Project Management within Start-Ups

Exploring Success Criteria and Critical Success Factors in

Entrepreneurial Project Management

Author: Amela Trokic

Jeta Sahatqija

Supervisor: Sujith Nair

Student
Umeå School of Business and Economics
Autumn Semester 2015
Master Thesis, one year, 15 hp
Abstract
This study explores the concept of project success within the entrepreneurial and new
venture creation area, specifically with regards to start-ups. The research’s purpose is
twofold: i) explore and understand how project-based start-ups define and measure
success criteria within their organization; and ii) understand the nature and relevance of
critical success factors (CSFs) in project-based start-ups, which can be influenced so that
their input leads to increased chances of project success. In order to gain an inclusive
picture of project success within start-ups, the research question aims at identifying the
two aforementioned components, success criteria and critical success factors.
“What success criteria and critical success factors are most
relevant for project-based start-ups?”
The concept of project success has been studied throughout the years, but mainly within
large scale companies which is why research pertaining to start-ups is scarce. The closest
benchmark for comparison, are studies exploring project success within SMEs. In
accordance, these studies and resulting findings and/or theories have been examined and
used as a baseline for this research. This research takes the form of a qualitative study
with an abductive approach to theory. It is a case study, wherein semi-structured
interviews and interviewer-administered questionnaires were carried out with individuals
at the decision making level of start-ups, mainly with founders, CEOs and/or executive
directors. The selected respondents were chosen for the study due to their small size and
young age, independence, proactive innovativeness as well as centralized decision
making processes. That is, for their characteristics which are in line with start-up features
outlined in the extant literature. Due to time constraints the research is cross-sectional
while its exploratory nature, focusing mainly on start-ups in the Balkan countries of
Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and Kosovo, is a result of limited research in the field.
The use of project management practices, with the exception of communication and
scheduling tools, were found to be limited in start-ups due to their rigidness, high costs
and time-consuming nature. This presented the basis for why project management within
entrepreneurial, new venture creation needs to be adapted through the development of a
‘lite’ version which will provide adequate management practices that contribute to
achieving higher rates of project success in start-ups. In order for this to be done, projects
success in s start-up must be defined in terms of the most relevant success criteria and
CSFs. The findings of the study show that project success within start-ups is highly
correlated to customer satisfaction. Competitive aggressiveness showed to be of little
concern due to the lack of competition in the start-ups’ respective fields. A key success
criteria among all, was development in terms of offering new services and building strong
customer relationships which would result in long-term loyalty. In contrast to previous
studies citing profit as a significant success criteria in start-ups, the results of this study
show that the majority of start-ups are in fact less concerned with profits and more
concerned with survival in terms of financial stability and breaking-even. Findings also
indicate that a start-up’s operational process is characterized by the need for flexibility
and adaptability, due to inherently high levels of uncertainty and risk. Subsequently, key
CSFs for start-ups as extracted from the study include team morale and motivation,
customer relationships and loyalty, and flexibility. The need for further research which
will contribute to the development of Entrepreneurial Project Management is evident.
Keywords: Project management, Project Success Criteria, Critical Success Factors,
Project Success, Start-ups, Entrepreneurial Project Management.
Acknowledgements

We would first like to thank God Almighty, without Whom nothing is possible.
We also need to thank our families for their unconditional love and continuing support.
Without their encouragement throughout our studies, we would never have made it this
far.
We would like to express our sincere gratitude to:
Our thesis supervisor, Sujith Nair, who guided us throughout the process of writing and
writing and writing the thesis.
The programme coordinators, lecturers and staff of the MSPME Programme from all
three participating institutions: Heriot-Watt University, Politecnico di Milano and Umea
University.
Last but not least, the respondents who took the time to participate in this research.
Their involvement and contribution is greatly appreciated.

Bismillahi Rahmani Raheem.

A very special thanks goes to Rron for his
To my Grandma, Senija Trokić, for her
unconditional support throughout this
unwavering love and support.
journey.
Rahmetullahi Alejhi Rahmeten Wasiah.

