World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sust. Development, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2005 The goalposts for project success have moved: a marketing view P.S. Kupakuwana* London Borough of Hillingdon, Property Consultancy, 128 Harlington Road, Uxbridge, Middlesex, UB8 3EY, UK E-mail: pkupakuwana@hillingdon.gov.uk *Corresponding author G.J.H. van der Berg Graduate School of Business Leadership, University of South Africa, PO Box 392, UNISA 0003, Pretoria, South Africa Fax: +27 11 652 0299 E-mail: HvanderBerg@gltame.com Abstract: Traditionally, a successful project was seen as one in which the triad of time, budget and specifications was complied with at a profit. Current project literature places great emphasis on customer satisfaction as a fourth important success parameter. This paper discusses project management services and focuses on what constitutes project success. Such a project is named the ‘new’ project in this paper and a set of ‘new’ project rules is arrived at. These rules include the fact that the project manager should add the maximum value through proper project execution as well as initiative – even if exceeding the project scope. Financial implications of all activities should be taken into account and decisions must be taken only if financially viable. The paper also takes a services marketing view and examines the customer’s motivation in appointing a project manager. Keywords: project management; customer satisfaction; new project; service marketing; profit. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Kupakuwana, P.S. and van der Berg, G.J.H. (2005) ‘The goalposts for project success have moved: a marketing view’, World Review of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sust. Development, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp.187–202. Biographical notes: Paul Stanford Kupakuwana is an Engineering graduate of the British Engineering Council specialising in Manufacturing and Process Engineering. Professionally, he is registered as a European Engineer with FEANI in Brussels and as a Chartered Engineer with the British Engineering Council. He is a Corporate Member of the UK. Institution of Electrical Engineers (Manufacturing Engineering Division). Paul achieved his MBA degree from the University of Hull’s School of Management in the United Kingdom. Over the years he has developed expertise in the fields of World Class Manufacturing (including Total Quality Management), Project and Operations Management. Prior to joining the University of South Africa, Graduate School of Business Leadership, he previously worked in Zimbabwe in various capacities for the Government and the private sector where he Copyright © 2005 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd. 187 188 P.S. Kupakuwana and G.J.H. van der Berg enjoyed board memberships and trusteeships. His lecturing, research and consultancy interests are focused in the areas of Production and Operations Management, Total Quality Management, and Project Management. Paul has consulted for various organisations, presented and published several papers. Currently he is parading as an independent consultant while pursuing further studies. G.J.H. van der Berg is registered as a Professional Engineer with the Engineering Council of South Africa. He has held various senior executive positions in both industry and commerce. He is an MBL (Masters in Business Leadership) degree final year student at the Graduate School of Business Leadership, University of South Africa. 1 Introduction Nobbs (2002) argues that architects have ‘always had to be schizophrenic’ in that they have to act both as their employer’s agents in supervising the works and as independent certifiers (Figure 2). The Arbitration Act 1950 ensured that the architect ‘could not act as final arbiter’ because of doubts about his impartiality and relationship with the employer. However, Nobbs adds: “Although the 1950 act changed the law as far as an architect also acting as a final arbiter was concerned, it did not affect the position in relation to an architect’s independent certifying function” (Nobbs, 2002). Professional project management has become an industry of its own (Figure 1). Many organisations buy the services of project managers especially where the technical expertise does not exist in the buyer’s company or where temporary peaks exist in activities. Even professional engineers, architects, surveyors and other professionals in truth really render a project management service. Howarth quotes Murphy as stating that the origins of project managers date back to the decline of architect’s as leaders of building projects and the advent of the Labour government’s Private Financing Initiative (PFI), which has seen increasingly complex joint venture groups bidding for the design and build of a development (Howarth, 2002). With so many different companies involved on one job, the demand has risen for project managers who can coordinate the work of everyone (Figure 1). Figure 1 Typical management structure Source: Smith (2002) The goalposts for project success have moved: a marketing view 189 Project management services are, for example, fairly common in the South African market and are typically rendered by companies to other companies. This, of course, has caused competition to increase and project managers have to differentiate themselves in the market, currently mostly on the basis of the area of specialisation. The increased competition, in turn, forces project managers to take a closer look at their services for increased effectiveness and ways in which business growth and profitability can be improved. The concept of what constitutes a successful project must also be closely examined. The unique characteristics of project management services must be investigated and its service