Conference PaperPDF Available

Four Approaches to Project Evaluation


Abstract and Figures

There are many theoretical and practical reasons for evaluating projects-including explorative arguments focusing on expanding descriptive knowledge on project work as well as normative arguments focusing on improving prescriptive models of project performance. Despite the need for project management methodologies that work and combat project failure, and research methods that can assess effective project management and methodologies, as well as empirical research on the actuality of projects as practice, evaluation research on projects including project management and methodologies is scarce. Each of the framework's four approaches provides a distinct evaluation that sheds light on some issues while leaving others unattended. Following these lines, the paper calls for more multi-faceted project evaluations. Introducing a framework that can help analyze existing evaluations and structure upcoming evaluations by highlighting beneficial aspects and/or revealing hidden issues, the aim of this paper is to contribute to the theoretical and practical field of project management. The paper contributes to project theory and practice by inspiring project researchers and aiding project workers in their efforts to open up the black box of projects and deliver relevant and valuable results. 2 NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
Content may be subject to copyright.
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
Four Approaches to Project Evaluation
Markus Laursen, Per Svejvig, Anna Le Gerstrøm Rode
Aarhus University, Aarhus BSS, Department of Management
There are many theoretical and practical reasons for evaluating projects including explorative arguments
focusing on expanding descriptive knowledge on project work as well as normative arguments focusing on
improving prescriptive models of project performance. Despite the need for project management
methodologies that work and combat project failure, and research methods that can assess effective
project management and methodologies, as well as empirical research on the actuality of projects as
practice, evaluation research on projects including project management and methodologies is scarce.
Each of the framework’s four approaches provides a distinct evaluation that sheds light on some issues
while leaving others unattended. Following these lines, the paper calls for more multi-faceted project
evaluations. Introducing a framework that can help analyze existing evaluations and structure upcoming
evaluations by highlighting beneficial aspects and/or revealing hidden issues, the aim of this paper is to
contribute to the theoretical and practical field of project management.
The paper contributes to project theory and practice by inspiring project researchers and aiding project
workers in their efforts to open up the black box of projects and deliver relevant and valuable results.
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
1 Introduction
There are several reasons for conducting evaluations, but in general, evaluations can be done to exercise
control and enable learning and enlightenment - for strategic, tactical, symbolic or constitutive reasons
(Dahler-Larsen, 2013, pp. 208-212). More specifically, project evaluation is a relevant endeavor for a
number of reasons (Svejvig & Hedegaard, 2016). One reason is explorative and aiming at developing a
better understanding of projects and project management. Another reason is directive and aiming at
improving or optimizing projects or project management. Project evaluation can be used ex-post in
hindsight to document project work after a project is finished, interim to correct, adjust or align project
work during a project, and ex-ante in advance to prioritize between alternative projects before one or
several projects are started (Harri Laihonen, Linzalone, & Schiuma, 2015).
In general, evaluations can have a summative or formative purpose (Chen, 2015, pp. 7-9). Evaluations can
be practically oriented and pertain to managers who wish to keep track of their projects and project
performance or theoretically oriented and pertain to scholars who wish to nuance the understanding of
projects and project performance. There has long been a lively debate concerning whether one project
performs better than another project or is more or less successful: both in theoretical and professional
communities such issues are important and enduring themes of discussion (Atkinson, 1999; Davis, 2014;
Gemino, Sauer, & Reich, 2010; Pinto & Prescott, 1988; Zwikael & Smyrk, 2012). In short, project evaluation
is an interesting and important subject both in theory and in practice.
Despite the large number and variety of arguments for evaluating projectsboth for academic and
pragmatic reasons - the literature within project management is scattered when it comes to project
evaluation. Given the need to learn more about projects and improve upon project work, there is a need
for addressing this topic specifically and not as a part of discussing project success that is often informed by
some sort of evaluation. There is a gap of knowledge on project evaluation knowledge that could help
structure an evaluation process, and there is a need for research which supports the development of
evaluation design.
The lack of advice on how to perform project evaluations makes it difficult to design an evaluation
framework, which was the task the authors behind this paper was faced with, when engaging in a large
practice-driven research program. As a consequence of the lack of systematic project evaluation methods,
the team behind the study set out to develop an evaluation framework. This paper is an outcome of this
endeavor and it outlines the resulting product of the designing process in a framework representing four
approaches to project evaluation. By conceptualizing and presenting the framework in this paper, we seek
to inspire project researchers and workers who wish to evaluate projects. Following these lines, the aim of
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
this paper is to present an evaluation framework and to illustrate its effectiveness using the action design
research study from which it emerged to test its validity. The overall purpose is to aid project workers and
scholars who wish to evaluate projects by presenting an artifact that can support project evaluation.
The paper follows the publication schema for a design science research study (Gregor & Hevner, 2013), in
which the conceptual evaluation framework is treated as an artifact: a thing with a material existence - an
artificially made object like a method and model (Gregor & Hevner, 2013, p. 341). The paper is structured
as follows: After the current introduction in which the problem and relevance of project evaluation is
presented and the purpose and scope of the developed artifact as a solution is specified, follows a
theoretical section outlining research on evaluation in general and on project evaluation in specific, which
serves as relevant or justificatory knowledge that informs the development of the artifact. The third section
presents the research approach of the action design research study from which the artifact has emerged,
and it includes the design process that led to the production of the artifact. The fourth section is the
abstract domain, and it presents each of the four approaches to project evaluation that make up the
artifact. The fifth section presents the instance domain, showing the application of the artifact, and at the
end of the section, a brief evaluation is presented. We conclude the paper with a brief section of
concluding remarks.
2 Theoretical Background
2.1 Evaluation Research
Evaluation is a vital word in everyday life often understood as the action of appraising or valuing
[something] (Oxford English Dictionary). Evaluation research and evaluations are multi-faceted covering
such diverse examples as community development projects, educational reform, public policy
implementation (Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007) or commercial and industrial corporations evaluating
procedures for training and promoting employees (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004). The evaluand is very
broadly described by Scriven as “something”, but needs to be defined (Scriven 1991 cited in Dahler-Larsen,
2013, pp. 55-60) and delimited in order to make the evaluation operational.
In this context and paper, we use evaluation more restricted as program evaluation interchangeable with
evaluation research (Rossi et al., 2004, p. 2). Program evaluation is defined as follows (Chen, 2015, p. 6):
Program evaluation is the process of systematically gathering empirical data and contextual information
about an intervention program specifically answers what, who, how, whether, and why questions that will
assist in assessing a program’s planning, implementation and/or effectiveness.
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
Program evaluation has a long history with roots back in the 17th century; although systematic evaluation of
programs started prior to World War I related to public health initiatives (Rossi et al., 2004). This was
followed on by Lewin’s pioneering “action research” studies about minority problems (white and black, Jew
and non-Jew) (Lewin, 1946), commercial studies as the Hawthorne studies (Roethlisberger, Dickson, &
Wright, 1961 (1939)) to mention a couple of historical studies.
Program evaluation could be classified in many ways where Chen (2015) states the following basic
evaluation types: (1) constructive process evaluation, (2) conclusive process evaluation, (3) constructive
outcome evaluation, (4) conclusive outcome evaluation and (5) hybrid evaluations derived from the first
four basic types. Constructive or formative means providing information for improving a program while
conclusive or summative means judging the overall merit or worth. Process is the stages in a program (e.g.
program implementation) while outcome is the impact that the program has on its stakeholders (e.g. client,
organization, society etc.). Dahler-Larsen (2013) provides another classification and mentions four types as
objectives evaluation, outcome evaluation, process-based outcome evaluation and participatory evaluation
where his categories partially overlap with Chen’s (2015), although Dahler-Larsen emphasizes that process-
based outcome evaluation differs from mainstream evaluation research by relying on constructivism
epistemology (Dahler-Larsen, 2013). We will finally mention realistic evaluation based on a realism
perspective, which is an epistemology between positivism and constructivism. Realistic evaluation has the
formula Context (C) + Mechanism (M) => Outcome (O) where a program triggers a mechanism within a
given context that gives a certain outcome. The key is the that the result is context-based (Befani,
Ledermann, & Sager, 2007; Pawson & Tilley, 1997).
