edge tools, management techniques, and manufacturing process modifications (Reichstein & Salter, 2006). Process Innovation Capability Acquiring, integrating, converting, and applying the technological resources, procedures, and knowledge essential to achieve process innovation goals (Frishammar, et al., 2012). Wheelwright (2010), Colarelli O’Connor and Rice (2013), and Parida et al. (2016), among others, show how challenging it may be to evaluate and optimise a production system after the introduction of process innovations.

Conclusion and Recommendation

There is minimal overlapping ground between the fields of project management and innovation research. The whys and how’s of what makes projects inventive have received less attention from researchers than more conventional organizational structures (whether functional or hierarchical). This is becoming more vital as companies begin to organize innovation management as projects. The field of project management may be in a state of flux since experts in the field do not seem to have a consensus on many of the factors that determine a project’s success. Planning, administration, and scheduling for a research project are different from those for a development project in many respects. Although inputs and outcomes may differ in terms of kind, scale, and quality, organizations nonetheless need results-oriented research. The successful management of a research project requires a high level of influence and persuasion, as well as the capacity to bring together a wide range of professionals around a common goal. The constraints of time and money are also taken into account. Most projects adhere to established norms and beliefs in the realm of project management because the underlying tools, techniques, and approaches are based on the deterministic worldview that projects are fixed and can be managed and controlled. The business case, project scope, outcomes, and cost and time projections are all thought to have been well analyzed and quantified. The success and benefits of a project might be jeopardized by poor decision-making, such as the planning fallacy or strategic deceit. In reality, unsuitable projects may be approved, thus subpar results may not be entirely unexpected. However, because to the inherent unpredictability of projects, non-deterministic studies are increasingly focused on risk, complexity, and uncertainty as potential causes of project failure. Due to its inherent complexity, uncertainty is linked to every urgent problem. In order to cope with the unknowable, project managers need to shift their mentality to one that is more flexible while yet keeping a laser-like focus on the project’s results. For this reason, perhaps a paradigm shift is necessary.

References

Anderson, E. (2008) Rethinking project management: an organisational perspective. Essex: FT Prentice Hall. Quoted in: Laursen, M. & Svejvig, P. (2016) Taking stock of project value creation: a structured literature review with future directions for research and practice. International Journal of Project Management, 34, pp.736-747.

Schumpeter, J.A. (1942). Capitalism, socialism and democracy. NY: Harper and Row. Simonin, M. (2006). Women entrepreneurship. Business Strategy and International Business, Helsinki University of Technology, 91–167.

Tzemah, M. (2000). A survey on women characteristics in business. Israel: SMEs Authority (In Hebrew). Ufuk, H., and Ozgen, O. (2001). The profile of women entrepreneurs: A sample from Turkey. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 25 (4) 299–308.

 Verhaul, L., and Thurik, R. (2001). Start–up capital: Does gender matter? Small Business Economics, 16 (4) 329–345. Walker, E.A., and Webster, B.J. (2007). Gender, age and self-employment: Some things to change, some stay the same. Women Management Review, 22(2) 122–135.

Association for Project Management (2012) APM body of knowledge. 6^th ed. Princes Risborough: Association for Project Management.

Bakker, K., Boonstra, A. & Wortmann, H. (2012) Risk managements’ communicative effects influencing IT project success. International Journal of Project Management, 30, pp. 444-457. Quoted in: Carvalho, M. & Rabechini Junior, R. (2015) Impact of risk management on project performance: the importance of soft skills. International Journal of Production Research [Online], 53 (2), pp.321-340.

Buehler, R., Griffin, D. & Ross, M. (1994) Exploring the planning fallacy: why people underestimate their task completion times. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (3), pp.366-381.

Brady, T,. Davies, A. & Nightingale, P. (2012) Dealing with uncertainty in complex projects: revisiting Klein and Meckling. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business [Online], 5 (4), pp.718-736.

Brüggen, A. & Luft, S. (2016) Cost estimates, cost overruns, and project continuation decisions. The Accounting Review [Online], 91 (3) May, pp.793-810.

Cagliano, A., Grimaldi, S. & Rafele, C. (2015) Choosing project risk management techniques. A theoretical framework. Journal of Risk Research [Online], 18 (2), pp.232-248.

Carvalho, M. & Rabechini Junior, R. (2015) Impact of risk management on project performance: the importance of soft skills. International Journal of Production Research [Online], 53 (2), pp.321-340.

Cooke-Davies, T. (2002) The real success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20, pp.185-190.

Cristóbal, J., Diaz, E., González, M., Madariaga, E., López, S. & Trueba, M. (2016) From the hard paradigms towards multimethodology in project management. Procedia Computer Science [Online], 100, pp.1228-1234.

Dolfi, J. & Andrews, E. (2007) The subliminal characteristics of project managers: an exploratory study of optimism overcoming challenge in the project management work environment. International Journal of Project Management, 25, pp.674-682. Quoted in: Haji-Kazemi, S., Andersen, B. & Klakegg, O. (2015) Barriers against effective responses to early warning signs in projects. International Journal of Project Management, 33, pp.1068-1083.

Eskerod, P., Huemann, M. & Savage, G. (2015) Project stakeholder management – past and present. Project Management Journal, 46 (6), pp.6-14.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2006) From Nobel prize to project management: getting risks right. Project Management Journal, 37 (3), pp.5-15.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2007) Policy and planning for large-infrastructure projects: problems, causes, cures. Environmental Planning B: Planning and Design [Online], 34, pp.578-597.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2007) Policy and planning for large-infrastructure projects: problems, causes, cures. Environmental Planning B: Planning and Design. 34, pp.578-597. Quoted in: Stingl, V. & Geraldi, J. (2017) Errors, lies and misunderstandings: systematic review on behavioural decision making in projects. International Journal of Project Management [Online], 35, pp.121-135.

Flyvbjerg, B., Garbuio, M. & Lovallo, D. (2009) Delusion and deception in large infrastructure projects. California Management Review [Online], 51 (2), pp.170-93.s

Flyvbjerg, B. (2013) Quality control and due diligence in project management: getting decisions right by taking the outside view. International Journal of Project Management, 31, pp.760-774.

Gardiner, P. (2005) Project management: a strategic planning approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.