characteristics must be kept in mind. For instance, when supplying the service, the sale is concluded before the service is provided and in a sense the service provider works with a captive customer. It also is an ideal opportunity for relationship marketing as the contract normally is a relatively long-term one and performance during the contract will determine whether work will be expanded and/or continued. The project team, which relates with the customer’s personnel, should be targeted for internal marketing, as they, in turn, will influence the customer’s perceptions of the project organisation. Figure 2 Contractual relationships Source: CEM (2000a) However, as far as project success is concerned, it is traditionally accepted that a project that is completed on time, within the budget and to specifications is a success (Figure 3). Although true in a majority of instances, if a more market-oriented view is taken, the converse can, and should be, true as is illustrated by: Project 1: Completed on time, within the budget and to specifications – but the customer is not entirely happy. Project 2: Overspent on budget, exceeded time frame but the customer is happy. 190 P.S. Kupakuwana and G.J.H. van der Berg Figure 3 The triangle of project objectives Source: Barnes and Wearne (1993) This idea was summarised by Ruskin and Estes (1995) who stated, “The single most important responsibility of the project manager is to ensure customer satisfaction. If the project is successful in every respect, in terms of meeting its stated objectives, schedule and budget, but the customer is somehow not satisfied, then the job was not done well enough..…” The above statement however is not an absolute rule. It applies in specific circumstances where the customer requires a result that is not well specified, or it may be a function of project objectives being not well defined. The current overemphasis on project success as achieving time, budget and quality targets is equivalent to the overemphasis on production rather than market focus in a manufacturing company (Ruskin and Estes, 1995). This paper aims to arrive at a better definition of project success, and to explain the circumstances where conventional success goal posts do not apply. It also aims to provide a theoretical viewpoint to justify the deviations from the more established values, and it describes the ‘new’ rules that combine to form the project manager’s ‘new’ project environment. 2 Literature review There is a general trend in project management literature towards greater customer focus and customer satisfaction (Shenhar et al., 1997). It is also believed that there is too much emphasis on the traditional measures of project success, that is, on the triad of time, budget and specifications (Figure 3). Rigorously sticking to these yardsticks can, in certain circumstances, actively detract from project success (Ruskin and Estes, 1995). Verzuh (1999) defines a successful project as one in which the project objectives are reached on time, are within the budget and are of high quality. Quality, in turn, will be measured by functionality and performance. At the same time, however, he stresses that a successful project must meet stakeholders’ expectations (Figure 4). Verzuh (1999) lists the five project success factors as: The goalposts for project success have moved: a marketing view 191 • agreement among the project team, the customer and management on project goals • a project plan that shows the overall path and clear responsibilities • constant and effective communication • a controlled project scope • management support. Meredith and Mantel (2000) recognise the same three traditional items for project success but state that the triple constraint of time, budget and specification is rapidly being replaced by a new model that invokes a fourth condition for project success: client satisfaction. Baccarini (1999) separates the components of project success into: • project management success • product success. Project management success focuses on the project process and the successful accomplishment of cost, time and quality objectives. Product success, in turn, focuses on the effect of the project’s final product. Project managers largely interpreted successful projects as meeting the project management criteria, such as budget and schedule, whereas customers interpret successful projects as those meeting product success criteria, such as response time and reliability. Project managers, therefore, tend to focus more on short-term criteria relating to the project process, but customers focus more on the longer-term criteria relating to the project’s product. If the project manager bears the customer’s interest at heart, as he should, he must place traditional project success indicators lower on the importance scale than the customer’s overall interest. The project must also appear successful from the customer’s point of view. Belout stated that a synonym for success is effectiveness, that is, the degree of achievement of objectives (Belout, 1998). The customer typically employs the project manager as a tool to improve or optimise his own profitability. That is the customer’s overriding objective, and to be successful, the project manager should be effective in helping the customer achieve his objectives. The PMBOK Guide (PMI, 1996) confirms that all projects should be supportive of performing the organisation’s strategic goals. It is, therefore, imperative for project managers to understand the business environment and view their project as part of the customer company’s struggle for competitive advantage, revenue and profit. Figure 4 Primary and secondary stakeholder map Source: Smith (2002) 192 P.S. Kupakuwana and G.J.H. van der Berg To complicate matters further, Shenhar et al. (1997) suggested that the relative importance of project