Amela Trokić Jeta Sahatqija

Umea, January 4, 2016

List of Abbreviations

BiH Bosnia and Herzegovina

CSF Critical Success Factors

EPM Entrepreneurial Project Management

HR Human Resource/s

PM Project Management

PMI Project Management Institute

SME Small and Medium Enterprise

SPM Strategic Project Management

Table of Contents

1. INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Practical and Theoretical Contribution 2
1.3 Research Questions 3
1.4 Research Objective 3
1.5 Relevant Concepts 4
1.6 Research Disposition Outline 5
2. THEORETICAL METHODOLOGY 7
2.1 Research Philosophy 7
2.1.1 Ontological Considerations 7
2.1.2 Epistemological Considerations 8
2.1.3 Axiological Considerations 8
2.2 Research Approach 9
2.3 Preconceptions 10
2.4 Motivation for Research 11
2.5 Approach to Literature Selection 11
3. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND 13
3.1 Projects and the Development of Project Management 13
3.1.1 Strategic Project Management 14
3.2 Project Success 14
3.2.1 The Development and Definition of Project Success Criteria 15
3.2.2 The Development and Definition of CSFs 17
3.2.3 Linking Success Criteria with CSFs 18
3.3 Entrepreneurship and New Venture Creation 19
3.3.1 The Development of Entrepreneurship in Academia 19
3.3.2 New Venture Creation and Start-Ups 20
3.3.3 Success in New Ventures/Start-Ups 22
3.4 Project Management in Entrepreneurship 24
3.4.1 A Project-Based View of Entrepreneurship 24
3.4.2 Developing Entrepreneurial Project Management 25
3.5 Conceptual Framework 27
4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 30
4.1 Research Strategy 30
 4.1.1 Qualitative Research vs. Quantitative Research 30
4.1.2 Exploratory Nature of Research 31
4.2. Research Design 31
4.2.1 Case Study 31
4.2.2 Time Horizons - Cross Sectional Design 33
4.3 Data Collection 33
4.3.1 Data Collection Method 33
4.3.2 Interview Guide 35
4.3.3 Respondent Selection 36
4.3.4 Respondent Description 36
4.4 Data Analysis 37
4.4.1 Transcribing Interviews 38
4.4.2 Categorizing Data 38
4.5 Assessing the Research Quality 38
4.5.1 Trustworthiness 39
4.5.2 Authenticity 40
4.6 Ethical Considerations 41
5. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 42
5.1 Characteristics of a Start-Up 42
5.2 Project-Management Practices in Start-Ups 43
5.3 Project Success Criteria in Start-Ups 45
5.3.1 Efficiency and Capabilities 45
5.3.2 Impact on the Team 47
5.3.3 Impact on the Customer 49
5.3.4 Business and Financial Success 50
5.3.5 Competitive Strategy 51
5.4 CSFs in Start-Ups 53
5.4.1 The PIP Factors 54
5.4.2 Other CSFs 59
6. DISCUSSION 60
6.1 Characteristics of a Start-Up 60
6.2 Project-Management in Start-Ups 61
6.3 Project Success Criteria in Start-Ups 63
6.3.1 Efficiency and Capabilities 63
6.3.2 Impact on the Team 65
6.3.3 Impact on the Customer 66
 6.3.4 Business and Financial Success 66
6.3.5 Competitive Strategy 67
6.4 CSFs in Start-Ups 68
6.4.1 The PIP Factors 68
6.4.2 Other CSFs 71
7. CONCLUSION 72
7.2 Implications of the Study 74
7.2.1 Theoretical Implications 74
7.2.2 Practical Implications 75
7.3 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research 75
REFERENCES 79
APPENDIX 1: Guide for In-Depth Individual Interview 87
APPENDIX 2: Results for Characteristics of a Start-Up 79
APPENDIX 3: Results for Project Management Practices and Implications in Start-Ups 79
List of Figures
Figure 1: The Iron Triangle of Project Success 15
Figure 2: The Relationship between Success Criteria and CSFs 19
Figure 3: Conceptual Framework for Project Success in EPM 28
Figure 4: Conceptual Framework for Project Success Criteria and CSF in EPM 29