Evaluation research and program evaluation has progressed as its own discipline with evaluation societies,
evaluation journals and beyond (Rossi et al., 2004), but apparently largely disconnected to project studies
and project management research although recent research integrates the two disciplines and furthermore
verbalizes it as evaluation of projects (Dahler-Larsen, 2013). In the following, we will not distinguish
between program or project as this is a definitive question, so program evaluation and project evaluation
are seen as part of the same entirety.
2.2 Project Evaluation Theory
Project evaluation is a central element in the literature on project studies and project management (Lenfle,
2012) despite the disconnectedness to evaluation research. We take a systems view for project evaluation
as shown below in Figure 1 (Adapted from Andersen, 2010; Chen, 2015; Dahler-Larsen, 2013; Laursen &
Svejvig, 2016):
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
Input Processes Output
Figure 1: A systems view on project evaluation
Figure 1 shows a simplistic representation of a project as an open system relating to and depending on its
environment (Bertalanffy, 1956). Inputs are resources from the environment such as money, technology,
facilities and personnel, which are transformed to tangible and/or intangible outputs through project
processes. Outcome is the resulting impact on its stakeholders derived from the project’s output. The
environment is interacting with the project either fostering and/or constraining the project processes
influenced by social norms, organizational culture, political structures etc. Feedback mechanisms are shown
with dashed lines and indicate how responses from the project and the environment can be used to
regulate input, processes, output and outcome (Bertalanffy, 1968; Chen, 2015).
A common pattern in project evaluation is comparing projects where a comparison is the evaluation of two
or more projects using the same evaluation criteria - as Swanson (1971, p. 145) puts it “thinking without
comparison is unthinkable”.
A classic project evaluation and comparison perspective is the iron triangle with the elements cost, time
and quality (Atkinson, 1999). This is objectives evaluation (Dahler-Larsen, 2013) related to the output from
the project and sometimes labeled success criteria for projects. Atkinson (1999) suggested a square route
model to elaborate our understanding of success criteria in projects with dimensions such as benefits for
organization and community but still including the iron triangle thereby focusing on both output and
outcome in Figure 1 above. In the same vein Shenhar and Dvir (2007, pp. 23-36) propose a
multidimensional strategic concept with five success dimensions and as a dynamic concept developing over
time. The presentation shows the close relationship between project success criteria and project evaluation
as well as the focus on output and/or outcome (objectives evaluation).
This brief presentation of evaluation theory and project evaluation theory forms the basis for the action
design research described in next chapter where theories are involved when relevant.
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
3 Action Design Research Methodology
We frame our research approach as action design research (ADR) which is adapted from the information
systems domain. “ADR is a research method for generating prescriptive design knowledge through building
and evaluating…artifacts in an organizational setting” (Sein, Henfridsson, Purao, Rossi, & Lindgren, 2011, p.
40). The study has thus both elements of action research (interventions) and design research (building
artifacts) (Goldkuhl, 2012).
The study is based on an initiative called Project Half Double, which has the purpose to build up a new and
radical project paradigm to increase the competitiveness of the Danish industry. Project Half Double is a
cooperation between Implement Consulting Group, manufacturing companies and universities (Svejvig et
al., 2016; Svejvig & Grex, 2016). Project Half Double has created the Half Double Methodology (HDM)
(methodology artifact). HDM has been tested in seven pilot projects (interventions), and the results
havebeen evaluated using an evaluation model (evaluation artifact). This has taken place from June 2015 to
December 2016, where a detailed account of the results are available elsewhere (Svejvig, Rode, &
Frederiksen, 2017).
The study can be divided into two parallel cycles (Mathiassen, Chiasson, & Germonprez, 2012). First, a
problem-solving cycle where the HDM is used in the seven pilot projects. Second, a research cycle with the
purpose to evaluate the problem-solving cycle. The focus in this paper is on the design and evaluation of
the evaluation model in the research cycle.
ADR consists of four interleaved stages: (1) problem formulation; (2) building, intervention, and evaluation;
(3) reflection and learning; and (4) formalization of learning. ADR also describes seven principles which are
shown together with the four stages in Table 1 below outlining the action design research process in this
study (inspired by Gregor, Imran, & Turner, 2014):
Table 1: The action design research process divided into problem-solving cycle and research cycle
Stages and principles
Application of stages and principles in
Project Half Double
(Problem-solving cycle)
Application of stages and principles in
the research part of Project Half Double
(Research cycle)
Stage 1 Problem formulation
Principle 1:
Practice inspired research
Project Half Double is driven from
practice with the overall objective to
develop a new and radical project
paradigm in order to increase the
competitiveness of the Danish industry
The evaluation model is developed and
used to evaluate the intervention process
especially practices and impact in order
to assess the degree to which the HDM is
more successful than traditional
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
Stages and principles
Application of stages and principles in
Project Half Double
(Problem-solving cycle)
Application of stages and principles in
the research part of Project Half Double
(Research cycle)
Principle 2:
Theory-ingrained artifact
The artifact HDM is derived from lean
and agile thinking (Axelos, 2015; Womack
& Jones, 2003)
and related to the
rethinking project management research
(Svejvig & Andersen, 2015;
Winter, Smith, Morris, & Cicmil, 2006)
The evaluation model is based on open
systems theory (Andersen, 2010; Chen,
2015), evaluation theory (Pawson &
Tilley, 1997; Stufflebeam & Shinkfield,
2007), diamond model for project
characteristics (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007)
and beyond
Stage 2 Building, intervention, and evaluation
Principle 3:
Reciprocal shaping
The HDM is applied to the pilot projects
and experiences from the pilot projects
are used to revise and enhance the
The evaluation model were initially
developed as an abstract model and
subsequently applied and re-shaped
according to each pilot project and
Principle 4:
Mutually influential roles
There is mutual learning between practitioners, consultants and researchers both
within organizations and across organizations e.g. through knowledge sharing
workshops this learning process overlaps the problem-solving and research cycle
Principle 5:
Authentic and concurrent
The evaluation model is used to evaluate
the pilot project and compare it with
other projects called reference project
The evaluation model is discussed in
interviews and workshops as part of the
evaluation process
Stage 3: Reflection and learning
Principle 6:
Guided emergence
Guided emergence reflects that the initial design of the artifacts (the HDM and
evaluation model) are shaped by their use and the participants who use the them
(Sein et al., 2011, p. 44)this adjusting process overlaps the problem-solving and
research cycle
Stage 4: Formalization of learning
Principle 7:
Generalized outcomes
The HDM as artifact is a generalized
outcome which will (and has to) undergo
more design cycles to reflect the learning
that takes place in Project Half Double
The evaluation models are generalized
outcomes that may be applied in other
The process outlined in Table 1 did not follow the linear fashion as described in the table above but was an
iterative process moving back and forth between the stages as stipulated in the ADR method (Sein et al.,
2011), and the two cycles are highly intertwined.
The theorizing related to the evaluation model has taken place in two domains: The abstract domain and
the instance domain (Lee, Pries-Heje, & Baskerville, 2011). We started with an abstract problem about how
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
to evaluate projects using HDM and compare them with projects which have not used HDM. We developed
an abstract solution based on open systems theory (Andersen, 2010; Chen, 2015), evaluation theory
(Pawson & Tilley, 1997; Stufflebeam & Shinkfield, 2007), the diamond model for project characteristics
(Shenhar & Dvir, 2007) and others. The abstract solution was then instantiated in the seven organizations
each carrying out a pilot project (instance solution). The pilot projects were carried out at different times,
so we were able to learn from organization to organization and thereby improve the evaluation model.