success dimensions change with time. As in a relationship, different periods bring different expectations. In the early stages, internal dimensions (meeting schedule, budget and specifications) are most important. Later in the project cycle, external dimensions (customer needs and satisfaction) become more important. To the project manager it has special significance as it is in the later stages of the project that the customer decides on re-appointment or increase in the scope of work. Shenhar et al. (1997) deal specifically with those projects that are perceived as successful by persons involved in their implementation and yet are poorly received by their customers. They draw attention to the importance of defining project success, and report that success can only be meaningful if considered from two vantage points: the degree to which the project’s technical performance objective was attained on time and within the budget and the contribution that the project made to the strategic mission of the enterprise. It was suggested that the definition of project success be pushed even further by including the level of satisfaction of four different groups of stakeholders, that is: • the customer organisation • the developing organisation • the project team • the end-user. This viewpoint turns all the project stakeholders into ‘customers’ who must be satisfied (Figure 4). The trend in project literature towards greater customer satisfaction is clear (Ruskin and Estes, 1995; Shenhar et al., 1997). The project manager should, therefore, shift his focus to the customer and his needs. A project is not only about providing an end product but also is a service product in itself, the processes of service delivery should be taken note of and the best practices integrated into project management. In terms of the customer organisation, it was found that business managers see the success of their units as comprising four separate dimensions, that is: • level of profitability • level of sales and new orders • generation of new opportunities for new products and markets • preparation of the scientific and technological infrastructure for the development and production of future products. Therefore, in order to be supportive of the customer organisation’s objectives, project managers must be aware of these four dimensions. In Transaction Cost Economics, Berggren et al. (2001) investigate the boundaries of a firm, for instance when an activity should be performed in-house or contracted out. If a project is associated with a low frequency of purchase, if uncertainty and the degree of uniqueness is high, the preferred way should be to obtain the service in the market rather than the organisation performing by itself. The customer, therefore, avoids risk by transferring project execution to a professional project management organisation but typically pays a premium for it. During project execution the customer may notice the The goalposts for project success have moved: a marketing view 193 price premium (he could do it less expensively himself) but may forget the risk that he is avoiding especially if the project is executed smoothly. This aspect must be accommodated and benefits achieved by the customer must be brought to his attention to ensure that a negative feeling towards the project manager does not develop. Berggren et al. (2001) discuss the problem found, for instance, in large engineering contracts where the customer appoints various consultants. This may be for design, for project management and even as financial controllers/advisors. Such instances create unique management problems and may even involve the instance of the absent customer. In case of an absent customer, the intermediary/consultant may become the project manager’s real customer. This, of course, changes all the rules as the intermediary may have his own set of goals (for example, a long-term appointment from the customer), which may not necessarily include the end customer’s best interest. In this case, the incentive chain is deformed and adapting solutions to real customer needs becomes difficult. The project management organisation sells its services to the customer and only after completing the sale the service is rendered. According to Levitt (1995) who relates the service provider/customer relationship to a marriage, the sale consummates the courtship and the marriage begins. The quality of the marriage then determines continued and expanded business or trouble and divorce. In a marriage, what is good for one partner will also benefit the other and by working in his customer’s interest, the project manager will benefit himself in the long run. It must be borne in mind that the customer procured the services of the project management organisation as a tool with which to produce items to yield a profit. Berggren et al. (2001) state, “The maxim about customers as kings assumes the customer has a long-term interest in the service delivery and that he is approachable and negotiable”. They warn that the same rules do not always apply and if it is known that a one-off transaction is entered into, the-customer-is-king rule is not necessarily true. Lovelock (2001) defines a valued relationship as one in which the customer finds value because the benefits received from the service significantly exceed the associated cost of obtaining it. To a firm, a valued relationship is one that is financially profitable over time. He also states that in a healthy and mutually profitable relationship, both parties have an incentive to ensure that it extends for many years. For the seller, the profit potential lies mainly in three items, that is: • profit from increased purchases • profit from reduced operating cost • profit from price premium. We are, therefore, in a paradoxical area – a project is short term by its very nature but for real success