List of Tables
Table 1: The Project Implementation Profile [PIP] Error! Bookmark not defined.18
Table 2: Features of a Start-Up 22
Table 3: Success Criteria for EPM 27
Table 4: Description of Interviewed Start-Ups (Respondents) 37
Table 5: Success Criteria for Project Efficiency and Capabilities 45
Table 6: Success Criteria for Project’s Impact on Team 47
Table 7: Success Criteria for Project’s Impact on the Customer 49
Table 8: Business and Financial Success Criteria 50
Table 9: Success Criteria for Competitive Strategy 52
Table 10: Critical Success Factors based on Exploratory Research 54
Table 11: CSF Ratings for Project Start-Up Mission 54
Table 12: CSF Ratings for Support from Networks 55
Table 13: CSF Ratings for Schedule and Planning 55
Table 14: CSF Ratings for Customer Consultation 56
Table 15: CSF Ratings for Quality of Personnel 56
Table 16: CSF Ratings for Access to Skills and Technology 57
Table 17: CSF Ratings for Acceptance from Customer 57
Table 18: CSF Ratings for Monitoring and Feedback 58
Table 19: CSF Ratings for Communication 58
Table 20: CSF Ratings for Efficient Problem Solving 58
1. INTRODUCTION
The introductory chapter outlines the background of the study, thus, familiarizing the
reader with the concepts of critical success criteria and factors that could influence the
project’s success within the start-up context. Further, the discussion follows with the
practical and theoretical contribution of the findings, continuing to the formulation of the
research question and objectives. Finally, relevant concepts will be defined and
limitations of the study will be presented.
1.1 Background
The existence of projects can be traced back thousands of years to the foundations of the
Great Pyramids of Giza (Packendorff, 1995, p. 319). Throughout history, projects have
always played a crucial role in organizations, although their use was limited to certain
industries, such as construction and engineering (Packendorff, 1995, p. 319; Turner, et
al., 2010, p. 745). However, projects as a solidified concept did not receive any particular
definition until the beginning of the 20th century when the field of PM [PM] began to
take root (Garel, 2013, p. 668). According to the PM Institute [PMI] (2013, p. 3), projects
can be defined as a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product or service.
This means they have a defined beginning and ending, meaning they are also constrained
in terms of the scope and resources. Considering this characterization, it may appear as if
the success or failure of a project can easily be identified. This, however, is not the case
as every project is unique making the success of a project a complex phenomenon.
Complexity often leads to increased difficulties, which is why several problems often
arise when trying to define and measure success in projects.
Extensive research has been conducted in defining project success within the literature of
PM; however, the topic of project success in small scale companies, specifically in start-
ups is scarce. In fact, there is a remaining ambiguity over what constitutes as project
success, or failure, in start-ups. These challenges often occur due to the high subjectivity
of the concept, considering that multiple aspects influence the process along the way
(Morris & Pinto, 2007, p. 226). The attempts to measure project success have ultimately
led to questioning and identifying measures which can be undertaken to increase the
chances of success in a project (Morris & Pinto, 2007, p. 227). Similarly, attempts have
been made in exploring what leads to project failure.
While ambiguity remains an attribute of success, academia and practitioners in the field
have agreed upon the existence of two important concept; “project success criteria” and
“CSFs” [CSF] (Ika, 2009, p. 8). Oftentimes, traditional PM literature views success
criteria and success factors as synonymous concepts, however, a number of studies have
drawn distinctions between the two concepts. On the one hand, project success criteria is
defined as the dependent variable used to measure a project’s success or failure. Over
time, project success has been measured against the iron triangle which includes: Time
or schedule, cost or budget, and quality oftentimes referred to as scope (Atkinson, 1999,
p. 337-338). The iron triangle has been a representative tool for measuring the success
or failure in projects for years. The concept has even been incorporated in various
definition of the PM literature (Atkinson, 1999, p. 338).
However, with the constantly changing environments and a shift in the nature of projects,
the iron triangle has recently been subject to significant criticism. Particularly in terms of
its inability to adequately measure against the unique and subjective characteristics of
projects, which are becoming increasingly specialized. Jugdev and Muller (2005, p. 24)

1
argue that its limitations in time, cost and quality result in inadequate success
measurements. One should note that while the criteria defined by the iron triangle is still
relevant to project success, it is not the only criteria which should be taken into
consideration (Pheng & Chuan, 2006, p. 24-25). Having a set of extended criteria would
allow the measurement of project success against the project’s overall objectives. Yet,
creating a transferable list of success criteria that are applicable to all organizational sizes
and industries has proved to be challenging rendering the need for more specific
frameworks.
On the other hand, CSFs have been defined as the independent criteria which influence
the components of a project but do not determine the project’s success or failure (Lim &
Mohamed, 1999, p. 244). Adequate management of the CSFs can increase the probability
of project success, while the literature in the field stresses the fact that they are able to be
influenced (Pinto & Slevin, 1987, p. 22). Considering their influential role, CSFs can been
seen as an evaluation instrument that serves in increasing the effectiveness and efficiency
of the project throughout its duration. Despite a general understanding of the definition
of CSFs, a definitive list or framework applicable to any type of project has yet to be
identified.
When it comes to the applicability of project success factors, it has been suggested that
the context in terms of the size, age and industry of the organization, has an impact on the
CSFs which influence project success (Turner, Ledwith & Kelly, 2012, p. 955). In
accordance, Turner et al., (2012, p. 954) argue that practices differ among large
companies when compared to less established companies such as such start-ups;
therefore, that better results will be obtained if the PM procedures and structures are
tailored to the nature and size of the project. Following this line of thought, the assumption
in this study is that due to the very different organizational structures and practices in
start-ups, success criteria and CSF are different from those applicable in companies which
are better established and larger in size.
Start-ups represent the process of new venture creation through the cross-fertilization of
innovation and entrepreneurship (Sahut & Peris-Ortiz, 2014, p. 665). Even though
attempts have been made in defining the concept of start-ups, a consensus in its definition
has not yet been reached. Nevertheless, throughout the extant literature, start-ups are
viewed as small and young entities which have an informal system of communication
(Lester et al, 2003, p. 11). Accumulation of new knowledge and a trial error style seem
to portray a start-up. Miller and Fiesen (1984) stress the risk-taking element; thus, closely
examining the effect of risk-taking with the degree of innovation displayed. In more
recent studies, a project-based view has been adopted for start-ups, where the start-up
phase of a new venture can be viewed as a temporary endeavor, or project. Regardless of
their definition, start-ups play a crucial role in the economic development of a country,
society and even larger firms (Ireland et al., 2001, p. 51), yet the efforts in researching
PM and its applicability to start-ups is rather limited. Start-ups face many challenges in
the process of establishing themselves as a company and moving beyond the start-up
phase, leading to very low survival rates. Therefore, the need for improvement in
developing PM methods is of paramount importance.
1.2 Practical and Theoretical Contribution
From the practical perspective, the concept of project success within the start-up context
is of high relevance for internal stakeholders, such as founders, CEOs, managers and team
members, but also for external stakeholders, such as incubators, accelerators and

