literature review and project success

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, evaluation of project success: a structured literature review.

International Journal of Managing Projects in Business

ISSN : 1753-8378

Article publication date: 5 September 2017

Barnes’ Iron Triangle was one of the first attempts to evaluate project success based on time, cost and performance, which were portrayed as interdependent dimensions. Over time, these criteria were expanded and especially criteria taking the satisfaction of stakeholder groups into account are becoming more and more popular. The purpose of this paper is to find out whether specific patterns for the selection of project success criteria across various fields of applications emerged which has not been regarded in literature before. Furthermore, the authors seek to identify of additional key factors influencing project success assessment next to the choice of project success criteria.

Design/methodology/approach

The paper uses a review of recent literature published in academic journals, in standard references and in widespread project management frameworks (Organisational Competence Baseline, PRINCE2 and PMBoK Guide).

The findings show that Barnes’ ideas are an integral part of all approaches investigated in the study. Additionally, the relevance of the so-called “soft criteria” related to the satisfaction of stakeholder groups, could be substantiated. However, the authors found no indications that patterns for the selection of project success criteria have emerged across various fields of applications. Factors influencing project success assessment are not taken into account in the examined articles in a systematic manner. This motivates for further research in this field.

Research limitations/implications

Access limitations, papers not yet digitally available or the interpretations have an impact on the results.

Practical implications

For appropriate project assessment the sound and well-rounded selection of hard and soft criteria and the consideration that not the field of application, but influencing factors yet to be analysed influence the selection of project success criteria are crucial. Project management professionals should choose the criteria suitable for their projects individually on a project-by-project basis.

Originality/value

This paper reveals that no patterns have so far been developed to assess project success in various fields of application. Furthermore, factors influencing project success assessment are not considered in a systematic manner.

Project success assessment
Project success criteria
Stakeholder satisfaction

Albert, M. , Balve, P. and Spang, K. (2017), "Evaluation of project success: a structured literature review", International Journal of Managing Projects in Business , Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 796-821. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-01-2017-0004

Emerald Publishing Limited

All feedback is valuable.

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

How do project managers’ competencies impact project success? A systematic literature review

Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation ESPAE Graduate School of Management, Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (ESPOL), Guayaquil, Ecuador

Roles Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Roles Investigation, Methodology, Software, Writing – original draft

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

Roles Writing – review & editing

Paola Ochoa Pacheco,
David Coello-Montecel,
Michelle Tello,
Virginia Lasio,
Alfredo Armijos

Published: December 7, 2023
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295417
Peer Review
Reader Comments

Despite the existence of systematic literature reviews focused on examining the factors contributing to project success, there remains a scarcity of reviews addressing the relationship between the project managers’ competencies and project success. To fill this gap in the literature, this review aimed to evaluate peer-reviewed articles, published between 2010 and 2022, and analyze the impact of project managers’ competencies on project success. The Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and ProQuest electronic databases were first consulted in September 2021, with an update in August and October 2022. A total of 232 titles were analyzed. Ten articles met the criteria and were fully reviewed. A content analysis and a citation network were carried out to analyze the included articles. The analysis revealed that the existing literature has primarily explored the influence of competencies from the personal and social dimensions, such as leadership, communication, and emotional intelligence, on project success. Conversely, competencies from other dimensions have received less attention in the literature. In addition, this review contributes to the literature by providing a holistic categorization of competencies associated with project success and examining and organizing project success criteria into three dimensions.

Citation: Ochoa Pacheco P, Coello-Montecel D, Tello M, Lasio V, Armijos A (2023) How do project managers’ competencies impact project success? A systematic literature review. PLoS ONE 18(12): e0295417. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295417

Editor: Jamshid Ali, University of Tabouk: University of Tabuk, SAUDI ARABIA

Received: July 19, 2023; Accepted: November 21, 2023; Published: December 7, 2023

Copyright: © 2023 Ochoa Pacheco et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All data are available either within the manuscript (Tables 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 ) or as supplementary files . Hyperlinks are provided within the manuscript in the reference list.

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

1. Introduction

The profound economic, technological, and social changes experienced in recent years [ 1 , 2 ] have compelled organizations to devise strategies and implement initiatives to adapt to uncertain environments [ 3 ]. Projects allow organizations to face these challenges by leveraging their expertise and capabilities to deliver solutions aligned with business objectives [ 4 ]. Project management (PM) has been acknowledged as a valuable discipline for managers and professionals implementing strategic organizational transformations [ 1 ]. Given the shortage of qualified talent to execute strategic initiatives and drive change [ 5 ], the project managers’ (PMGs) competencies have garnered significant attention from scholars [ 6 – 11 ] and PM institutions [ 12 , 13 ]. Consequently, a substantial body of literature has devoted considerable effort to delineating the competencies that have the potential to enhance projects’ positive outcomes [ 14 – 18 ].

There has been a growing interest in exploring the individual and organizational factors contributing to project success (PS). At the individual level, the PMGs’ leadership style [ 19 ], job satisfaction [ 20 ], trust [ 21 ], job crafting [ 22 ], and work-family conflict [ 23 ], among other factors have been associated with PS. At the organizational level, scholars have highlighted that PS can be influenced by innovative climate [ 24 ], organizational culture [ 25 ], cultural diversity [ 26 ], governance [ 27 ], knowledge sharing and perceived trust and cohesion of the team [ 28 , 29 ], among others.

Despite the existence of systematic literature reviews (SLRs) that summarize the available evidence regarding factors associated with PS [ 30 ], there remains a scarcity of SLRs focusing on PMGs’ competencies [ 31 , 32 ] and their impact on PS. Only a limited number of SLRs [ 33 ] have been dedicated to identifying the competencies essential for achieving PS. However, to the best of our knowledge, an SLR focused on analyzing the relationship between PMGs’ competencies and PS has not been conducted before. To fill this gap in the literature, this SLR analyzes the existing evidence regarding the relationship between PMGs’ competencies and PS. Therefore, the present SLR was designed to address the following research questions: (RQ1) Which PMGs’ competencies are the most examined in the existing literature? (RQ2) Which success criteria are the most considered when measuring PS in the existing literature? (RQ3) Which PMGs’ competencies have a relationship with PS?

This SLR contributes to the literature on the PM discipline in four ways. Firstly, it fills a gap in the existing literature by employing the SLR methodology to comprehensively synthesize the available evidence from published empirical studies concerning the relationship between PMGs’ competencies and PS. Secondly, it employs a thematic analysis and a holistic perspective to categorize the PMGs’ competencies associated with PS. This methodological approach provides a comprehensive framework for understanding the diverse competencies relevant to PS. Thirdly, it offers an insightful analysis of a graphical representation that showcases the primary authors and institutions that have significantly influenced the conceptualization of PMGs’ competencies. Lastly, it examines the criteria utilized for measuring PS in the included articles and organizes them into three dimensions, enhancing the understanding of the multifaceted nature of PS assessment. By addressing these aspects, this SLR contributes to advancing knowledge in PM.