a long-term view has to be taken by both the project manager and the customer. For the seller of the (project management) service, Lovelock (2001) states that creating a competitive position is vital for success and identifies the following four principles to achieve this: 194 P.S. Kupakuwana and G.J.H. van der Berg • the company (or project manager) must establish a position in the minds of its targeted customer. • the position should be singular, providing one consistent message. • the position must set the company apart from its competitors. • the company cannot be all things to all people; it must focus its efforts. In a project management environment the problem of demand and capacity is a very real one and virtually the only certainty is that there will be periods in which demand will exceed capacity and vice versa. Lovelock (2001) states that strategies for managing demand must be developed, and says that one of the most direct ways to reduce excess amount is to charge customers more money during peak periods. An alternative also would be to change product elements. On the importance of technology, Lovelock states that the real power of technology is not in making old processes work better but rather in enabling organisations to break old rules and create new ways of working. To become an effective service provider, project management organisations have to make full use of technology to inform and astound their customer and apply new ways of communication and information supply as it is developed. The project environment, of course, also is the ideal situation for relationship marketing with valuable relationships forming and internal marketing playing an important role to all the project team members. There is no getting around it – for the ‘new’ project, the customer will play a most important role. The traditional three project success parameters of time, budget and specifications will not disappear, but they will be relegated to a secondary position behind customer satisfaction. Faultless project execution will always remain important but long-term customer satisfaction will be the main target. Long-term customer satisfaction, however, cannot be measured in the short term and a degree of faith in the project outcome will have to be involved. In the meantime, the project may run behind schedule and over budget and be unsuccessful by all the old yardsticks. This will have to be compensated for by introducing all possible excellent service delivery tools available to the project group. It will require greater leadership from the project manager to form a vision of the project outcome and marketing skills as he will have to sell the idea of ‘what can be’ to the customer rather than ‘what is’. Communication at all levels will have to be excellent with internal marketing required to get the project team to believe in the vision. Financial factors also play an important role. In general from a financial perspective a project is a success if: • The customer gets a profitable result from the project (if not in the short term at least measurable in some financial terms, for example, the internal rate of return method (IRR) or some capital expenditure valuation technique; Figure 5). • The project manager finds the project profitable to execute. The goalposts for project success have moved: a marketing view Figure 5 195 Components of activity cost Source: CEM (2000a) From a services and marketing viewpoint, the project can only be a success if the customer is happy. By executing the project on time, within the budget and to specifications, the chances of customer satisfaction increases, although this is not guaranteed. Other non-product related factors that will ensure customer satisfaction include (but are not limited to): • maintaining good relations between the customer and project management personnel • providing a service that meets or exceeds customer expectations even in areas not falling within the project’s objectives • maintaining professional standards – prompt response to crises, good presentations, factual information supply • presenting the project organisation’s image of success • taking the customer through the process (that is, keeping him informed, and making him understand the logic behind decisions) • making the customer’s life easy (for instance, if motivations have to be done for additional funds – provide him with all the required backup information). Note that in many of the above, communication plays an important role whether verbal or written – the importance of good communication cannot be over emphasised. As mentioned earlier, the end customer uses the project manager as a tool to achieve his own objectives. This is a position where the distinction becomes blurry especially when project objectives are not clearly specified. Is it better to execute the customer’s wishes to the letter and thus become exactly the tool he requested, or is it better to rather follow his own intent and deviate from the letter of the instruction? Traditionally, intent or strategic factors fell outside the scope of the project team – the team should function purely in an executing mode and leave interpretation or strategy to a more senior level of management. So the question is – should the project management team act merely as a tool and purely execute, or should a more intelligent route be followed where the customer’s intention is interpreted and anticipated? 