2
consulting companies. The benefit in exploring project success lies in understanding how
start-ups define and measure success. In order to gain a complete picture of the process,
it is of major importance to recognize the nature of the CSFs which can be influenced so
that their input leads to increased chances of success. This study lays the groundwork and
serves as a guideline for individuals aiming to establish a start-up, letting them know
where to place focus.
From the theoretical perspective, the field of Entrepreneurial Project Management (EPM)
is a relatively new concept, therefore, still in need of studies which would contribute to
the extant research. On the one hand, the concept of project success has been studied
throughout the years, but mostly within the context of large scale companies. On the other
hand, research is scarce when it comes to the exploration of project success and CSFs
within start-ups. This study aims to fill this gap by providing answers to how start-ups
define project success and through what means they measure it. Furthermore, based on
empirical findings the study will identify and present the most common outlined
succescriteria and CSFs which influence the success of the start-up. To the best of our
knowledge, there is no study that illustrates the co-existence and interaction of both
concepts in the process of achieving start-up success. As a result, this study combines
literature streams from the field of PM and entrepreneurship. Last but not least, the
findings will provide a good basis for researches who are aiming to develop and suggest
new frameworks for “lite” versions of PM which could be used by start-ups
1.3 Research Questions
Although extensive research has been conducted when it comes to the applicability of PM
and its role in large scale companies, the role of PM within start-ups has not been
researched sufficiently. Consequently, the study aims to define project success within the
entrepreneurial ecosystem, namely within start-ups. In order to gain an inclusive picture
of project success within the setup of start-ups, the research question aims at identifying
two main components of project success: critical success criteria and CSFs. Identifying
the aforementioned criteria will lead to the creation of a conceptual framework which will
serve as a baseline in increasing project success in start-ups. At the same time, the findings
will contribute to the theories of project success. On the basis of the highlighted practical
and theoretical motivations, this study seeks to answer the following research question:
“What success criteria and critical success factors are most
relevant for project-based start-ups?”
In order to provide a full answer, the analysis of the question has been divided into two
blocks. The first set deals solely with the CSFs, whereas, the second looks into detail the
set of success criteria.
1.4 Research Objective
The rising tide of start-ups throughout the world is resulting in the re-imagination of every
single industry (Startupmanifesto, 2012, p. 1). Accordingly, the potential contribution of
new venture creation and start-ups to the economy has solidified their importance as an
economic actor, but it has also led to the conclusion that start-ups need to increase their
quality. The increase in quality and improvements in start-up operation have been
identified as necessary in combatting the high failure rates of start-ups (Turner et al.,
2009, p. 283). Thereupon, this study has been undertaken to identify success criteria and
CSFs which are most relevant for start-ups when a project based view is taken. The output
of the study will contribute to opposing the challenges typically faced by start-ups.

3
Furthermore, the findings will enhance and broaden the knowledge on how start-ups
function internally, by looking at their formality and decision-making process. A
framework which encompasses the most relevant success criteria contributing to the short
and long term success, as well as the most relevant CSFs which translate operational
activities into strategic concepts will be developed. The framework will serve as an
illustration of how all the concepts co-exist and interact in the process of achieving start-
up success.
The study will elaborate on the existing research and theories related to project success
in overall terms since the research which looks specifically at project success in start-ups
is scarce. The closest field that one can use as a benchmark for comparison is project
success within SMEs (Thibault, 2012, p. 4). As such, the study aims at contributing to the
extant research by presenting the framework, inclusive of both elements, success criteria
and CSFs. The success criteria and CSFs will be developed through empirical research
conducted within the entrepreneurial ecosystem. One should note that even though the
current state of literature is heavily based on studies carried in larger organizations, it will
serve as a baseline for comparisons in the process of assessing project success and factors
in young companies.
In brief, the following objectives can be defined as:
1. Identify most relevant CSFs for start-ups when a project based view is taken;
2. Identify most relevant project success criteria for start-ups when a project based
view is taken;
3. Develop a framework which encompasses the most relevant success criteria which
contribute to the short and long term success, as well as the most relevant CSFs
which translate operational activities into strategic concepts will be developed
4. Provide recommendations for start-ups on how to increase project success through
the applicability of the presented conceptual framework.
1.5 Relevant Concepts
The following chapter provides an overview of the relevant concepts which are repeatedly
referenced throughout the study. For further reference, please note that a thorough
interpretation of each concept is provided under the theoretical background chapter.
Project – “A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product,
service or result by progressive elaboration”. Among others, a project is temporary
considering that it has a defined beginning and ending, and therefore it is defined in terms
of the scope and resources (PM Institute, 2013, p. 3).
Project Management (abbrev. PM) – “The application of knowledge, skills, tools and
techniques to project activities to meet project requirements”. PM in its own terms
systematically integrates technical, human, and financial resources to achieve goals and
objectives. PM processes fall into five groups: initiating, planning, executing, monitoring
and controlling and closing (PM Institute, 2013, p. 5).
Strategic Project Management (abbrev. SPM) – SPM provides an overview of the bigger
picture whereby the project serves to deliver the strategy of the organization (Green, 2005,
p. 61; Kenny, 2003, p. 43). The concept of strategic PM calls for strategic alignment
between the project and organization objectives.
Project Success Criteria - Project success criteria is defined as the dependent variables
used to measure a project’s success or failure (Muller & Jugdev, 2012, p. 758). Numerous