The subsequent sections of this paper are structured as follows. Section 2 presents the conceptualization of PMGs’ competencies and PS. Section 3 outlines the procedure for conducting the SLR, encompassing the search strategy, study selection, data extraction, and analysis. The findings derived from the SLR are presented in Section 4. Lastly, the paper concludes by discussing the implications of the results, highlighting the strengths and limitations of the SLR, and offering final remarks.

2. Competencies and project success

This section provides an overview of the conceptualizations of competencies adopted in the PM literature, and briefly discuss the evolution of the PS dimensions.

2.1. Competencies

Various conceptualizations of competencies have been explored in the existing literature [ 16 , 34 – 38 ]. Within the PM discipline, several studies [ 18 , 39 – 42 ] have aligned with the classical definition proposed by Boyatzis [ 35 ]. According to his framework, competencies encompass the underlying characteristics of an individual, including knowledge, skills, abilities, attitudes, and more, that collectively enable the achievement of high performance. These elements have served as a foundational basis for scholars [ 9 , 43 , 44 ] and institutions [ 12 , 13 ], who have further expanded the scope to develop frameworks tailored explicitly to the domain of PM.

PM institutions, including the Project Management Institute (PMI) and the International Project Management Association (IPMA), have played a crucial role in the definition and development of various standards and frameworks that pertain to the competencies of PMGs [ 45 ]. Several studies [ 16 , 46 , 47 ] have employed these institutional standards to define competencies. The next paragraph provides a concise overview of these institutional frameworks.

According to the IPMA [ 13 ], competencies comprise the practical application of knowledges, skills, and abilities to achieve desired outcomes. This framework recognizes the interconnectedness of these elements, as proficiency entails acquiring relevant knowledge and developing skills that, when put into practice, enable professionals to manage projects effectively and successfully. Similarly, the PMI [ 12 ] defines competencies as the capability to carry out activities within a portfolio, program, or project setting that yield anticipated results based on established and accepted standards. This definition builds upon Boyatzis’ [ 35 ] elements and aligns with the IPMA [ 13 ] perspective, but it also emphasizes compliance by acknowledging the significance of adhering to current regulations and guidelines to meet stakeholders’ expectations. More recently, the PMI [ 48 ] introduced the concept of power skills , which refers to the abilities and behaviors that facilitate working with others and enable project professionals to succeed in the workplace, align projects to organizational objectives, and motivate teams to contribute value to the organization and its customers.

The scholarly literature [ 8 , 37 , 43 , 44 ] has significantly contributed to the conceptualization of the competencies required by PMGs by incorporating key elements from the PM discipline. For instance, Hanna et al. [ 43 ] emphasized the evolving nature of projects. They argued that competencies entail the demonstrated ability to perform project activities within a dynamic environment, leading to expected outcomes based on established standards. Building upon this perspective, Bashir et al. [ 44 ] defined competencies as a meta-ability that integrates skills, aptitudes, and abilities to perform throughout the project life cycle, from initiation to closing, intending to achieve expected results. Moreover, Crawford [ 49 ] posited a close relationship between PMGs’ competencies and PS. Recent literature has underscored the pivotal role of PMGs’ competencies in attaining higher levels of success, enhancing efficiency and effectiveness, and consequently increasing the likelihood of PS [ 8 ].

2.2. Project success

This section provides an overview of the historical development of the conceptualization of PS, tracing its progression from a unidimensional to a more comprehensive and multidimensional concept [ 50 ]. It also aims to identify the dimensions and criteria incorporated into the concept in recent years. Furthermore, it defines PS and examines its distinctions from related concepts, such as project performance and efficiency.

Traditionally, scholars [ 39 , 51 – 53 ] have viewed PS as a combination of success factors and criteria. On the one hand, success factors refer to the significant elements that enhance the probability of achieving success. On the other hand, success criteria comprise a set of measures used to evaluate if the project can be judged as successful [ 39 ]. This SLR specifically focuses on PS criteria.

The measurement criteria for assessing PS have undergone significant evolution to encompass the complex and dynamic nature of projects, resulting in the development of more comprehensive models [ 52 , 54 ]. Initially, PS frameworks primarily focused on efficiency criteria, commonly referred to as the “golden triangle,” “iron triangle,” or “holy trinity,” which encompassed elements such as time, cost, and quality [ 54 ]. Subsequent models expanded to incorporate dimensions of client and project team satisfaction [ 55 ]. From the year 2000 onwards, the emergence of integrative models took into account additional dimensions, including realized benefits to the business or organization [ 56 , 57 ], satisfaction levels of internal and external stakeholders such as end-users, suppliers, and other relevant parties [ 58 ], the impacts on the community and environment [ 59 ], long-term effects like the creation of new markets or product lines [ 56 , 60 ], and investment returns [ 61 ].

The conceptual boundaries between PS, project performance, project efficiency, and PM success have often been blurred. On the one hand, PM success represents a conventional measure of PS that primarily focuses on time, cost, and quality, assessed upon project completion [ 62 , 63 ]. These criteria are also called project efficiency [ 64 ]. On the other hand, project performance refers to the degree to which management practices and processes contribute to the achievement of goals and objectives, as well as the fulfillment of stakeholders’ expectations. It is typically evaluated throughout project execution and upon completion [ 54 , 65 ]. In contrast, PS represents a broader and multidimensional concept encompassing the achievement of goals and objectives determined by key stakeholders after project completion [ 63 , 64 ], as well as the long-term impacts of the project [ 66 ].

The SLR was undertaken to investigate the abovementioned research questions and followed the guidelines outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The protocol employed for conducting this SLR is elaborated next.

3.1. Search strategy

The Web of Science, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and ProQuest electronic databases were selected for this SLR. The databases were first consulted in September 2021, with an update in August and October 2022, by searching the following keywords in the title of the article: “competence,” “competency,” “competences,” “competencies,” “skill,” “skills,” and “project success,” without any additional constraint. The search was performed by two of the authors using the following search strings:

Scopus database : TITLE ((competence) OR (competency) OR (competences) OR (competencies) OR (skill) OR (skills)) AND TITLE ((project AND success))
Web of Science database : TI = (competence OR competency OR competences OR competencies OR skill OR skills) AND TI = (project success)
ScienceDirect database : Title: (competence OR competency OR competences OR competencies OR skill OR skills) AND (project success)
ProQuest database : title((competence OR competency OR competences OR competencies OR skill OR skills)) AND title((project success))

The metadata of the records (title, authors, document type, source title, author keywords, abstract, publication year, volume number, issue number, and DOI) was exported, compared, and saved on Microsoft Excel spreadsheets to remove duplicated studies and conduct the screening process.