196 P.S. Kupakuwana and G.J.H. van der Berg The ‘intelligent tool’ option is definitely more risky but so also is it the one with the most potential benefits. It is possibly the only way in which the customer can get more than was asked for. This would astound the customer. In smaller projects with an easily definable scope, (for example, installing 20 lampposts for the local municipality) the traditional success parameters of time, budget and specifications certainly still apply. Unnecessary time and effort should not be expended in trying to second-guess the customer (whose project control representative may, in any case, not hold a strategic view). However, where the project, for instance, concerns the multi-million Rand de-bottlenecking of a large chemical plant, the new project rules should apply. If the customer’s scope specifically requires, for instance, a 50% increase in throughput (in a minimum time and at a minimum cost), opportunities abound for new project rules. The customer will certainly give friendly consideration to any project extensions that can decrease his maintenance cost, increase plant yield, decrease operating costs (utilities) or labour cost if the economic viability can be proven. It is, therefore, vital that the project manager understands the customer’s business – not only the technical or operational aspects but also the financial and business aspects. The money value of time must be taken into consideration. Depending on the project profitability, it may be worthwhile to more than double the cost of the project if it can halve the execution time (Figure 6). In order to take this decision, the business aspects must be clearly understood and a financial model, rather than the project manager’s gut feel, should determine the outcome. Figure 6 Time/cost approximation Source: CEM (2000a) On the negative side – beware of customers who misbehave. New project rules assume a logical/rational customer who is willing to participate in a win-win transaction. In the case of a powerful win-loose customer, it may be better to switch back to ‘old’ project rules and to do exactly as the customer asks. Such a relationship may, in any case, not be worth pursuing in the longer term. The customer starts the project with a pre-conceived idea of what it is he wants to achieve. This concept should ideally be defined in the project objectives and in an ideal world the project team should then execute these objectives exactly. However, we do not live in an ideal world. The goalposts for project success have moved: a marketing view 197 To deviate from these objectives, the new plan will have to be sold to the customer. For such a ‘sale’ to take place, the customer will have to have a high degree of trust in the project manager. Any change in plans will have to be very well documented and technically and financially motivated. The customer’s project representative will have to sell the idea to his own senior management and if he can start with a well documented case, it will make his internal sales job that much easier. It would also be better to have the transaction ‘sold’ on a number of different levels (each person in the project organisation to his customer counterparts) as we know that in organisational buying, decisions are influenced at different levels. The more the customer’s involvement in the process the better the chances are that he will buy the idea. It is, therefore, not a good idea to spring the idea on him and expect an immediate positive result. In the ideal situation, the customer must believe it is his own idea that will be implemented. The customer may have a deep knowledge of his business and may have the best ideas on how to solve his problems. Eventually, the method of achieving good results is not as important as the results themselves. The customer wants value for his money and Net value = Perceived benefits – Perceived outlays. If the customer is on the winning side, it would be non-rational not to go ahead with the plan. But he must have proof (even in the form of projected figures) and he must not spend too much effort in gathering the proof for himself; it must be provided to him. On most projects, there are standard periodic progress meetings attended by the customer and other professionals. His perceptions of project success will most likely be equally formed by what is happening in practice and by impressions formed in the meeting. The hardware, or actual project performance, therefore, only makes up approximately half his service experience. By all service definitions, the project meetings, therefore, are critical service encounters, as the customer’s perception of the service received will largely be formed there. The project performance is not always within the project manager’s control (it may be dependent on the performance of subcontractors, weather, deliveries by suppliers and so on), but the execution of project meetings are definitely in his control. Care should however be taken not to do such a good sales job that the customer is happy as long as he is in the meeting, and feels duped when he connects with the real world. The project manager’s integrity should not be in doubt and he should not build castles in the sky. A professional, motivated presentation backed up by hard facts should convince even difficult customers. Customer complaints surface at such meetings. Complaints should be welcomed, as research shows that only a relatively small percentage of customers do complain even if they are unhappy. If the project manager is perceived as an expert, the likelihood of complaints diminishes even further, states Lovelock (2001). Effective problem resolution techniques should then be followed: for example, act fast, admit mistakes and do not be defensive, show you understand the problem, clarify steps needed to solve the problem and keep the customer informed of the progress. Negative critical incidents that are satisfactorily resolved have great potential for enhancing loyalty as it demonstrates to the customer that the project manager really cares about him. The receipt of complaints and corrections to the source, allows the opportunity to make changes that can really improve service delivery. Customer complaints traditionally are invited at the project