4
difficulties have been encountered in providing an inclusive definition for the criteria used
to measure project success. Its definition is subjective, highly depending on the way how
it is conceptualized in literature and the scope within which the researcher/manager opts
to consider it.
Critical Success Factor (abbrev. CSF) - CSFs can be defined as the independent
variables which can be influenced so that their input leads to increases chances of success.
Their influence can be direct or indirect (Cooke-Davies, 2002, p. 185; Muller & Jugdev,
2012, p. 758).
Entrepreneurship – The field of entrepreneurship has been defined as a study of
opportunities; processes of discovery, evaluation and exploitation of opportunities (Shane
& Venkataraman, 2000, p. 218). Following this line of thought, the concept provides an
inclusive perspective by taking into considering the human factor. In this interpretation
three important factors are elaborated: i) the existence, discovery and exploitation of
opportunities; ii) influence of human factor; and iii) entrepreneurship is broader than just
the creation of the firm.
Start-up – “Creation of a new enterprise which did not formerly exist in the form of an
organization”. Key to the process of new organization creation is the accumulation of
knowledge through collaborative activities (Keeble and Nachum, 2001, p. 17).
Throughout time, criteria such as: independence, informal and risk taking have been
added as the main characteristics of start-ups.
1.6 Research Disposition Outline
In order to provide the reader with a better understanding on the content of the study, an
outline of the disposition of the study is given in the following section.
Chapter 1: Introduction – This chapters aims to familiarize the reader with the main
concepts elaborated throughout the study. It provides an introduction on the general
concept of EPM, specifically looking at the critical success criteria and factors which
could lead to the success of a start-up. Furthermore, it specifies the research questions
and objectives of the study.
Chapter 2: Theoretical Methodology – This chapter provides an explanation on the
choices of literature as well as the philosophical stances in terms of ontology,
epistemology, and axiology. Further on, a detailed reasoning on the research approach,
preconceptions, researcher’s motivation and literature selection approach is presented.
Chapter 3: Theoretical Background – The theoretical background tends to demonstrate
the understanding of the researcher on the theories and concepts relevant to research topic.
For the purpose of this study, theory was reviewed based on its appropriateness and
explanatory power. First the concept of projects was explored, simultaneously providing
insights on the development of PM as a field throughout time and SPM as a concept.
Furthermore, the current state of research and developed frameworks is discussed in terms
of critical success criteria and CSFs which could lead to the success of a project in overall
terms; thus, determining the relationship between the two. In order to fully answer our
research question, the concepts of entrepreneurship as a field and start-ups as entities were
introduced and elaborated. Finally, PM in entrepreneurship, specifically the development
of EPM was coined and discussed. The compilation of the theory led to the formation of
our own framework of the concept for this study.

5
Chapter 4: Research Methodology - This chapter outlines the chosen research strategy,
including the selected qualitative research method and the data collection process.
Simultaneously, all the corresponding interview methods, case selection criteria and
interview guides are discussed. Furthermore, the value of the thesis in terms of the truth,
objectivity, trustworthiness and authenticity are justified. Last but not least, principles on
ethical considerations are highlighted.
Chapter 5: Empirical Findings – This chapter presents the empirical findings derived
from the case studies, namely semi-structured interviews and questionnaires. In
accordance with the structure of our study, characteristics of the start-up are discussed
first, followed by project success criteria and CSFs.
Chapter 6: Discussion and Analysis – This chapter provides a discussion and analysis of
the empirical findings presented in chapter five. The results are discussed and analyzed
in accordance to the existing theories and context of the study; therefore, serving as a
baseline for conclusions.
Chapter 7: Conclusion – The final chapter summons the concluding remarks.
Conclusions on the project success criteria and CSFs portrayed through the interviewed
companies are drawn. The study’s theoretical and practical significance and contributions
are discussed, followed by implications of the study and suggestions for further research.