3.2. Study selection

The study selection process comprised several stages to find relevant articles for the review. The initial research resulted in 232 articles. After removing duplicated records, 172 articles were considered for the next stages. The procedures followed by the authors are described below.

3.2.1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria for document selection in this review were based on various factors, including publication timeline, document type, language, study type, population, and context. To be included in this review, documents had to meet the following criteria: (1) they had to be peer-reviewed scholarly research articles, (2) they had to be published between January 2010 and October 2022, (3) they had to be written in English, (4) they had to have a quantitative approach measuring PMG’s competencies as independent variable and PS as a dependent variable, (5) the study population had to consist of PMGs or similar positions (e.g., project director, project leader, senior PMG, department manager, functional manager, team leader), and (6) the research work had to be conducted in professional settings. The study selection process did not impose restrictions on industry, project type, or project size to ensure a broader scope and encompass various perspectives. This approach allowed for the retrieval of peer-reviewed scholarly articles that addressed the research questions of this SLR. Initially, 172 articles were evaluated, and after applying the inclusion criteria, 131 records were removed. Subsequently, 41 research articles remained for the screening process.

3.2.2. Article screening process.

After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, the retained articles were screened by title, abstract, and full text. This process was conducted by two of the authors independently. The reasons for excluding articles were reported in each step. The exclusion criteria were objectively applied. Studies were excluded if the relationship between PMGs’ competencies and PS was not examined. Each reviewer’s number and list of excluded articles were compared after the screening. In those cases where there was disagreement between reviewers, a third author reviewed the article and discussed it with the other two authors to reach a consensus. Eligible articles were included in the final review. Ineligible articles were formally excluded, with the reasons for exclusion noted.

Out of 41 articles, seven were excluded based on the title. In this step, the main reasons for exclusion were: (a) the study was related to project-based learning ( n = 4), (b) the article was a literature review ( n = 3), and (c) the article was a case of study ( n = 1). The retained 34 articles were screened by abstract. After analyzing the abstract of each article, eight were removed because of the following: (a) the study had a qualitative design ( n = 1), (b) the article was a case of study ( n = 1), (c) the article analyzed only leadership styles ( n = 1), (d) the article was theoretical ( n = 2), (e) the study was not conducted in a PM professional setting ( n = 1), and (f) the article did not analyze the relationship between PMGs’ competencies and PS ( n = 2). Finally, the full-text screening was carried out on 26 articles. Thirteen records were excluded based on the following reasons: (a) PMGs’ competencies were not measured ( n = 3), (b) the article was theoretical ( n = 3), and (c) the study did not analyze the relationship between PMGs’ competencies and PS ( n = 7). After the whole screening process, 13 articles were considered for quality assessment.

3.2.3. Quality assessment.

The quality assessment focused on ten quality criteria statements: (1) The research questions, objectives, or hypothesis were appropriately established; (2) The study design was well described and appropriate for answering the research questions; (3) The sample and population of the study were clearly described, and its size was sufficient to carry out the proposed analysis; (4) The response rate was reported and above 50%; (5) The instruments used for measuring PMGs’ competencies were well described and design-based; (6) The instrument used for measuring PS was well described and design-based; (7) The statistical method was appropriate and sufficiently described to enable them to be repeated; (8) The research questions were adequately answered; (9) The statistical significance of associations was tested and reported; (10) The conclusions were clearly described and based on the results.

The abovementioned criteria were adapted from the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (adapted for cross-sectional studies), the Appraisal Tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS), and similar studies [ 67 ]. Each statement had three rating options coded as “Yes” (1 point), “No” (0 points), and “Partial” (0.5 points). Articles with a score of 7.5 points or higher were included in the final sample. The quality assessment was carried out by two authors independently. The results were compared, and the differences found were discussed to make a final decision. In this phase, three articles were removed. Ten articles were selected to conduct the analysis and answer the research questions of this SLR. Fig 1 summarizes the data extraction procedure through a PRISMA flow.

PPT PowerPoint slide
PNG larger image
TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295417.g001

3.3. Data extraction and analysis

Three authors analyzed the articles for data extraction, including sample characteristics, country, setting, independent and outcome variable(s), data analysis procedures, and main findings. These data were synthesized in Table 4 .

A thematic analysis was conducted to identify the dimensions of PMGs’ competencies and PS criteria used in the included articles, following the procedures proposed by Nowell et al. [ 68 ]:

Familiarization with the data . The authors read and analyzed the content of each article.
Generation of initial code s. Each author generated a list of competencies and PS criteria extracted from each article. The resulting lists were compared and matched to get a final version.
Creation of themes . Categories were created by grouping similar competencies and PS criteria. Each of the authors carried out this process individually. The resulting lists were compared and matched to get a final version as in the previous step.
Definition and naming of themes . Once the final list of competencies and PS were obtained and the main categories were defined, each category was named based on theoretical foundations. This process was carried out jointly by the three authors.

When studying topics such as PMGs’ competencies, an important issue is how authors support their choice regarding what competencies to include in their work. This decision is important since it shapes the structure of the research field. Thus, a citation network analysis (CNA) was carried out to map the structure of the PMGs’ competencies research field. In CNA, research documents serve as nodes, and the connections between them are represented by citations [ 69 ]. CNA is a practical approach for identifying contributions to a specific topic and uncovering relationships within the scholarly literature, thereby revealing patterns of influence and collaboration [ 70 ]. In this SLR, the ten included articles relied on citations of prior works to select the pertinent PMGs’ competencies. These cited references were used to build a network representing the relevant frameworks in the included articles. The citation network was generated using the visNetwork package in RStudio.

4.1. Study characteristics

The main characteristics of the articles included in this SLR are shown in Table 1 . Data were collected from 11 countries across five regions: Asia, Europe, North America, Oceania, and South America. Notably, Pakistan emerged as the most prolific country, with five papers published between 2010 and 2022, followed by the USA ( n = 2) and Brazil ( n = 2). Most studies were published within the last five years ( n = 9). Out of the ten articles, eight were published in journals categorized in the Q1 ( n = 5) and Q2 ( n = 3) impact quartiles. In terms of study design, most articles employed a purely quantitative approach ( n = 8), while two utilized mixed methods. For instance, Sampaio et al. [ 71 ] conducted a systematic review to identify the competencies to be included in their subsequent questionnaire, while Podgórska and Pichlak [ 72 ] employed a mixed-method approach comprising semi-structured interviews and a survey questionnaire.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295417.t001

4.2. Project managers’ competencies

4.2.1. the most influential theoretical frameworks..