Finally, the generalized abstract solution presented in this paper is a further refinement after the fieldwork
in the seven organizations has taken place. Overall, this theorizing process could be described as abductive
(Saunders, Lewis, & Thornhill, 2016).
The presentation in this paper is first the generalized abstract solution (abstract domain) in the next
chapter, and then the illustration of how the generalized solution is used in a specific example drawing on
the Project Half Double (instance domain) in the chapter that follows.
4 Project Evaluation Framework
Based on the research methodology outlined above, the research team designed a conceptual framework
to help solve the task of the research cycle and assess the working and value of the HDM meaning an
evaluation framework specifically for projects. In this section we present this conceptual model, meaning
the result of the work taking place in the abstract domain, and we close the section by synthesizing what
the approach contributes to project evaluation theory.
This project evaluation framework consists of four distinct approaches Specific Success Criteria, Classical
Iron Triangle, Internal Benchmarking, and External Benchmarking as illustrated in Figure 2 below. The
approaches are ordered according to their project specificity and we describe each of them in the following
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
Figure 2: Project evaluation framework
Across the framework, the four approaches share certain characteristics, e.g. the two approaches ‘Classical
Iron Triangle’ and ‘Specific Success Criteria’ focus on the single project only. The two benchmarking
approaches consider one project relative to other projects, and moreover, the benchmarking approaches
do not entail predefined metrics, as with especially the ‘Classical Iron Triangle’ and to some extent the
‘Specific Success Criteria’. For benchmarking, internal and external is relative to the organization where a
project is executed.
4.1 Specific Success Criteria
Projects have a degree of uniqueness, which is addressed by having specific success criteria for project
evaluation. Thus, this approach primarily relates to the overall project objectives and the overall project
success (McLeod, Doolin, & MacDonell, 2012). There can also be criteria relating to the success of the
project management or project process. The distinction between project process and the project as a
whole is reflected in many frameworks concerning success of projects and project management (Laursen &
Svejvig, 2016). The overall objectives are likely to be the measures of effect and value that can only be
measured after the project is finished and perhaps a product has been launched. In theory, there is no limit
to the number of measures, but one of the challenges is to identify relevant measures for which a causal
relationship to the project can be justifiedeven if causality is difficult to justify in practice. As we have
labeled this approach specific, it means that it can and should be tailored to individual project objectives.
This approach provides information about effect/impact over time of projects and their outputs, and the
criteria take into account that the effect is for given stakeholders (McLeod et al., 2012).
This approach is based on what we may label objectives evaluation (Dahler-Larsen, 2013), where the
objectives have been defined at the outset, and there is a natural desire to evaluate if the objectives were
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
fulfilled. There is an underlying assumption of the objectives being valid at the outset of the project,
meaning that it makes sense to evaluate these even though the world has changed. Specific success criteria
are often related to the perceived benefits for a stakeholder or group of stakeholders, such as the
suggestion by Atkinson (1999) for benefits of information systems projects.
4.2 Classical Iron Triangle
The Classical Iron Triangle approach is a well-established concept to project evaluation for project
management practitioners, as it has been applied for many years and still is today (McLeod et al., 2012).
The Classical Iron Triangle approach is concerned with the project process or the success of the project
management (Atkinson, 1999; McLeod et al., 2012). The measures of success are traditional; time
(schedule), cost (budget), and quality (specification) that relate to the time from project initiation to the
end of the project. The measure of project management success may also be expressed as the efficiency of
the project management in relation to schedule and budget (Shenhar, Dvir, Levy, & Maltz, 2001). Thus,
these measures provide an organization with indications of their ability for executing projects in relation to
The Classical Iron Triangle approach is based on objectives evaluation, and in a technical and rational way
of thinking (Svejvig & Andersen, 2015) the project deliveries are defined in ways that the objectives are
expected to be fulfilled by the end of the project (Dahler-Larsen, 2013). In this line of thinking, objectives
are accepted as valid at the outset and by evaluating the dimensions in the iron triangle, the objectives are
evaluated implicitly.
This approach has a limited scope which has been subject to much critique (e.g. Atkinson, 1999) as it has
been applied without awareness of its limitations. However, it is not without reason that the approach is
still in use; it is generic and simple, making it applicable across project types and methodologies. This
approach provides easy-to-understand measures that are operational or they may be proxies for specific
success criteria, e.g. a project schedule might be important as it represents the time to market of a product.
Thus, an overall dimension is broken down to depend on meeting the scheduled goal.
4.3 Internal Benchmarking
Benchmarking is a concept that is used somewhat differently across sectors, and an academic journal
(Benchmarking: An International Journal) is dedicated to studies on benchmarking, which is related to the
research domain total quality programs. In this context, many definitions have been suggested over time
(Nandi & Banwet, 2000), which have followed benchmarking theory through four evolutionary stages that
we may sum up as going toward (1) priority to action, (2) evaluation of process, (3) satisfaction of
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
customer, (4) evaluation of strategies (Anand & Kodali, 2008; Maire, Bronet, & Pillet, 2005). Based on
multiple definitions, Anand and Kodali (2008) suggest that benchmarking may be described as
a continuous analysis of strategies, functions, processes, products or services, performances,
etc. compared within or between best-in-class organisations by obtaining information through
appropriate data collection method, with the intention of assessing an organisation’s current
standards and thereby carry out self-improvement by implementing changes to scale or exceed
those standards.(p. 259)
This description suggests a conceptualization of benchmarking as more than an approach to evaluation,
rather it is described as an initiative to improve performance or quality of business operations. In this
paper, we stay closer to the dictionary form where benchmarking is defined as “The action or practice of
comparing something to a benchmark; evaluation against an established standard.” (OED, 2017). We can
narrow this down even further through the definition of benchmarking within business: “A process in which
a business evaluates its own operations (often specific procedures) by detailed comparison with those of
another business (esp. a competitor), in order to establish best practice and improve performance; the
examination and emulation of other organizations' strengths.” (OED, 2017). Yet, it is stated that the terms
may also be applied internally in an organization. The business definition specifies that it is the operations,
here projects, that are compared. We adopt an approach mainly related to systematic measurement and
learning from projects (Kouzmin, Elke, Helmut, & Korac-Kakabadse, 1999).
The purpose of this approach is to provide an overall assessment of an invention or improvement initiative
by benchmarking a project against several other projects. These other projects are labeled reference
projects – a label inspired by reference class forecasting (Flyvbjerg, 2006). The project subject to an
intervention may become a benchmark for further interventions to project management methodologies in
an organization. Internal benchmarking may follow a somewhat similar approach as ex-post evaluations of
projects in a project portfolio.
The benchmarks for projects may be derived from measures belonging to both prior outlined approaches;
Specific Success Criteria and Classical Iron Triangle. Internal Benchmarking opens especially for Specific
Success Criteria as projects within an organization share many traits and the approach is designed to isolate
one parameter and measure the effect of changing it. However, benchmarking can be extended to other
areas to expand the understanding of the specific context for each project. One way to inform the context
systematically could be through the four dimensions of the diamond model (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007);
Technology, Novelty, Pace, and Complexity. The complexity dimension may be supported by a framework
mapping the project characteristics environment, tasks and processes, and resources and organization
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
(Fangel, 2010). The four dimensions are to be assessed for both the reference projects and the project
subject to intervention. Another model for informing internal benchmarking in project evaluation is the
project excellence model developed by the International Project Management Association (IPMA, 2016). In
this way, our approach to benchmarking is not only related to performance and success itself, but also
includes a desire to understand the basis for the measures.