6
2. THEORETICAL METHODOLOGY
The following chapter provides a thorough analysis of the research methodology by
explaining and justifying the choices of the literature as well as the philosophical stances
in terms of ontology, epistemology and axiology. The discussion also focuses on the
research approach, preconceptions, researchers’ motivation and literature selection
approach.
2.1 Research Philosophy
Research philosophy provides an understanding on how the researchers view the world
and knowledge (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 24; Saunders et al, 2012, p. 107). The adopted
research philosophies determine crucial assumptions, thus, underpinning the choices in
terms of research approach and strategy (Saunders et al., 2012, p. 108). Moreover, they
vastly influence research design and data collection techniques. Many academics argue
that one method or stance should not be mixed with different lines of thought and
strategies; however, Saunders et al., (2012, p. 109) and Bryman & Bell (2011, p. 126)
argue that in practical terms one may hold i.e. interpretivist views yet apply quantitative
methods and strategies. Reed (1985) and Bunchanan and Bryman (2007, cited in Bryman
& Bell, 2011, p. 26) highlight that one cannot fall within a single philosophical framework
since this would minimize the chances of the development of interesting theories. At this
stage, no method is considered right or wrong and no method has a competitive advantage
over the other (Malterud, 2001, p. 483).
2.1.1 Ontological Considerations
Ontology is concerned with the nature of the reality; thus, questioning the beliefs and
assumptions that researchers have with regard to the social setting they belong. In other
terms ontology is concerned with ‘what is out there’ (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 32; Long
et al., 2000, p. 190; Saunders et al., 2012, p. 110). Ontology is categorized into two
perspectives: i) Objectivism and ii) Constructivism (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 26;
Saunders et al., 2012, p. 110). On the one hand, objectivism portrays the social reality as
external from the phenomena; thus, indicating that the social actors do not have a say in
constructing the reality in which they live (Saunders et al., 2012, p. 110). This stance
places a special emphasis on the structural aspect of management; thus, sensing a robust
environment in the organizational setting. On the other hand, constructivism views reality
as a changing environment that is highly independent on the interrelated actors (Saunders
et al., 2012, p. 111). Under the umbrella of constructivism, social actors play a key role
in building and influencing the phenomena at hand through the process of social
interaction. In general, constructivism views the world as a continuously changing
environment rather than a set of procedures (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 28).
EPM, specifically the application of PM practices within the setting of entrepreneurial
start-ups requires a deep understanding of the topic at hand; ergo, the employment of
various research strategies in order to gain rich data on the issue. For the purpose of this
study we view the reality within the concept of constructivism considering that EPM is a
highly subjective concept depending on the different social actors involved in the process.
Our study is based on the perceptions of the practitioners within the field; thus, mirroring
opinions and perspectives on how to further develop EPM. Furthermore, entrepreneurship
is perceived as a socially shaped field, constantly constructed and re-constructed as
changes are made through the development of new theories, and through practitioners
themselves who launch new ventures (Lindgren & Packendorff, 2011, p. 48).

7
2.1.2 Epistemological Considerations
Epistemology is concerned with what is considered acceptable knowledge in a particular
field (Saunders et al., 2012, p. 27). In other terms, epistemology observers whether
researchers are a component of the research, or whether they are seen as external to it.
Bryman and Bell (2011, p. 15) critically argue that the social setting cannot be seen and
studied with the same procedures and measures as the natural sciences. The three main
epistemological stances that the academia and practitioners have agreed upon include: i)
Positivism, ii) Realism, and iii) Interpretivism (Saunders et al., 2012, p. 113).
Researchers who follow positivist stances believe that knowledge can be obtained by
studying observable phenomena and employing tools and techniques used by natural
scientists (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 15). Positivists metaphorically view the world as a
machine which follows and complies with the procedures, rules and regulations (Long et
al., 2000, p.191). Positivism is highly associated with objectivism since the researcher
distances him/herself in order to avoid any biases which may be caused if researchers’
share their perspectives. As a result, the positivist researcher conducts value-free research,
where the researcher does not take a personal stance on the issue. It is mainly used to test
hypothesis [i.e. accept or reject the underpinned hypothesis]. Similarly to positivism, the
epistemological position of realism is related to the scientific enquiry (Saunders et al.,
2012, p. 114). This philosophical position highlights that objects are independent from
the human mind; therefore, arguing that reality is what our senses show us to be true
(Saunders et al., 2012, p. 599).
On the contrary, interpretivism is considered to be a more flexible method where the
researcher deems it necessary to know the cause of the problem, or the phenomena at
hand, in order to understand the context (Goldkhul, 2012, p. 138). The researcher is
directly involved in the setting being studied. Interpretivism emphasize that there are
differences between studying objects and human beings, indicating that characteristics
and complexities of the field of business can be lost when applying natural science
methods (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 16; Saunders et al., 2012, p. 137). The interpretivist
stance is usually used at times when the research attempts to build a theory; therefore, it
starts from the observations which along the way lead to the theory itself. Considering
that this research is heavily contingent on the reflections and viewpoints of the interrelated
entrepreneurs and start-up founder [project managers], one might argue that
interpretivism is the appropriate epistemological stance. The authors can best interpret
the subjective meaning of the concept of EPM if the units of analysis are able to express
their reflections which will be extracted mainly through interviews (Lindgren &
Packendorff, 2011, p.50).
2.1.3 Axiological Considerations
Axiology, also referred to as the ‘theory of values’, studies judgments about values
(Saunders., 2012, p. 116). Oftentimes axiology is related to ethics and includes questions
of interpersonal conduct. The authors accept that awareness and responsibility is required,
as they view themselves as co-constructors of entrepreneurial processes and notions
within the field of entrepreneurship (Lindgren & Packendorff, 2011, p.50). In addition,
the authors believe that the findings of the study will provide a theoretical and practical
contribution to the current state of affairs in terms of increasing the success rate of
entrepreneurial ventures through the identification of project success criteria and CSFs as
a result of applying a project-based view to the management of the start-up. A great
importance on the data collection strategies and methods has been placed in order to