The majority of articles ( n = 9) included in the SLR employed an existing framework to identify the PMGs’ competencies that were examined in their empirical analyses. However, in the study conducted by Sampaio et al. [ 71 ], a comprehensive literature review was undertaken to determine the specific competencies that should be considered for testing their impact on PS.

A CNA was conducted to explore the interrelationships among the ten articles included in this SLR and to identify the most influential frameworks for defining and determining the PMGs’ competencies. Fig 2 visually represents the articles included in the SLR as square nodes and the studies that have contributed to conceptualizing PMGs’ competencies as circle nodes. The size of each node reflects the number of citations it has received. The diagram layout was arranged such that the most frequently cited studies are positioned in the center, while less frequently cited ones are placed towards the periphery. A summary of the most influential works in PMGs’ competencies is provided below.

Notes. Square nodes represent the articles in the SLR ( n = 10), while circle nodes denote the studies that contributed to conceptualizing PMGs’ competencies. The number of citations gives the size of the node.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295417.g002

Four articles included in this SLR [ 39 , 72 , 73 , 75 ] employed a common framework developed by Dulewicz and Higgs [ 79 ]. This framework encompasses 15 leadership competencies categorized into three dimensions: intellectual competencies (critical analysis and judgment, vision and imagination, strategic perspective), managerial competencies (managing resources, engaging communication, empowering, developing, achieving), and emotional competencies (self-awareness, emotional resilience, intuitiveness, interpersonal sensitivity, influence, motivation, conscientiousness). Additionally, two articles [ 15 , 77 ] drew upon Clarke’s [ 80 ] study, which identified four main PMGs’ competencies: communication, teamwork, attentiveness, and managing conflict. Other frameworks utilized in the SLR articles were proposed by Sunindijo [ 81 ], Katz [ 82 ], Nguyen and Hadikusumo [ 83 ], and Ofori [ 84 ]. These frameworks shared common elements, emphasizing the significance of communication, leadership, managing emotions, and interpersonal relationships as essential competencies for PMGs. Notably, the Project Manager Competency Development Framework [ 12 ] and the Individual Competence Baseline for Project Management [ 13 ] were among the most cited institutional frameworks employed in the SLR articles.

4.2.2. Categorization of project managers’ competencies.

Several common competencies were identified based on the review of competencies reported in each article. These competencies were categorized into four dimensions based in previous studies [ 11 , 31 , 85 ], as presented in Table 2 : cognitive, personal, social, and sustainability. It should be noted that not all competencies were consistently referred to by the same name across the included articles. Therefore, the names used to denote a specific competence in each article are listed in the third column of Table 2 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295417.t002

4.3. Project success criteria

Previous literature has traditionally focused on PS measures related to cost, time, and quality. However, the findings of the SLR indicate a growing tendency to incorporate a broader range of success criteria. Table 3 presents a categorization of the different success criteria reported in the included articles.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295417.t003

The first dimension pertains to the impact on stakeholders, encompassing clients, users, providers, the project team, and other relevant parties. While stakeholder impact is commonly assessed through satisfaction measures, some studies consider alternative indicators such as the acceptability of the product, perceived benefits [ 73 ], or the fulfillment of stakeholder expectations [ 74 ]. Less frequently addressed are measures related to the impact on the organization, for which two criteria were identified: (i) visible short-term improvements in organizational outcomes or performance [ 73 , 75 , 76 ], and (ii) long-term improvements, such as the development of new technologies or the initiation of future projects [ 39 , 72 , 75 ]. Additional criteria related to the project management process were identified, encompassing project performance, achievement of the project’s primary objectives, other self-defined criteria related to project management, and compliance with procedures, safety regulations, and environmental standards. Project performance indicators include the traditional metrics of cost, time, and quality of the project’s deliverables [ 39 , 72 ].

4.4. Empirical analysis of the relationship between project managers’ competencies and project success

Table 4 presents a comprehensive overview of the research methods and results employed in the included studies. Several studies conducted correlational analyses to examine the relationship between competencies and various PS criteria [ 71 , 72 , 75 ], as well as overall PS [ 15 ]. Regression analysis was a common method to assess the predictive impact of PMGs’ competencies on PS criteria in the selected articles [ 39 , 72 , 74 , 75 ]. Additionally, some studies [ 73 , 74 , 76 , 78 ] employed structural equation modeling (SEM) or partial least squares (PLS) to analyze the predictive effect of PMGs’ competencies, modeled as second-order constructs, on PS.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295417.t004

4.4.1. Relationship between cognitive competencies and project success.

Cognitive competencies encompassed creativity, decision-making, and strategic perspective. Findings from two studies revealed a positive correlation between creativity and various PS criteria, such as accomplishing project objectives, project efficiency, user satisfaction [ 71 ], and suppliers’ satisfaction [ 72 ]. While creativity significantly predicted project efficiency, its effect on achieving project objectives and user satisfaction was not statistically significant [ 71 ]. Two studies included in the SLR [ 39 , 72 ] provided evidence concerning the relationship between strategic perspective and PS. Firstly, Müller and Turner [ 39 ] found that this competence influences project efficiency and self-defined success criteria. Secondly, Podgórska & Pichlak [ 72 ] reported that strategic perspective is significantly associated with all the analyzed PS criteria except for project efficiency and self-defined success criteria. Regarding the decision-making competence, Müller and Turner [ 39 ] did not identify any significant predictive effects of this competence. However, Podgórska and Pichlak [ 72 ] observed significant positive correlations between decision-making and all the PS criteria, with the highest coefficients observed for self-defined success criteria, end-user satisfaction, and satisfaction of other stakeholders.

4.4.2. Relationship between personal competencies and project success.

Personal competencies included emotional intelligence, results orientation, and conscientiousness. Among these competencies, emotional intelligence has received significant attention in the included studies. Out of the ten studies, eight explored the relationship between emotional intelligence and PS. The evidence revealed direct and significant predictive effects of emotional intelligence on various PS criteria, such as end-user satisfaction [ 71 ], achievement of project objectives [ 39 ], and overall PS [ 15 ].

Regarding results orientation, Sampaio et al. [ 71 ] demonstrated that this competence had a predictive effect on project efficiency. Correlational analysis revealed a higher correlation between this competence with PS criteria related to user satisfaction [ 71 ] and satisfaction of other stakeholders [ 72 ]. The conscientiousness competence was examined in the studies conducted by Müller and Turner [ 39 ] and Podgórska and Pichlak [ 72 ]. This competence emerged as a significant predictor of team satisfaction and the achievement of project objectives [ 39 ]. Furthermore, the effects of conscientiousness could vary depending on the type and complexity of the project [ 72 ].