closeout meeting. This meeting is too 198 P.S. Kupakuwana and G.J.H. van der Berg late in the process for problems to be brought to light, as at this stage very little remedial action can be taken. Does this mean that old project management principles can be discarded and we must just do an excellent sales job? The answer is a definite no. Indeed, the better the execution of the project, the easier the sales job should be. The project manager must make use of all the tools and technology within his reach to execute an excellent project by all project success standards. The seed of project success is planted in the planning phase (Figure 7). The old maxim of an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure still applies and the following project rules remain as valid as ever: • Work is to be planned as thoroughly as possible. • Think of every possible eventuality. • Break the work down into as small tasks as possible. • Schedule realistically. • Plan not only for the work but also the staffing. • Ensure that the right people are used in the right positions. • Ensure that responsibilities are clearly spelled out. • Empower project personnel to go out and get the job done. • Do not forget about infrastructure requirements for the project team. Make sure that their physical, communication and administrative backup requirements are met. Figure 7 Planning and control cycle Source: Smith (2002) Communication is a vital requirement for project success and communication via cellular phones, e-mail or project information internet or intranet websites can largely help alleviate this problem. To update the old maxim somewhat, a digital photograph can be worth a thousand words and such photographs can be easily and widely dispersed electronically. The goalposts for project success have moved: a marketing view 199 The principle of when in doubt, supply as much information as widely as possible should be followed. Communication should not only flow between the project manager and the customer but also within the project management group (Figure 8). Without effective internal information, not only will the work execution be more difficult but also the sales job will be limited to the project manager where the whole project team can and must act as ‘new’ salesmen. Figure 8 The main information channels Source: CEM (2000b) Verbal communication should not be underestimated and will probably remain the most important communication media of all. The marketing concept means that an organisation aims all its efforts at satisfying its customers at a profit, says Perrault (1996). To have a market orientation means the organisation is trying to carry out the marketing concept. This entails three basic ideas: • customer satisfaction • company effort • profit, and not just sales, as the objective. In the competitive service environment it is necessary for the project management organisation to differentiate its services from that of the competition and it must do so in ways that are meaningful to customers. When defining the service, two main components must be considered, that is, the core product and the core delivery process. The core product should be to provide the customer with an item or tool, which he, in turn, can use to generate his own profits. The core delivery process should be a project managed as a service delivery product by all standards of service excellence. A project management service can be seen as a business product, which is treated differently from a consumer product. Organisations buy things to satisfy their own customers and typically focus on economic factors when they make purchase decisions. Many different people influence purchase decisions. Again, it is quite clear that the real 200 P.S. Kupakuwana and G.J.H. van der Berg people who must be satisfied are the customer’s customers. For the project manager to sell his own service effectively, it must be sold on many levels to many different people – from the key decision makers to the influencers of the key decision makers. In this, the value of a good customer relationship should not be underestimated. For the project manager, the basic equation is simple, that is, Work = Income. The specifics, however, are not that simple and in practice most project managers live by the following, often paradoxical rules: • Work or income does not equal profit. • The project management organisation demands profit as a non-negotiable. • The customer getting more than what he asked for has cost implications that the customer may not be prepared to pay for. This will negatively affect the project manager’s profits. • Long-term smaller profits are normally better than short-term higher profits. • An existing customer is much more cost-effective than winning a new customer. • A satisfied customer increases the chances for long-term profits. • A customer may be dissatisfied by being invoiced the amount due. • A satisfied customer may accept over-invoicing. • Over invoicing is not in the customer’s best interest – and, as stated before, to be really effective, the project manager must work in the customer’s best interest. • Salaries are likely the project the organisation’s biggest single expense and, therefore, the main destroyer of profit. • Good salaries attract good staff and are seen as incentives to perform. Conversely, paying peanuts attracts monkeys and is a sure road to project failure. All in all, a project manager has a difficult job and a golden middle way has to be, and is typically, found on a majority of projects. However, new project rules that can change the above scenario can luckily be added: • Innovative extras to the end product can add more value than what is consumed by the extra effort. • If convinced of higher value, the customer may be prepared to pay for it. • Smaller profits per item (or project) with higher