8
answer the research question; ergo, to fully fulfil the research objectives, case studies in
the form of semi-structured interviews will be carried out. The choices of philosophical
approach and demonstrated data collection methods clearly suggest that the authors are
value-bounded with the topic itself.
2.2 Research Approach
The research approach is concerned with the use of theory in a particular field of research.
It serves as a crucial building block for the research and is viewed as something that
develops after collection and analysis of the data (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 23). The
definition of theory in the early stages of research raises important questions concerning
the design of the research project (Saunders et al., 2012, p. 124). Various ways that the
research can relate theory with the empirical data are: deduction, induction and abduction
(Patel & Davidson, 2011, p. 23). However, while Bryman and Bell (2011, p. 13) do not
recognize abduction as an approach in itself, they admit that it is becoming popular and
widely used among the research community.
Deduction can be defined as the process of theory generation through data or otherwise
known as the process which leads from ‘general to specific’ (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p.
23). Similarly, Mason (2002, p. 16) phrases deduction as the process which allows
theoretical assumptions to lead. On the basis of what is known within a particular field,
the researcher following the deductive path deduces a hypothesis which will be subject to
empirical study (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 23). Deduction is highly associated with
scientific research considering that it involves the development of the theory which is
subject to rigorous tests and procedures (Saunders et al., 2012, p. 124). Under the theory
of deduction it is very important to employ a highly structured methodology; thus,
explaining and justifying how the data will be collected in relation to concepts which
make up the hypothesis. The entire process allows replication and ensures reliability. Last
but not least, important concepts within deduction need to be translated into
operationalized terms in order to enable quantitative measuring of the facts (Saunders et
al., 2012, p. 125).
Contrary to deduction, research that is conducted inductively follows a bottom-up
approach, thus, seeing the theory as the outcome of the research (Saunders et al., 2012, p.
126). The process of induction involves drawing generalizable interferences out of the
carried observations. Throughout the years, the followers of induction have heavily
opposed and criticized the structured and rigorous system imposed by deduction. One has
to bear in mind that the research which follows an inductive approach is particularly
concerned with the context that the phenomena at hand takes place but also the
surrounding system which influences the occurrence of such events. According to
Saunders et al (2012, p. 144), the purpose of data collection within the inductive
framework is to identify themes and patters which arise from observations, which
subsequently present a new conceptual framework.
Last but not least, the abductive approach involves the combination of induction and
deduction in overall terms (Mason, 2002, p. 16). Abduction has a twofold purpose: being
sensible and scientific, but also reaching a deep understanding and insights into new
knowledge (Bryant & Charmaz, 2007, p. 19). The process of abduction is intended to help
social research in general by easing the path toward new discoveries in a very structured
and logical methodological order. Our research will incorporate both inductive and
deductive approaches, albeit at different times. The starting point of theory is going to be
the existing literature mainly by looking for theories on project success and CSFs within