4.4.3. Relationship between social competencies and project success.

Based on the articles included in this review, social competencies, such as communication, leadership, interpersonal relations, conflict management, and teamwork, tend to be associated with PS. Leadership has been extensively studied in the project management literature and was addressed in seven out of the ten articles included in this review. Correlational analysis revealed that leadership shows significant associations with nearly all PS criteria, being its highest correlation with the user satisfaction criterion [ 71 , 72 ]. Regarding its predictive effect on PS, Sampaio et al. [ 71 ] reported a non-significant effect of this competence on some criteria, such as achieving project’s purpose, project efficiency, and stakeholders’ satisfaction, while other studies found a significant effect on team satisfaction criterion [ 39 ] and an overall PS measure [ 15 , 74 ].

Regarding communication, correlational analysis showed that this competence is highly correlated with stakeholders’ satisfaction criterion [ 71 , 72 ]. Maqbool et al. [ 15 ] found that communication had the strongest correlation with a general measure of PS among all competencies included in their study. The predictive effect of this competence on PS was confirmed by Lima and Quevedo-Silva [ 77 ], Khan et al. [ 78 ] and Podgórska and Pichlak [ 72 ]. However, Sampaio et al. [ 71 ] and Müller and Turner [ 39 ] reported non-significant effects of communication of PS criteria.

Interpersonal relations showed significant positive associations with PS criteria, with the strongest coefficients on achieving project’s purpose [ 72 ]. Müller and Turner [ 39 ] found that this competence has a significant predictive effect on other stakeholders’ satisfaction criteria, while two studies [ 77 , 78 ] reported its predictive effect on a general PS measure. Finally, significant positive associations of conflict management and teamwork with PS were reported by Maqbool et al. [ 15 ]. However, its predictive effect on individual PS criteria were not estimated on any of the included articles.

4.4.4. Relationship between sustainability competencies and project success.

According to Elmezain et al. [ 74 ], the capacity to demonstrate integrity, sincerity, and authenticity, and to inspire confidence and trust in others, is relevant for achieving PS. The authors emphasized that PMGs who possess integrity play a crucial role in the advancement of any project. Similarly, Sampaio et al. [ 71 ] highlighted ethics, conceptualized as transparency, integrity, and honesty, as the most significant competence for achieving PS in terms of goal attainment.

5. Discussion

This SLR examined the evidence pertaining to the relationship between PMGs’ competencies and PS. The analysis of the included studies yielded three key findings. Firstly, six distinct clusters of authors were identified, each contributing to the conceptualization and identification of PMGs’ competencies. Secondly, the conceptualization of PS has evolved from a traditional approach centered around criteria such as time, cost, and quality, to a more comprehensive, holistic, and multidimensional perspective. Lastly, through thematic analysis, a total of 12 competencies, organized into four dimensions, were identified as potential determinants of PS. Notably, the most significant competencies associated with PS were found within the personal and social dimensions. A brief discussion of these findings is presented below.

In relation to the first finding, this SLR identified six distinct clusters of authors whose work influenced the competence frameworks utilized in the included articles. These clusters represented conceptualizations proposed by scholars and reputable PM institutions. The in-depth content analysis revealed that the frameworks proposed by Dulewicz and Higgs [ 79 ] and Clarke [ 80 ] were the most prevalent among the examined articles. Conversely, frameworks developed by Sunindijo [ 81 ], Ofori [ 84 ], and Nguyen and Hadikusumo [ 83 ] were comparatively less frequently employed. Additionally, the PMI [ 12 ] emerged as a key institutional point of reference for identifying the competencies required in a PMG. For instance, Lima and Quevedo-Silva [ 77 ] and Maqbool et al. [ 15 ] studies adopted Clarke’s [ 80 ] framework, which was based on the PMI’s [ 12 ] (2017b) list of competencies. Elmezain et al. [ 74 ], who cited Sunindijo et al. [ 81 ] as their framework source, incorporated several competencies defined by the PMI [ 5 ], although the majority of these were technical.

Regarding the second finding, the articles examined in this SLR provided support for the view that PS should be understood as a multidimensional construct. This finding aligns with a recent study by Ika and Pinto [ 54 ] that revisited the conceptualization of PS. The results of this review indicate that project performance, encompassing time, cost, and quality, emerged as the most commonly considered criterion of success across all the articles. However, a significant number of the included articles also acknowledged additional criteria, leading to the identification of three dimensions of PS. The first dimension refers to the impact on stakeholders and includes criteria related to the satisfaction of various project stakeholders, including clients, users, suppliers, and the project team, among others. The second dimension focuses on the impact of the project on the organization, comprising both short- and long-term improvements. Lastly, the third dimension is related with the general management of the project. This dimension encompasses aspects such as project performance, which includes the traditional "iron triangle" of time, cost, and quality, as well as the achievement of project objectives, adherence to project-defined criteria, and compliance with safety and environmental protocols and regulations. This conceptualization supports the multidimensional nature of PS. However, as noted by Ika and Pinto [ 54 ], it is important to highlight that the majority of the included articles overlooked the inclusion of sustainability criteria. Among the entire sample of studies, only one [ 76 ] out of ten explicitly addressed compliance with safety and environmental regulations as a criterion of success.

The findings of this SLR have provided insights into the competencies that exhibit a significant relationship with PS. Specifically, the articles included in this review extensively examined competencies associated with the personal and social dimensions, such as leadership, communication, and emotional intelligence. These competencies have been extensively studied in previous literature [ 18 , 86 ], and their impact on PS was explored in the majority of the reviewed articles. Conversely, the influence of other competencies, such as ethics, received less attention and was not extensively explored. Moreover, the empirical evidence gathered in this review suggests that the effect of project management competencies on PS may vary depending on several factors. For instance, the type of project was found to be a significant factor influencing the relationship between competencies and PS [ 72 ]. Furthermore, individual and organizational factors were identified as potential mediating variables that could affect the relationship between competencies and PS [ 73 ]. These findings highlight the complexity and contextual nature of the relationship between competencies and PS. Next, a brief discussion will be presented to shed light on how these identified competencies can contribute to enhancing PS.

Leadership competence was one of the most studied competencies that improve PS. Although a few of the studies included in this SLR [ 71 , 73 ] reported that it does not have a significant effect on PS, a great number of the studies [ 15 , 39 , 72 , 74 , 76 ] suggested that PMGs’ leadership, conceived as their capacity to influence, empower and develop others, has a positive effect on PS. This finding agrees with the existing literature that has examined its influence on PS [ 87 – 90 ]. The development of competencies such as leadership allows PMGs to motivate their teams to be more productive [ 91 ], to show outstanding performance beyond expectations [ 89 ], to enhance team cohesion and engagement [ 92 ], to foster knowledge transfer across project teams [ 89 ], among other positive behaviors that would impact on projects’ outcomes.