The internal benchmarking approach suits a variance-based experiment, where the reference projects form
the control group for the project subject to an intervention (Dahler-Larsen, 2013). Choosing the reference
projects is a balancing act of comparability on especially the dimension similarity and proximity in terms of
4.4 External Benchmarking
The fourth approach to evaluation is also concerned with comparisons, but focuses on comparing the
impacts of projects across organizations in order to learn from each other across organizations and to
understand the influence of context on the outcome of the intervention. Here, our use of benchmarking is
rather close to the dictionary’s definition of benchmarking in a business context that we presented in the
previous approach, as there is an implicit wish to improve current practices by benchmarking against the
practices of other organizations. The benchmarking may be conducted by either one of the organizations or
by an external team of evaluators such as a research team.
This approach to evaluation has a dual objective of both presenting conclusions on the outcomes of the
evaluation and to learn from the evaluation which is labeled Hybrid outcome evaluation (Chen, 2015).
Specifically, the approach follows real-world outcome evaluation and transferability evaluation. Real-world
outcome evaluation is concerned with phenomena from the real world, covering both constructive and
conclusive outcome assessments, and Transferability evaluation concerns the context, and it provides
indications whether or not outcomes may be replicated in different contexts (Chen, 2015). Particularly
Transferability evaluation is linked to realistic evaluation theory argued for by Pawson and Tilley (1997).
Realistic evaluation proposes a model for causality focusing on mechanism and context explaining the
outcome, also called the generative causation. In this way, this approach changes the perspective from the
control group approach of internal benchmarking that focuses on treatment (mechanism) and control
Overall, the model by (Pawson & Tilley, 1997) is formulated as Outcome=Mechanism+Context. It adopts
logics from the world of physics to the social world, also recognizing that a social program is a social
system. As previously, we deem program evaluation suitable for projects too. Mechanism is to be
understood as both tangible, such as a clockwork, and intangible in the meaning of ideas and opportunities.
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
Contexts are the social and cultural conditions that shape if the mechanism will be able to succeed. The
authors use the example from the physical world of gunpowder only igniting provided the right conditions -
e.g. it not being damp. The focus on mechanism and context is also expressed in the axioms of realism
when dealing with change, here more specifically the questions which research has to answer.
Axiom 1: What are the mechanisms for change triggered by a program and how do they
counteract the existing social processes? (Pawson & Tilley, 1997, p. 75).
Axiom 2: What are the social and cultural conditions necessary for change mechanisms to
operate and how are they distributed within and between program contexts? (Pawson & Tilley,
1997, p. 77).
The external benchmarking approach focuses on the outcome of the same set of ideas across different
contexts, thus the mechanism itself is similar, but how it counteracts existing social processes will not be
the same across organizations. Thus, the focus of this evaluation approach is less on axiom 1 than axiom 2.
It is not explicated in the formulation of axiom 2, yet we consider the nature and type of project to be
reflected in the social and cultural conditions.
The means for informing this evaluation approach are overall more universal than the internal
benchmarking, and apart from measures of performance, the approach applies assessments of
characteristics of each organization. The comparison of outcome measures may be based on figures
stemming from other evaluation approaches, in this way there is coherence across evaluation approaches.
This evaluation approach does not only allow for cross-organizational comparison, but the universal
measures also allow for comparing different types of projects for which the internal benchmarking
approach is unsuitable. Moreover, comparing across organizations is likely to open up for more project
types than found within one organization.
4.5 Knowledge Contribution of the Evaluation Framework
We have elaborated on each of the four approaches in terms of the purpose it has for an evaluation and
the theoretical foundation in evaluation theory which is summarized in Table 2.
Table 2. Four approaches to evaluation
Purpose of evaluation
Evaluation theory
Specific Success
Project success, being measured against the overall objectives of
the project (McLeod et al., 2012)
Objectives evaluation
(Dahler-Larsen, 2013)
Classical Iron
Project management success, being measured against the
traditional gauges of performance (i.e., time, cost, and quality
(Jugdev & MÜller, 2005; McLeod et al., 2012)
Process success focus on project management (McLeod et al.,
Objectives evaluation
(Dahler-Larsen, 2013)
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
Project Efficiency meeting schedule and budget (Shenhar et al.,
To provide an overall judgement of an invention or improvement
initiative by benchmarking a project against several other projects
Outcome / Impact measurement impact on customer and
business success (Shenhar et al., 2001)
Impact on stakeholders (e.g. client, organization, society) (Chen,
Conclusive outcome
evaluation (Chen, 2015)
Comparing projects in several organizations in order to learn from
each other
Context discussion (Dahler-Larsen, 2013, pp.: 149-153) and how
the context influences the results
Hybrid outcome
evaluation (Chen, 2015)
Context discussion in
realistic evaluation with
context, mechanism and
outcome) (Pawson &
Tilley, 1997)
The contribution of the artifact is two-fold as there is varying maturity across the four approaches to
evaluation in Table 2, but presenting an entire conceptual framework for project evaluation is a new
perspective. We consider maturity in two dimensions: Solution Maturity and Application Domain Maturity
suggested by Gregor and Hevner (2013) as the foundation for assessing a knowledge contribution of action
design research. Solution Maturity concerns “current maturity of artifacts” (Gregor and Hevner (2013, p.
345), while the Application Domain Maturity concerns the context. These two dimension help determine
the novelty of the artifact.
We deem the two approaches Classical Iron Triangle and Specific Success Criteria to be approaches that are
Routine Design, meaning that both types of maturity is high. Our argument is that both approaches mainly
provide “known solutions to known problems” (Gregor & Hevner, 2013, p. 345). on the contrary, the two
benchmarking approaches are not high maturity for the Application Domain. Rigorous Internal
Benchmarking is not commonly adopted for projects, even though it is portfolio management practiced in
many organizations providing data on project performance. External Benchmarking is not well described in
prior project evaluation literature, as the purpose and specific method is unlike general comparisons such
as the Standish Group CHAOS report. We may claim a first application of this type of comparison for
projects i.e. an exaptation (Gregor & Hevner, 2013). The learning perspective is known to the project
management society, but it is also common knowledge that learning could be emphasized in project
evaluation our evaluation framework addresses this by applying benchmarking theory.
Having presented the artifact in the abstract domain, the next section will present instantiations through
one example of each of the four approaches to evaluation. In doing so, we display the applicability of the
artifact and provide a foundation for evaluating the evaluation framework.
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
5 Evaluating the Project Evaluation Framework
The following section outlines how the research team applied the framework to structure the project
evaluation process, and in doing so, we illustrate the value of the artifact. Thus, this section concerns the
instance domain. In accordance with the recommended structure of ADR (Gregor & Hevner, 2013), we
present an evaluation of the artifact at the end of this section. This design evaluation is a product of an
ongoing research project, meaning that it may be considered a proof-of-concept, and we focus here on the
validity meaning that the artifact works and does what it is supposed to do (Gregor & Hevner, 2013, p.
351). The evaluation strategy belongs to the naturalistic type, combining ex-ante and ex-post evaluation
methods (Venable, Pries-Heje, & Baskerville, 2012). This means that the evaluation took place in a real-
world setting and that it was evaluated during and after application.