9
the field of PM. In order to create an overview on how to fully answer our research
question, extensive research will also be carried within the field of entrepreneurship.
Initially an inductive approach will be taken whereby a set of steps and procedures will
be consistently followed to generate a list of success criteria and CSFs within the literature
of PM. The research process will go through the deductive phase whereby the categories
of success criteria and CSFs formulated during the inductive phase will be tested across
in start-ups. Patterns and themes will be identified via qualitative data collection.
Therefore, they will be compared with the existing theories on project success criteria and
CSFs to see if they are valid or new characteristics have been mentioned. The nature of
the research and findings may lead to new contributions in theory and practices; therefore,
leading to theory formulation or modification (Saunders et al, 2012, p. 126). Once taking
the abduction approach, one has to bear in mind the risk of not finding emerging patters
from the collected data (Saunders et al., 2012, p. 127).
2.3 Preconceptions
Despite attempts at ensuring objectivity throughout the study, one has to bear in mind that
the research process is never value-free (Bryman & Bell, 2011, p. 30). The researchers
always carry certain opinions on the topic being investigated. According to Malterud
(2001, p. 484), reflexivity begins by identifying preconceptions of the researches; thus,
presenting personal and professional experiences, beliefs and opinions. Additionally,
preconceptions influence the researcher’s choice on the topic and the chosen methodology
to address the research question. Furthermore, the interpretation of data and conclusions
always tend to be considered subjective and influenced by preconceptions. During the
entire research process and stages, the effect of the researcher should be constantly
evaluated. The continual assessment allows the inclusion of these effects within the study
in terms of discussing the limitations, strengths, and weaknesses of the study. This process
will also aid transferability and confirm the reliability of the findings (Malterud, 2001, p.
484).
Currently, the authors are pursuing a Master’s degree in Strategic Project Management,
at the Umea University in Umea, Sweden. The program is also conducted in association
with Heriot Watt University in Edinburgh, UK and Politecnico di Milano in Milan, Italy,
where the students have also completed a semester each. Under overall terms, the
programmer has armed the researchers with knowledge on relevant concepts which are
compliant with this study such as: Project management, strategic change, business models
and risk management. Both researchers come from a very similar geographical
backgrounds, both being of Balkan origin. Yet their professional and academic histories
vary. One of the researchers has dedicated her career and research to exploring economic
development and inclusion in developing countries, with international work experience
in Europe and the Americas. She has a dual-degree MSc in Islamic Economics, Finance
and Banking from the University of Bolton in the UK and the University of Sarajevo in
Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), and is a certified Project Manager through IPMA. The
second researcher has graduated from the Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) in
Management, Public Policy and Legal Studies and attended the Dartmouth
Entrepreneurial Programme in New Hampshire, United States of America.
Professionally, she has worked in various fields from business to human rights.
Indeed, the researchers are aware of the potential biases which may be caused due to their
professional and academic backgrounds; however, they expect them not to have a
significant influence over the results of the study.

10
2.4 Motivation for Research
We identified the topic of EPM as a rather new and interesting alternative when compared
to the traditional form of PM adopted and practiced by large firms. With the concept being
relatively new, extensive research has not been carried out on all the aspects of EPM,
especially concerned with the success criteria and CSFs which will lead to the success or
failure of a start-up. Due to the lack of sufficient research, success criteria and CSFs are
still concepts which are open for interpretation; therefore, we want to explore the success
criteria and CSFs that are relevant for the success of the start-ups. At this point, one has
to bear in mind that a project-based view is taken with regards to the start-ups’
management.
Complementary to this, we found the topic very interesting as it increases our
understanding and gives insights into what should be undertaken when merging the field
of PM and entrepreneurship. On the one hand, the traditional form of PM highlights the
use of extensive tools and techniques, bureaucratic procedures and regulations, but also a
clear division of roles and responsibilities among the operating team. On the other hand
the concept of EPM is meant to empower the development of a ‘lite’ version of PM which
is cost-effective but also suitable for the needs of start-ups.
The researchers believe that the knowledge and findings resulting from the data derived
throughout the study will provide a contribution within the field of PM and
entrepreneurship. Furthermore, as the end of the programmer is approaching, the
researchers are working on establishing a makerspace within the Balkan region, therefore,
this study with help them in understanding the most important success criteria and CSFs
that will lead to the success of the makerspace.
2.5 Approach to Literature Selection
A literature review is carried out to not only increase the theoretical level of the thesis but
to also ensure a thorough understanding of the topic and identify potential areas of
research within the field. Furthermore, a literature review will aid the process of
understanding similar work done in the past and identifying knowledge gaps which
determine further investigation. However one should note that it is highly important to
include a broad range of ideas; thus, not only selecting literature which is similar to the
investigated topic, but also including literature which contradicts the underpinning
assumptions within the field being researched. It is highly important to provide an
inclusive range of ideas in order to ensure internal validity of the research, but also
challenge the researcher’s mindset (Eisendardt, 1989, p. 544). Good structuring and
proper use of terminology is essential so that it provides the reader with a comprehensive
background on the topic (Cronin et al., 2008, p. 38). The process of a literature review in
general is decisive in identifying relevant theories on the chosen topic, thus, a systematic
approach should be taken throughout the entirety of the phases (Ghauri & Gronhaug,
2010, p. 51). This thesis combines concepts of both PM and entrepreneurship, therefore,
literature and theories pertinent to both fields were taken into consideration in order to
provide a comprehensive overview on the topic. On the one hand, a great deal of literature
was found on the project success criteria and CSFs within the field PM, both in the print
and electronic databases. On the other hand, sources that researchers considered important
within the field of entrepreneurship could not be found, neither within online databases
or printed literature. Also, one should note that entrepreneurship as an academic field is
relatively new; therefore, the lack of research within the field is limited, particularly
where the role of PM, i.e. a project-based view, in entrepreneurial ventures is concerned.

11