The articles included in this SLR demonstrate a significant and positive relationship between communication and PS [ 15 , 72 , 77 , 78 ], in agreement with previous research findings [ 93 , 94 ]. The significance of this competence lies in its impact throughout various stages of a project [ 94 ]. Effective communication between PMGs and the project team’s members allows better collaboration [ 95 ], encourages knowledge sharing [ 96 ], and enhances the team’s motivation a sense of inclusivity [ 94 ], which contribute to the overall achievement of PS.

The influence of emotional intelligence on PS was assessed in most of the articles included in this SLR. Although some studies reported a non-significant relationship between emotional intelligence [ 71 , 73 , 77 ], there was evidence supporting a positive association between these two variables [ 15 , 39 , 72 , 75 ]. PMGs with high emotional intelligence are more likely to establish stronger relationships with their teams, thereby improving communication, clarity of mission, and support, ultimately enhancing PS [ 21 ]. In addition, the development of this competence allows PMGs to adequately regulate their emotions in complex situations, promoting positive behaviors such as empathy, respect, and leadership. These behaviors contribute to their ability to address challenges successfully and ensure higher PS [ 97 , 98 ].

Regarding the influence of PMGs’ ethics, a positive relationship was identified between this competence and PS criteria, particularly goal achievement [ 71 ]. Ethics has been acknowledged as a driving force for the advancement of the PM profession [ 48 ] and an essential competence that PMGs should possess [ 99 , 100 ]. However, empirical evidence on the impact of ethics on PS remains limited. Some related terms, such as honesty, integrity, and transparency [ 71 , 74 ], or ethical thinking [ 100 ], ethical decision-making, and ethics sensitivity have been addressed in previous studies. However, its effect on PS has rarely been estimated and reported. The evidence found on ethics in this SLR was obtained from information systems and construction projects. Future studies could explore the influence of this competence in different industries and countries.

6. Limitations and strengths

While this review contributes with some insights to the PM literature, it is important to mention its limitations. Firstly, the time frame of the review from 2010 to 2022 may have resulted in the exclusion of relevant articles that explore the relationship between PMGs’ competencies and PS. It is possible that some studies conducted outside this timeframe may provide further insights into the topic. Secondly, the use of specific search terms such as “competence,” “competency,” “competences,” “competencies,” “skill,” and “skills” may have excluded other studies [ 86 , 88 ] that examined the impact of different competencies individually. Including an exhaustive list of competencies in the search strings could have introduced significant heterogeneity into the reviewed articles, potentially limiting the ability to provide a comprehensive review of the existing literature.

Despite these limitations, this SLR makes several notable contributions to the PM discipline. First, it fills a gap in the existing literature by synthesizing available empirical evidence on the relationship between PMGs’ competencies and PS. Second, the review conducts a thematic analysis and adopts a holistic perspective to categorize the PMGs’ competencies that are associated with PS. Third, this review highlights the primary authors and PM institutions that have significantly influenced the conceptualization of PMGs’ competencies. Four, the review examines the criteria used to measure PS in the included articles and organizes them into three dimensions, offering a nuanced understanding of the multifaceted nature of PS measurement.

7. Conclusions

The present SLR extends the literature in project management concerning the influence of PMGs’ competencies on PS. Despite the growing interest in addressing the role of PMGs’ competencies to achieve higher success, to the best of our knowledge, there is a lack of systematic reviews that present an analysis of the available evidence on the relationship between PMGs’ competencies on PS. To fill this gap in the literature, this SLR analyzed the existing evidence regarding this relationship. Three main conclusions can be derived from the findings of this review. First, the existing literature has primarily explored the influence on PS of PMGs’ competencies from the personal and social dimensions, such as leadership, communication, and emotional intelligence. Second, PS is a multidimensional construct that comprises three main dimensions: impact on stakeholders, impact on the organization, and general project management. Third, the available data suggested that greater levels of PMGs’ competencies are associated with improved PS. These findings may support scholars and managers to understand the mechanisms through which individual characteristics, such as competencies, may allow PMGs to achieve better outcomes.

This SLR contributes to the existing literature in the PM discipline by offering a comprehensive synthesis of empirical evidence, providing a thorough overview of the current state of knowledge regarding the relationship between PMGs’ competencies and PS. In addition, this SLR identifies key contributors and sources of knowledge in the field, offering a valuable reference point for further research and exploration. The study also offers a review on how PS is conceptualized and measured. Moreover, it presents a classification of PMGs’ competencies that influence PS. Through a thematic analysis of the competencies examined in the included articles, this categorization provides valuable insights into the emphasis placed on different types of competencies. It highlights the significant attention given to personal and social competencies, while pointing out the relatively limited exploration of sustainability, cultural, or digital competencies [ 85 ].

Supporting information

S1 checklist. prisma 2020 checklist..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295417.s001

S1 Table. Inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the SLR.

Notes: PMG = Project manager, PS = Project success.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295417.s002

S2 Table. Quality assessment criteria scoring guide.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295417.s003

S3 Table. Quality assessment results.

Notes: QC1 = Research questions; QC2 = Study design; QC3 = Sample representativeness; QC4 = Response rate; QC5 = PMG’s competencies measurement; QC6 = PS measurement; QC7 = Statistical analysis; QC8 = Results; QC9 = Statistical significance; QC10 = Conclusions; SLR = Systematic literature review.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295417.s004

S4 Table. Brief description of the Project Managers’ competencies in included articles.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295417.s005

S5 Table. Brief description of the project success criteria in included articles.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0295417.s006

View Article
Google Scholar
12. Project Management Institute. Project Manager Competency Development Framework. 3rd ed. Newtown Square (PA): Project Management Institute, Inc.; 2017.
13. International Project Management Association. Individual Competence Baseline for Project, Programme and Portfolio Management (Version 4.0.). Zurich: International Project Management Association; 2015.
PubMed/NCBI
33. Iriarte C, Bayona Orè S. Soft Skills for IT Project Success: A Systematic Literature Review. In: Mejia J, Muñoz M, Rocha Á, Quiñonez Y, Calvo-Manzano J, editors. Trends and Applications in Software Engineering. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2018. pp. 147–158. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69341-5_14
34. Goleman D, Boyatzis R, McKee A. Primal Leadership: Unleashing the Power of Emotional Intelligence. Boston: Harvard Business Press; 2013.
35. Boyatzis R. The Competent Manager: A Model for Effective Performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1982.
60. Shenhar AJ, Dvir D. Reinventing project management: the diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Boston: Harvard Business Review Press; 2007.
65. Crawford L. Measuring Performance. In: Turner R, editor. Gower Handbook of Project Management. 5th ed. New York: Routledge; 2014. pp. 105–120.
85. Ochoa P, Jáuregui K, Gomes T, Ruiz B, Lasio V. Las competencias laborales en el mercado de profesionales de América Latina: ¿Qué destrezas demandarán las empresas del futuro en Chile, Colombia, Ecuador y el Perú? Lima: ESAN Ediciones; 2018.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
PMC10703200

How do project managers’ competencies impact project success? A systematic literature review

Paola Ochoa Pacheco

ESPAE Graduate School of Management, Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (ESPOL), Guayaquil, Ecuador

David Coello-Montecel

Michelle tello, virginia lasio, alfredo armijos, associated data.