As presented in the previous section, our framework consists of four approaches to evaluation that have
been applied in the evaluation of the projects applying the Half Double Methodology. We present each
approach separately and conclude with an overall section to conclude on the usefulness of the artifact. The
examples are from what we called pilot projects, i.e. the projects subject to interventions and the reference
5.1 Specific Success Criteria: First Approach to HDM Evaluation
In the first approach, we considered each pilot project in its own right focusing on the particularities of
the pilot project: its vision and mission the raison d'être. From this consideration, specific success criteria
pertaining to the pilot project were derived. Toward or upon completion of the pilot project, the research
team engaged in a dialog with the project manager of the pilot project. The purpose was to evaluate the
performance of the pilot project measured against the complete list of success criteria, which allowed the
research team to investigate the success of the pilot project and to find out if the HDM was applicable in
each case. Thus, the focus was on learnings. This evaluation approach gave a very deep understanding of
one pilot project and a very project specific view on the workings of the HDM. In general, the number and
variety of project specific success criteria is unlimited - in the Half Double study the number and variety
A large manufacturing company provides an example of a specific evaluation based on the most
comprehensive list of success criteria. The ten criteria range from sales progress and market share to phase
duration and time to market as well as key stakeholder satisfaction in process and key stakeholder
assessment of product. Evaluating the pilot project in terms of all these success criteria enables a very
project relevant evaluation. The specific evaluation approach is shown in Table 3 below from Svejvig et al.
(2016, p. 8):
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
Table 3: Specific success criteria and their fulfillment
Actual / Expected
Obtaining and internal rate of return (Dynes &
Aguirre) >= 14%
To be evaluated after launch of product
Product should replace 90% of current pumps in the
same series
To be evaluated after launch of product
Standard unit cost below a certain number with
specific technical data
To be evaluated after launch of product
Reduce number of product variants by 50% without
increasing number of platforms
To be evaluated after launch of product
Sales doubled within five years and a market share
of 20%
To be evaluated after launch of product and ultimately after
five years
Shorter time to market for pilot project where the
frontloading phase from Gate 2 to Gate 3 is reduced
from nine to six months
Current lead time is expected to be nine months although the
project was able to finalize the phase in April 2016 seven
months after G2. It was, however, decided from a portfolio
management perspective to postpone the project deadline to
June 2016
The first three phases of the product development
project are done within six months (from
development project gate DP0 to DP3 covering idea,
pre-study and concept phases)
To be evaluated after gate DP3 is achieved in the product
development project
Pulse check shows satisfaction among key
stakeholders on 4.4
Average rating differs between 3.5 and 4.0 from October 2015
(4.0) to January 2016 (3.5) to April 2016 (3.9)
Key stakeholders assess that the product from the
pilot project has a maturity level to be 4.5 on a scale
from 1-5 (as an indicator of quality)
To be measured after completion of mature phase
”Transition Readiness Assessment” (TRA) should
reach a target of 90% after mature phase
The pilot project has gone from 63% in the beginning of the
mature phase to 87% at the end of mature phase
In summary, the specific approach relies on evaluation criteria that are very near to the project, enabling an
idiographic evaluation (Dahler-Larsen, 2013, pp. 63-64) which has the highest relevance to the specific
project. It does, however, have its limits as it restricts the broadness of the evaluation, which often
becomes narrow and limited to an intra-organizational and even intra-project comparison. This is a
challenge when it comes to benchmarking the project in order to gain an understanding of it compared to
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
other projectswhich is necessary for further evaluating the workings of the HDM. We address this
challenge in the evaluation approach Classical Iron Triangle presented next.
5.2 Classical Iron Triangle: Second Approach to HDM Evaluation
Second, the scope of evaluation was expanded to consider both the pilot project and three comparable so-
called reference projects. Consequently, we needed to expand the evaluation criteria to a range that was
relevant across all four projects. The search for less specific evaluation criteria relevant across all four
projects is guided by the task of documenting the benefits of the HDM and thereby by the overarching
ambition of the methodology: to reduce time and increase impact. Thus, in order to investigate if the HDM
can deliver on its promises, focus is on evaluating if the schedule was achieved and if the benefits were
realized, but also criteria on budget and scope success were in use. In this way, the second step investigates
the success of the pilot and reference projects individually by evaluating their performance measured
against the classical and more general success criteria.
A global pharmaceutical company provides an example of a more general evaluation which is based on two
evaluation parameters pertaining to the classical iron triangle criteria and additional universal criteria. In
this organization, the classical criteria were operationalized in a simple way; deeming whether the success
criteria were fully or partially achieved for all but the quality criterion User satisfaction. This criterion was
scored in a simple survey for project teams and optionally also steering committees and review teams. The
more general evaluation approach based on classical criteria is shown in Table 4 below from Svejvig et al.
(2017, p. 21).
Table 4: Selected criteria and their fulfillment
Budget Partially achieved (new
estimate in execution
Partially achieved
(schedule delay
increased cost)
Achieved Achieved
Schedule Achieved Partially achieved
(schedule was
postponed twice)
Achieved Achieved
Benefit realization Partially achieved (two
areas achieved and one
partially achieved)
Achieved Achieved Partially achieved
(super user training
User satisfaction Score 4.4 for core team
and steering group and
4.5 for review team
Score 4.2 (max 5 and
target was 4.0)
Score 4.4 (overall user
Score 3.6 (including
user and super user)
In summary, the general approach relies on evaluation criteria that are less project specific and more
nomothetic (Dahler-Larsen, 2013, pp. 63-64), which allows for comparisons between projects and
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
evaluations of projectsrelative performance. According to Müller and colleagues, examples of universal
parameters span areas such as project success characteristics of time, cost, scope, customer satisfaction,
quality of deliverables and developed ideas (Joslin & Müller, 2016). Other relevant success criteria are
pertaining to meeting self-defined success factors plus (Müller & Turner, 2007a, 2010) the project’s overall
performance and purpose as well as user requirements and satisfaction, in addition to reoccurring business
with client, and satisfaction of client, supplier, project team and other stakeholders (Müller & Turner,
2007a, 2007b, 2010). While the list of universal criteria can be long, a rule of thumb might be suggested:
the more general the approach, the fewer and the more classical the evaluation criteria. In the extreme
instance, the general approach is restricted to one or a few aspects of the classical iron triangle of time,
cost and quality (Atkinson, 1999) or scope (Müller & Turner, 2007a, p. 303). Such an evaluation is far from
holistic. However, it does provide an opportunity for inter-project comparison that allows for a relative
project understandingwhich is necessary for further evaluating the workings of the HDM. This evaluation
step is unfolded in the next sub-section.
5.3 Internal Benchmarking: Third Approach to HDM Evaluation
Third, we compared the pilot project and the three reference projects to evaluate their relative
performance measured on the parameters of time and impact selected in step 2. To assess whether the
HDM makes a difference, we make an internal benchmarking and focus on relative performance to
investigate if the pilot project is more successful than the reference projects within the same organization.
While the Half Double study encompasses a limited and carefully selected number of projects within the
same organization, the internal approach can span several programs and portfolios and in principle include
all projects within an organization.
A FMCG company provides an example of an internal evaluation based on a comparison of the pilot and
reference projects within the organization. The comparison allows for an evaluation of the projects’ relative
performance on selected parameters. Time is operationalized as time to market and measured in number
of months from start until the first sales are generated. Impact is operationalized as sales and measured in
indexed sales per month. The internal evaluation approach based on the FMCG’s pilot and reference
project comparison is shown in Figure 3 below (Svejvig et al., 2017, p. 15).
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
Figure 3: FMCG pilot and reference project comparison
In summary, the internal approach implies a comparison perspective in which projects are contrasted
with other projects inside the same organization. Applied in this way, the internal approach ranges from a
comparison of two projects within the same organization to comparisons within and across both programs
and portfolios that contrast projects within and across different programs and portfolios. The internal
approach allows for a consideration of projects which are located within the same organization and
conditioned by the same organizational conceptualities. Nevertheless, the internal approach does not
provide knowledge on projects conditioned by other organizational circumstances which is necessary for
further evaluating the workings of the HDM. Therefore, we expanded the evaluation into the next step.