throughput (more projects) can generate a higher total profit. • Most, if not all, project decisions have financial implications, scheduling implications or both. Commonly available financial and schedule/ implementation modelling tools are however available to determine the effect of decisions. • Even apparently ‘schedule only’ changes have financial applications for both the customer and the project manager. For the customer the longer time-to-market of a highly profitable product may be the most expensive item of all. • Appropriate use of technology can reduce costs. • Pricing can be based on value delivered and, therefore, does not always need to be market related. The goalposts for project success have moved: a marketing view 201 And from the services marketing sphere, the service-profit chain, according to Lovelock (2001): • profit and growth are stimulated primarily by customer loyalty • satisfaction is influenced by the value of services provided to the customer • value is created by satisfied, loyal and productive employees • employee satisfaction, in turn, results primarily from high-quality support services and policies that allow them to perform. As noted above, all but the smallest projects should, however, be executed in terms of a financial model. This would take the guesswork out of many project decisions. 3 Conclusion To summarise, for a new project to be successful, it must result in: • a satisfied end customer • a profitable product for the customer (or at least the customer must be in a position to develop profitable products as a result of the project) • profitable for the project management organisation. For a new project, the following is recommended: • As far as possible, always work in the customer’s interest. • Turn customer orientation into the project management organisation’s competitive advantage. • Always maintain a long-term outlook – this project is important but the aim is to get many future projects. • Know the technical aspects of the project, and just as importantly, know the business background to the project. • The project manager must be a strong leader to convey the mission – whether a natural or a taught leader does not matter. • Maintain excellent relations with the customer and keep him fully informed of all aspects of the project. Maintain integrity to ensure a trusting relationship. • On all project decisions, take note of the financial implications of decisions – make extensive use of schedule and financial modelling to determine the full impact of the decision. Information empowers the project team. • Communicate extensively. Make full use of technology – e-mail, intranet and internet, to keep all project participants informed. Do not neglect verbal communication. 202 P.S. Kupakuwana and G.J.H. van der Berg • Make utmost use of service delivery techniques. Treat periodic project meetings as critical service encounters. Invite complaints and pay special attention to the fast and effective resolution of these complaints. • Make the customer’s life easy – it will add to his perception of receiving value. • The project team mainly delivers the project service. Look after these persons well and ensure they are properly supported and operate within an empowering environment. Project Management can be likened to an orchestra (Project) where a conductor (Project Manager) directs every participant (Player/Professional) to play his/her tune (Deliverable) as expected of him/her, to the satisfaction and delight of the audience (external customers) and all involved (internal customers). References Baccarini, D. (1999) ‘The logical framework method for defining project success’, Project Management Journal, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp.25–32. Barnes, N.L.M. and Wearne, S.H. (1993) ‘The future for major project management’, International Journal of Project Management, August, Butterworth-Heinemann, London, Vol. 113. Belout, A. (1998) ‘Effects of human resource management on project effectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework’, International Journal of Project Management, February, Vol. 16, No. 1. Bergren, C., Soderlund, J. and Anderson, C.C. (2001) ‘Contractors and consultants: the consequences of organizational fragmentation in contemporary project environments’, Project Management Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3, pp.39–48. College of Estate Management (CEM) (2000a) ‘Diploma in surveying’, Lecture Notes on Management Information and Quality Systems, Papers 0965, Level 3, BLOCK A. College of Estate Management (CEM) (2000b) ‘Diploma in surveying’, Lecture Notes on Construction Contracts (QS), Paper 3722, Level 3, BLOCK A. Howarth, A. (2002) Arbitration (UK) – Contradiction in the Role of Architects, Building, November 4. Levitt, T. (1995) ‘After the sale is over’, Harvard Business Review, Paperback No 90056, Vol. 64. Lovelock, C.H. (2001) Services Marketing – People, Technology, Strategy, 4th ed., Prentice Hall. Meredith, J.R. and Mantel, S.J. (2000) Jr. Project Management – A Managerial Approach, John Wiley and Sons Incorporated, New York. Nobbs, R. (2002) ‘Architectural Schizophrenia’, Building, 25 October, p.56. Perrault, E.D and McCarthy, E.J. (1996) Basic Marketing – A Global and Managerial Approach, 12th ed., Richard D Irwin. Ruskin, A.M. and Estes, W.E. (1995) What Every Engineer Should Know About Project Management, Second Edition, Hardback, Findians Paradise. Shenhar, A.J., Levy, O. and Dvir, D. (1997) ‘Mapping the dimensions of project success’, Project Management Journal, pp.5–13. Smith, N.J. (2002) Engineering Project Management, 2nd ed., Blackwell Science. The Project Management Body of Knowledge (The PMBOK Guide, PMI, 1996) Project Management Institute, USA. Verzuh, E. (1999) The Fast Forward MBA in Project Management, John Wiley and Sons Incorporated, Publishers, New York.