All data are available either within the manuscript (Tables (Tables1, 1 , ,2, 2 , ,3, 3 , ,4) 4 ) or as supplementary files . Hyperlinks are provided within the manuscript in the reference list.

1. Introduction

2. Competencies and project success

This section provides an overview of the conceptualizations of competencies adopted in the PM literature, and briefly discuss the evolution of the PS dimensions.

2.1. Competencies

2.2. Project success

3.1. Search strategy

Scopus database : TITLE ((competence) OR (competency) OR (competences) OR (competencies) OR (skill) OR (skills)) AND TITLE ((project AND success))
Web of Science database : TI = (competence OR competency OR competences OR competencies OR skill OR skills) AND TI = (project success)
ScienceDirect database : Title: (competence OR competency OR competences OR competencies OR skill OR skills) AND (project success)
ProQuest database : title((competence OR competency OR competences OR competencies OR skill OR skills)) AND title((project success))

3.2. Study selection

3.2.1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

3.2.2. Article screening process

3.2.3. Quality assessment

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pone.0295417.g001.jpg

3.3. Data extraction and analysis

No.	Author	Sample	Sector	Response rate	Analysis tool	Main results
1	Sampaio et al. [ ]	: = 121 : 20–40 years: ~ 64% > 40 years: ~36% : Male: ~74% Female: ~26% : < 11 years: ~25% 11–20 years: ~48% > 20 years: ~27%	Information systems	51%	Correlation analysis PLS-SEM	• Project performance was significantly associated with leadership, results orientation, emotional intelligence, ethics, creativity, and motivation. • Goal achievement was significantly associated with leadership, emotional intelligence, ethics, and creativity. • User satisfaction was significantly associated with leadership, communication, results orientation, ethics, creativity, and motivation. • Emotional intelligence was a significant predictor of user satisfaction. • Ethics was a significant predictor for goal achievement. • Creativity and motivation were significant predictors of project performance.
2	Rana and Shuja [ ]	: = 183 : 21–30 years: ~52% 31–40 years: ~36% > 40 years: ~12% : Not reported : <6: ~48% > 5 years: ~52%	Transportation	NR	SEM	• Leadership competencies, measure as a second-order construct, was not a significant predictor of PS. • Innovative work behavior fully mediates the relationship between leadership competencies and PS.
3	Elmezain et al. [ ]	: = 400 : < 30 years: ~13% 30–49 years: ~52% > 50 years: ~35% : Male: ~ 78% Female: ~ 22% : < 7 years: ~29% 8–20 years: ~58% >20 years: ~13%	Construction	87%	Regression analysis	• Human and political skills were a significant predictor of PS.
4	Ahmed & Lodhi [ ]	: = 112 : Not reported : Male: ~ 79% Female: ~ 21% : < 5 years: ~17% 5–10 years: ~59% >15 years: ~23%	Information technology and telecommunication public projects	75%	Correlation analysis Regression analysis	• Self-awareness and resilience were significantly associated with the following PS criteria: organizational success, team satisfaction, user satisfaction, and project performance. • Emotional intelligence was a significant predictor of all PS criteria.
5	Irfan et al. [ ]	: = 260 : Not reported : Male: ~ 78% Female: ~ 22% : 5–15 years: ~73% > 15 years: ~27%	Public sector organizations	52%	PLS-SEM	• PMGs’ competencies, measured as a second-order construct, were not a significant predictor of PS.
6	Lima and Quevedo-Silva [ ]	: = 119 : mean = 40 years : Male: ~ 81,51% Female: ~ 18,49% : mean = 10 years	Not reported	88%	PLS-SEM	• Interpersonal skills were a significant predictor of PS. • Emotional intelligence was not a significant predictor of PS.
7	Khan et al. [ ]	: = 255 : 25–45 years: ~63% 46–55 years: ~33% >55 years: ~4% : Male: ~ 100% : 1–5 years: ~11% 6–10 years: ~55% 11–15 years: ~34%	Construction	NR	PLS-SEM	• Communication and interpersonal skills were a significant predictor for PS.
8	Podgórska and Pichlak [ ]	: = 102 : >41 years: ~ 63% > 40 years: ~37% : Male: ~ 31% Female: ~ 69% : < 6 years: ~64% > 5 years: ~36%	Not reported	58%	Regression analysis	• Conscientiousness was a significant predictor of PS in high-complexity and mandatory projects. • Communication was a significant predictor of PS in medium-complexity projects. • Motivation was a significant predictor of PS in repositioning projects.
9	Maqbool et al. [ ]	: = 345 : 25–45 years: ~ 65% > 45 years: ~35% : Not reported Working experience: 5 to 15 years: ~67% > 15 years: ~33%	Construction	84%	Correlation analysis Regression analysis	• Self-awareness and relationship management were significantly associated with PS. • Communication reported the highest correlation with PS among all competencies included in the study. • PMGs’ competencies, measured as a second-order construct composed by communication, teamwork, attentiveness and managing conflict, were significantly associated with PS. • Emotional intelligence was a significant predictor of PS.
10	Müller and Turner [ ]	: = 400 : 40-year-old or younger: ~ 27% > 40 years: ~73% : Male: ~ 65% Female: ~ 34% : Not reported	Not reported	Not applicable (snowball sampling)	Regression analysis	• Strategic perspective was a significant predictor of the following PS criteria: project performance and self-defined criteria of success. • Managing resources perspective was a significant predictor for user satisfaction, other stakeholders’ satisfaction, meeting user requirements, customer satisfaction and reoccurring business. • Empowering was a significant predictor for team satisfaction. • Self-awareness was a significant predictor for project achievement. • Interpersonal sensitivity was a significant predictor for supplier satisfaction. • Influence was a significant predictor for other stakeholder satisfaction. • Motivation was a significant predictor for project performance. • Conscientiousness was a significant predictor for team satisfaction.