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
5.4 External Benchmarking: Fourth Approach to HDM Evaluation
Fourth, we compared the pilot projects in the different organizations in order to find out in which cases the
HDM made a difference. In this last step, we began to evaluate the overall performance of all pilot projects
– in terms of their relative performance compared to the reference projects. This part of the research
investigated in which cases the pilot projects were more successful than the reference projects and focused
on explanations to performance differences to gain knowledge on the boundaries of the HDM and to find
its sweet spot. Compared to the earlier steps of the evaluation focusing on whether the HDM works, this
last step directs attention to the question of where and when the HDM works.
The seven pilot organizations of the first phase of the PHD provide an example of a more general evaluation
in which the relative performance of one pilot project in one organization is contrasted with the relative
performance of another pilot project in another organization. In this way, the evaluation approach
indicates that the HDM works better in some organizations than in others. In a structured search for the
limits around the sweet spot of the HD methodology, both success and failure cases should be taken into
account. The more external evaluation approach based on a comparison of the seven pilot organizations is
shown in Figure 4 below from Svejvig et al. (2017, p. 6):
Figure 4: 7 pilot organization’s project performance comparison
In summary, the external approach implies a comparison perspective in which projects are contrasted
with other projects from another organization. Applied in this way, the external approach ranges from a
comparison of two projects from two different organizations to comparisons of multiple projects from
multiple organizations. In this way, the external approach opens up for an understanding of projects on a
broader level. Examples of an external approach, which is outside the scope of the HD task, is for instance
professional associations like IPMA that compare hundreds of projects, and every year the publication of
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
the project comparison CHAOS report (Svejvig & Hedegaard, 2016). One of the most extreme examples of
an external evaluation approach is a comparison of all projects registered in a very large research project
database (Flyvbjerg, 2016). Extremely external comparisons can encompass different types of projects
(construction versus innovation) with different contracts (fixed price versus flexible pay) within different
sectors (public versus private) and industries (production versus service) across time (from early to late)
and place (from local to global), just to mention a few of the dimensions on which projects can differ. In
terms of the broadness of the benchmarking, a rule of thumb applies: the higher the number of projects
and the more variety between them, the more difficult it is to gain relevant data. While big scale
evaluations and evaluations using big data can be expensive (Olsson & Bull-Berg, 2015), they provide an
opportunity to gain an understanding of projects on a higher level. An external evaluation on a larger scale
would be beneficial to learn more about the HDM as well as the limits of its working and value. Following
these lines, the conclusion of this sub-section is that the evaluation artifact has helped structure the
evaluation process to collect data and find indicators that can generate answers to four questions
pertaining to the overarching research task regarding the value of the HDM. Nevertheless, more research
can still be done to investigate more precisely where and when and under which conditions the HDM works
5.5 Evaluation of the Artifact
Having illustrated an instantiation of the artifact, here we present an evaluation of the evaluation artifact,
in a way taking our own medicine. The evaluation is guided by the seven guidelines suggested by Hevner,
March, Park, and Ram (2004, p. 83) for design science research, which we adopt for our action design
research approach.
Guideline 1: Design as an artifact The research here has produced an evaluation artifact that we have also
shown to be viable in section 5, and we may consider the research to live up to this guideline.
Guideline 2: Problem relevance The research gap on project evaluation combined with the interest from
practitioners to know if the Half Double methodology had an impact indicates that we have addressed an
important and relevant business problem.
Guideline 3: Design evaluation We have shown the qualities of the artifact in the previous section as part
of the structured evaluation presented here. It is the outcome of an ongoing process of evaluating what
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
Guideline 4: Research contribution In line with authors arguing in favor of multi-aspect evaluation
approaches (Olsson & Bull-Berg, 2015, p. 494), we designed a framework for project evaluation with
different approaches and introduced benchmarking to the area of project evaluation.
Guideline 5: Research rigor The rigorous approach to this study has been outlined in section 3, and here
we emphasize the extensive use of templates and review processes in the research and development of the
Guideline 6: Design as a search process The abductive approach of this study meant that the researchers
continuously tested evaluation designs in a search for an artifact that would satisfy the needs for evaluation
defined by the goals of Project Half Double.
Guideline 7: Communication of research The research and artifact has been disseminated in reports along
the process, and especially the research leading to the artifact is communicated in this paper.
In this way, the validity of the artifact has been demonstrated in the context for which it is designed.
Further application and publication need to show whether the artifact also has value outside the
development environment to document its usefulness in terms of its utility (Gregor & Hevner, 2013).
6 Concluding Remarks
In this paper, we have conceptualized and presented an evaluation framework that emerged during an
action design research study which was carried out in order to track pilot projects applying a new project
management methodology and contrast them with reference projects to find indicators of the effect of the
methodology. The framework represents four distinct approaches to project evaluation from classical and
specific success criteria to benchmarking against other projects.
The conceptual framework is evaluated as a design artifact. Its validity is assessed through an illustration of
the applicability of the framework in an engaged action design research study with the goal of documenting
the implications of the implementation of a project management methodology called Half Double in a
number of projects and organizations.
The validity section illustrates some of the benefits and limitations of each approach and highlights the
usefulness of combining all four approaches to avoid fragmented conclusions. Although a whole or holistic
understanding can never be achieved, the framework helps direct attention to some of the evaluation
dimensions that the evaluator needs to consider.
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
It is our hope that the framework can contribute by offering four approaches to project evaluation which
can help analyze an existing evaluation and/or structure an upcoming evaluation by revealing the
evaluation’s insightful angles and/or hidden aspects.
Following these lines, the paper has implications for action design scholars and practitioners who wish to
understand and/or improve projects - including professionals and policy makers interested in projects as
well as their management, methodologies and performance.
The authors would like to thank the Danish Industry Foundation for funding this work and acknowledge
contributions from Danish organizations involved in Project Half Double and Implement Consulting Group.
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest regarding the funding agency and other parties
involved in Project Half Double.
Anand, G., & Kodali, R. (2008). Benchmarking the benchmarking models. Benchmarking: An International
Journal, 15(3), 257-291.
Andersen, E. S. (2010). Are we getting any better? Comparing project management in the years 2000 and
2008. Project Management Journal, 41(4), 4-16.
Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its
time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 337-342.
Axelos. (2015). PRINCE2 Agile. Norwich: TSO (The Stationery Office), part of Williams Lea.
Befani, B., Ledermann, S., & Sager, F. (2007). Realistic Evaluation and QCA: Conceptual Parallels and an
Empirical Application. Evaluation, 13(2), 171-192.
Bertalanffy, L. v. (1956). General system theory. General Systems, 1, 110.
Bertalanffy, L. v. (1968). General system theory - Foundations, Development, Applications. New York:
George Braziller, lnc.
Chen, H. T. (2015). Practical Program Evaluation: Theory-Driven Evaluation and the Integrated Evaluation
Perspective. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.
Dahler-Larsen, P. (2013). Evaluering af projekter. Odense: Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
Davis, K. (2014). Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project success. International
Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 189-201.
Dynes, R. R., & Aguirre, B. E. (1979). Organizational Adaptation To Crises: Mechanisms Of Coordination And
Structural Change. Disasters, 3(1), 71-74.
Fangel, M. (2010). Kompetencer i projektledelse. dansk grundlag for kompetencevurdering (3. ed.). Hillerød:
Foreningen for Dansk Projektledelse.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). From Nobel prize to project management: getting risks right. Project Management
Journal, 37(3), 5-15.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2016). The Fallacy of Beneficial Ignorance: A Test of Hirschman’s Hiding Hand. World
Development, 84, 176-189.
Gemino, A., Sauer, C., & Reich, B. H. (2010). Using Classification Trees to Predict Performance in
Information Technology Projects. Journal of Decision Systems, 19(2), 201-223.
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
Goldkuhl, G. (2012). Pragmatism vs interpretivism in qualitative information systems research. European
Journal of Information Systems, 21(2), 135-146.
Gregor, S., & Hevner, A. R. (2013). Positioning and presenting design science research for maximum impact.
MIS Quarterly, 37(2), 337-355.
Gregor, S., Imran, A., & Turner, T. (2014). A 'sweet spot' change strategy for a least developed country:
leveraging e-Government in Bangladesh. European Journal of Information Systems, 23(6), 655-671.
Harri Laihonen, P., Linzalone, R., & Schiuma, G. (2015). A review of program and project evaluation models.
Measuring Business Excellence, 19(3), 90-99.
Hevner, A. R., March, S. T., Park, J., & Ram, S. (2004). Design science in information systems research. MIS
Quarterly, 28(1), 75-105.
IPMA. (2016). The Project Excellence Model (PE model). Retrieved from
Joslin, R., & Müller, R. (2016). Identifying interesting project phenomena using philosophical and
methodological triangulation. International Journal of Project Management, 34(6), 1043-1056.
SUCCESS. Project Management Journal, 36(4), 19-31.
Kouzmin, A., Elke, L., Helmut, K., & Korac-Kakabadse, N. (1999). Benchmarking and performance
measurement in public sectors Towards learning for agency effectiveness. The International Journal
of Public Sector Management, 12(2), 121-144.
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(4),
Lee, J. S., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2011). Theorizing in Design Science Research. In H. Jain, A. P.
Sinha, & P. Vitharana (Eds.), Service-Oriented Perspectives in Design Science Research: 6th
International Conference, DESRIST 2011, Milwaukee, WI, USA, May 5-6, 2011. Proceedings (pp. 1-
16). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Lenfle, S. (2012). Exploration, project evaluation and design theory: a rereading of the Manhattan case.
International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 5(3), 486-507.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of social issues, 2(4), 34-46.
Maire, J. L., Bronet, V., & Pillet, M. (2005). A typology of “best practices” for a benchmarking process.
Benchmarking: An International Journal, 12(1), 45-60.
Mathiassen, L., Chiasson, M., & Germonprez, M. (2012). STYLE COMPOSITION IN ACTION RESEARCH
PUBLICATION. MIS Quarterly, 36(2), 347-363.
McLeod, L., Doolin, B., & MacDonell, S. G. (2012). A Perspective-Based Understanding of Project Success.
Project Management Journal, 43(5), 68-86.
Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2007a). The Influence of Project Managers on Project Success Criteria and Project
Success by Type of Project. European Management Journal, 25(4), 298-309.
Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2007b). Matching the project manager’s leadership style to project type.
International Journal of Project Management, 25(1), 21-32.
Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2010). Leadership competency profiles of successful project managers.
International Journal of Project Management, 28(5), 437-448.
Nandi, S., & Banwet, D. (2000). Benchmarking for world class manufacturingconcept, framework and
applications. Productivity, 41(2), 189-200.
OED. (Ed.) (2017) Oxford English Dictionary. Oxford University Press.
Olsson, N. O. E., & Bull-Berg, H. (2015). Use of big data in project evaluations. International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, 8(3), 491-512.
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1997). Realistic Evaluation. London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1988). Variations in Critical Success Factors Over the Stages in the Project Life
Cycle. Journal of Management, 14(1), 5-18.
NFF17 full paper 1.00.docx
Roethlisberger, F. J., Dickson, W. J., & Wright, H. A. (1961 (1939)). Management and the Worker.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach (7. ed. ed.).
Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, Inc.
Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2016). Research methods for business students (Seventh Edition
ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
Scriven, M. (1991). Beyond formative and summative evaluation. In M. W. McLaughlin & D. C. Phillips
(Eds.), Evaluation and education: At quarter century (pp. 18-64). Chicago: University of Chicago
Sein, M. K., Henfridsson, O., Purao, S., Rossi, M., & Lindgren, R. (2011). Action Design Research. MIS
Quarterly, 35(1), 37-56.
Shenhar, A., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project management: the diamond approach to successful
growth and innovation: Harvard Business Press.
Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., & Maltz, A. C. (2001). Project success: A multidimensional strategic
concept. Long Range Planning, 34(6), 699-725.
Stufflebeam, D. L., & Shinkfield, A. J. (2007). Evaluation Theory, Models, & Applications. San Francisco:
Svejvig, P., & Andersen, P. (2015). Rethinking project management: A structured literature review with a
critical look at the brave new world. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 278-290.
Svejvig, P., Ehlers, M., Adland, K. T., Grex, S., Frederiksen, S. H., Borch, M. M., . . . Pedersen, S. E. (2016).
Project Half Double, Preliminary Results for Phase 1, June 2016. Retrieved from Aarhus:
Svejvig, P., & Grex, S. (2016). The Danish agenda for rethinking project management. International Journal
of Managing Projects in Business, 9(4), 822-844.
Svejvig, P., & Hedegaard, F. (2016). The challenges of evaluating and comparing projects An empirical
study of designing a comparison framework. In J. Pries-Heje & P. Svejvig (Eds.), Project
Management for Achieving Change (pp. 107-129). Frederiksberg: Roskilde University Press.
Svejvig, P., Rode, A. L. G., & Frederiksen, S. H. (2017). Project Half Double: Addendum: Current Results for
Phase 1, January 2017. Retrieved from Denmark:
Swanson, G. (1971). Frameworks for comparative research: Structural anthropology and the theory of
action Comparative methods in sociology: Essays on trends and applications (pp. 141-202). Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California Press, Ltd.
Venable, J., Pries-Heje, J., & Baskerville, R. (2012). A comprehensive framework for evaluation in design
science research. Paper presented at the International Conference on Design Science Research in
Information Systems.
Winter, M., Smith, C., Morris, P., & Cicmil, S. (2006). Directions for future research in project management:
The main findings of a UK government-funded research network. International Journal of Project
Management, 24(8), 638-649.
Womack, J. P., & Jones, D. T. (2003). Lean thinking : banish waste and create wealth in your corporation.
New York: Touchstone Books.
Zwikael, O., & Smyrk, J. (2012). A general framework for gauging the performance of initiatives to enhance
organizational value. British Journal of Management, 23, S6-S22.
... To reach such results, literature argues that a coherent framework is required to systematically evaluate projects (Bachtler, & Wren, 2006;Frechtling, 2002;Linzalone, & Schiuma, 2015) continuously along the entire projects' life in three stages: ex-ante, interim, and ex-post evaluation (Lee, Son, & Om, 1996). Ex-ante evaluation, i.e., project appraisal, is aimed to prioritize project proposals before one or several projects are funded (Laursen, Svejvig, & Rode, 2017). Interim evaluation, i.e., project monitoring, compares from funding until completion the ongoing performance of a project to its initial goals, to understand what went right or wrong in order to improve the project direction or the processes (Crawford & Bryce, 2003). ...
... The decision whether a project gets funded is made at the first phase of a project's life, i.e., initiation. Accordingly, project appraisal is done in initiation phase to prioritize project proposals before one or several projects are funded (Laursen et al., 2017) based on their "overall returns" and "overall risks", through applying Equations (2), and (4) to (14). ...
... Here, we understand theory to be systems of statements allowing generalization and abstraction (Gregor, 2006). By adapting the project evaluation framework proposed by Rode and Svejvig (2018a), we developed the first version of our PPM evaluation artifact. To leverage the building process (Sein et al., 2011a) we utilized general evaluation theory (Dahler-Larsen, 2013, Chen, 2015, Mertens and Wilson, 2012 and an unstructured review of the literature on PPM. ...
... We adapt the project evaluation framework proposed by Rode and Svejvig (2018a), as shown in below figure 1 to structure our review of the PPM literature. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
As projects constitute a major part of organizational budgets and strategic development, practitioners become dependent on project portfolio management (PPM). However, the existing knowledge on how to evaluate and improve PPM is rather fragmented and lacks empirical grounding. We ask: How can we develop a holistic and empirically validated PPM evaluation framework? Drawing on evaluation theory, we structure contributions from 20 PPM publications into a framework with four evaluation areas. Together with a large company, we develop, apply, and refine the framework. As a result, we offer two contributions: (1) a theory-ingrained artifact that structures a fragmented body of knowledge into four related PPM evaluation areas, and (2) a demonstration of how a theory-ingrained evaluation artifact can serve as an evaluation framework that helps practitioners identify strengths and improvement potential in PPM. In conclusion, we discuss how our results may inform future research and help organizations evaluate PPM.
Full-text available
Increasing the companies' dependency on new product development (NPD) projects, as a way to carry out strategies, makes the alignment of these projects with organizational objectives more crucial. Utilizing partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM), this study sheds light on the process and logic of alignment between project strategy and business strategy and how the alignment affects different dimensions of project success of 91 NPD projects in 30 companies in Iran. This study elucidates the critical importance of alignment and prioritizes the elements of project strategy in alignment with business strategy to achieve the specific dimensions of project success.
Full-text available
The scarcity of accepted research designs within each research philosophy paradigm limits the variance of research approaches, which reduces the chances to identify real new phenomena. We propose that researchers use triangulation of alternative research philosophies to identify interesting new phenomena, provide alternative perspectives to complex problems, and gain a richer and more holistic understanding of complex project management problems. Philosophical triangulation extends methodological triangulation into the realm of ontology and epistemology and provides for more comprehensive understanding, as it resembles a more realistic view towards social science phenomena, which, by their nature, appear differently to people, and thus are seen from different ontological perspectives simultaneously. Three related studies are used to exemplify the approach, where the results of two sets of empirical data (qualitative and quantitative) are discussed in different philosophical contexts. Implications for scholars include more practice-oriented research perspectives in line with the projects-as-practice stream by extending existing benefits from methodological triangulation into philosophical triangulation in order to identify and understand complex phenomena.
Full-text available
Purpose – This paper aims to review Program and Project evaluation Models. The assessment of the Evaluation Model (metaevaluation) is a critical step in Evaluation, as it is at the basis of a successful Program/Project evaluation. A wide and effective review of EMs is a basic, as well as fundamental, support in meta-evaluation that affects positively the overall evaluation efficacy and efficiency. Despite a large number of reviews of EMs and a numerous population of EMs, developed in heterogeneous projects and programs settings, the literature lacks comprehensive collections and reviews of EMs that this paper addresses to provide a basis for the assessment of EMs. Design/methodology/approach – Through a systematic literature review carried out via the Internet, and querying search engines, several models addressing program or project evaluation have been identified and analyzed. Following a process of normalization of the results gathered, they have been analyzed and compared according to key descriptive issues. They have been, at the end, summarized and rationalized in a comprehensive frame. Findings – In recent years, evaluation studies have focused on the explanation of the mechanisms that underlie the transformation of projects’ and programs’ outputs into socio-economic effects, arguing that making them explicit allows to understand why a project or program is successful, as well as evaluating its extent. To assess and explain program’s and project’s effects, a basic, although fundamental, role in evaluation is played by the EM. A wide and heterogeneous set of 57 EMs has been identified, defined and framed in typologies, according to a systematic review research. Originality/value – The approach to the review of EMs and the definition of a boundary of interest for management and economic researchers and practitioners represent an original issue of this paper.
Full-text available
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to investigate how Big Data can be used in project evaluations. Design/methodology/approach – The study is based on literature research and interviews with 15 professionals in IT, project and asset management and government agencies. The authors discuss and illustrate what data that can be used for project evaluations and discuss potential obstacles. Findings – New data is creating new opportunities to analyse a phenomenon based on different types of data. Interesting data categories include: internet traffic, movement-related data, physical environment data and data in organisational internal systems. The authors show how these data categories can be applied in project evaluations. Research limitations/implications – Big Data gives an opportunity to add quantitative data in ex post evaluations. Use of Big Data can serve as a step towards a stronger technology focus in evaluations of projects. Practical implications – There are major advantages in using Big Data, increasing the opportunities to find indicators that are relevant when a project is evaluated. Social implications – Possible problematic issues related to use of Big Data that are addressed in the study include: availability, applicability, relevance, privacy policy, ownership, cost and competence. The study indicates that none of the challenges need to hinder use of Big Data when evaluating projects, provided that the issues are properly managed. Originality/value – The study illustrates how Big Data can be applied in project management research.
Project Half Double is an industry-driven initiative with the purpose to develop a new and radical project paradigm to increase the competitiveness of the Danish industry. The research part of Project Half Double will assess the degree to which the new project paradigm is more successful than traditional approaches, which calls for an evaluation and comparison framework. This paper describes the design of such a comparison framework consisting of the five elements context, project, mechanism/practices, output and impact based on the open systems view. We illustrate the use of the comparison framework for front-loading projects in Grundfos and the specific evaluation criteria used here. The design and use of comparison frameworks have some implications, such as it being challenging to define relevant and meaningful evaluation criteria, it is difficult to collect complex evaluation data and some organisations lack the project maturity to take advantage of the frameworks.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyze the similarities and differences between the Danish rethinking project management (RPM) initiative named Project Half Double (PHD) and the RPM research stream. The paper furthermore discusses how PHD and RPM can inspire each other in research and practice. Design/methodology/approach This is an empirical paper based on collaborative research between industry and researchers. PHD has developed principles and practices driven by industry consisting of ten leading stars and the impact, leadership and flow (ILF) method. The ten leading stars and ILF method are compared to RPM research. The comparative analysis is then used in a broader discussion about how the research-driven RPM initiative can enrich the industry-driven PHD initiative and vice versa depicted in a theoretical understanding of translations between global ideas and local implementations. Findings RPM and PHD share a focus on value creation, social processes, learning and complexity while PHD also focusses on lean thinking, agile thinking, front-end loading and leadership, which are largely topics beyond the RPM research stream. Originality/value The paper presents how stakeholders from Danish industry interpret the actuality in projects and how they want to move forward with a radically different project paradigm. This is expressed in the ten leading stars and ILF method, which is compared and contrasted to the existing RPM literature providing a foundation for further development of both RPM and PHD.
This paper aims to take stock of what we know about project value creation and to present future directions for research and practice. We performed an explorative and unstructured literature review, which was subsequently paired with a structured literature review. We join several research areas by adopting the project value creation perspective on literature relating to benefits, value, performance, and success in projects. Our review includes 111 contributions analyzed through both an inductive and deductive approach. We find that relevant literature dates back to the early 1980s, and the still developing value-centric view has been the subject of many publications in recent years. We contribute to research on project value creation through four directions for future research: rejuvenating value management through combining value, benefits, and costs; supplementing value creation with value capture; applying a holistic approach to project, portfolio, and strategic management; and theorizing by applying independent models and frameworks.
Information systems have the potential to improve societal conditions in developing countries, and yet design theory to inform interventions to encourage uptake and use of these systems is sparse. This paper reports on an action design research project that addressed the problem of limited adoption of e-Government in Bangladesh. Inadequate knowledge of the nature of e-Government systems had been identified as an underlying cause of many other problems in this ‘wicked’ problem context. The project aimed to reduce knowledge deficiencies among key decision makers through activities that included the delivery of a custom-made training program and a handbook targeted at senior government officers. The project had modest resources and yet yielded significant outcomes. Critical reflection established a number of design principles for a ‘sweet spot change strategy’ for interventions of this type, with the most important principle being to first identify a ‘sweet spot’, a point of maximum leverage, and then to act on it.