Notes. PLS-SEM: Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling, SEM: Structural equation modeling, PS: Project success, PMGs: Project managers, NR: Non-reported.

A thematic analysis was conducted to identify the dimensions of PMGs’ competencies and PS criteria used in the included articles, following the procedures proposed by Nowell et al. [ 68 ]:

Familiarization with the data . The authors read and analyzed the content of each article.
Generation of initial code s. Each author generated a list of competencies and PS criteria extracted from each article. The resulting lists were compared and matched to get a final version.
Creation of themes . Categories were created by grouping similar competencies and PS criteria. Each of the authors carried out this process individually. The resulting lists were compared and matched to get a final version as in the previous step.
Definition and naming of themes . Once the final list of competencies and PS were obtained and the main categories were defined, each category was named based on theoretical foundations. This process was carried out jointly by the three authors.

4.1. Study characteristics

Year	No. of published articles	Country/Region	Journal	Journal Impact Quartile	Article included in the SLR
2022	2	South America (Brazil), North America (Canada and USA), Asia (China), Europe (Ireland and Portugal)	International Journal of Managing Projects in Business	Q1	Sampaio et al. [ ]
		Pakistan	Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Science	Q1	Rana and Shuja [ ]
2021	3	Egypt	Brazilian Journal of Operations and Production Management	Q2	Elmezain et al. [ ]
		Pakistan	International Journal of Information Technology Project Management	Q2	Ahmed and Lodhi [ ]
		Pakistan	Sustainability	Q1	Irfan et al. [ ]
2020	2	Brazil	International Journal of Project Organisation and Management	Q3	Lima and Quevedo-Silva [ ]
		Pakistan	Pacific Business Review International	N/A	Khan et al. [ ]
2019	1	Poland	International Journal of Managing Projects in Business	Q1	Podgórska and Pichlak [ ]
2017	1	Pakistan	Project Management Journal	Q1	Maqbool et al. [ ]
2010	1	Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, among others	Baltic Journal of Management	Q2	Müller & Turner [ ]

Note: The Journal Impact Quartile was based on Scopus CiteScore. N/A = Journal Impact Quartile not available.

4.2. Project managers’ competencies

4.2.1. the most influential theoretical frameworks.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is pone.0295417.g002.jpg

4.2.2. Categorization of project managers’ competencies

Dimensions	Competencies	Associated terms	Authors
Dimensions	Competencies	Associated terms	Ahmed & Lodhi [ ]	Elmezain et al. [ ]	Irfan et al. [ ]	Khan et al. [ ]	Lima & Quevedo-Silva [ ]	Maqbool et al. [ ]	Müller and Turner [ ]	Podgórska and Pichlak [ ]	Rana and Shuja [ ]	Sampaio et al. [ ]
Cognitive	Creativity	Creativity, vision and imagination, resourcefulness, creative thinking, imagination							X	X	X	X
	Decision-making	Decision-making skills, intuitiveness, critical analysis, and judgment			X				X	X	X
	Strategic perspective	Strategic perspective							X	X	X	X
Personal	Conscientiousness	Conscientiousness							X	X	X
	Emotional intelligence	Emotional intelligence, self-awareness, resilience, stress management, self-control, sensitivity	X	X			X	X	X	X	X	X
	Results orientation	Results orientation, motivation, achieving							X	X	X	X
Social	Communication	Engaging communication, communication management, communication, verbal skills, feedback				X	X	X	X	X	X	X
	Conflict management	Managing conflict, resolving conflicts			X		X	X
	Interpersonal relations	Attentiveness, interpersonal linkages, interpersonal skills, influence		X	X	X	X		X	X
	Leadership	Political skills, transformational leadership, empowering, developing, coaching		X	X			X	X	X	X	X
	Teamwork	Team building, teamwork			X		X	X
Sustainability	Ethics	Transparency, honesty, integrity		X								X

4.3. Project success criteria

Project success dimensions	Success criteria	Articles included in the SLR
Project success dimensions	Success criteria	Ahmed & Lodhi [ ]	Elmezain et al. [ ]	Irfan et al. [ ]	Lima & Quevedo-Silva [ ]	Maqbool et al. [ ]	Müller and Turner [ ]	Podgórska and Pichlak [ ]	Rana and Shuja [ ]	Sampaio et al. [ ]
Impact on stakeholders	Clients satisfaction	X	X				X	X	X
	Users satisfaction			X		X	X	X	X	X
	Providers satisfaction					X	X	X
	Teams satisfaction	X				X	X	X	X
	Other stakeholders satisfaction					X	X	X
Impact on organization	Visible short-term improvements	X		X					X
Impact on organization	Long-term improvements	X					X	X
General project management	Project efficiency (time, cost, and quality)	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
	Achieving purpose and objectives			X	X	X	X	X	X	X
	Project self-defined criteria					X	X	X
	Compliance with safety and environmental procedures and regulations			X

4.4. Empirical analysis of the relationship between project managers’ competencies and project success

4.4.1. Relationship between cognitive competencies and project success

4.4.2. Relationship between personal competencies and project success

4.4.3. Relationship between social competencies and project success

4.4.4. Relationship between sustainability competencies and project success

5. Discussion

6. Limitations and strengths

7. Conclusions

Supporting information

S1 checklist.

Notes: PMG = Project manager, PS = Project success.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Data Availability

PLoS One. 2023; 18(12): e0295417.

Decision Letter 0

18 Sep 2023

PONE-D-23-22151How do project managers’ competencies impact project success? A systematic literature reviewPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Ochoa,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 02 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at gro.solp@enosolp . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Jamshid Ali

Academic Editor

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex .

3. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information .

Additional Editor Comments:

Dear Author(s)

Your manuscript has been reviewed and you are advised to implement all the comments with true spirits.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Your research is remarkably comprehensive and demonstrates a significant depth of inquiry into the subject matter. The thoroughness of your investigation is commendable and greatly enriches the scholarly discourse in this field.

While your detailed methodology in the introduction is informative, it might benefit from a more concise presentation. Nevertheless, the context is well-established, providing a clear understanding of your research objectives and approach.

I would also suggest considering the incorporation of psychological references where applicable. This could offer valuable insights into the psychological aspects of your study, further strengthening the theoretical foundation and enhancing the interdisciplinary nature of your work.

Overall, your research is a noteworthy contribution to the field, showcasing a commendable level of rigor and dedication. With minor adjustments to the introductory methodology and the inclusion of relevant psychological references, your paper has the potential to resonate even more deeply with both specialists and a broader readership interested in the subject matter. Keep up the excellent work!

Reviewer #2: All suggestions are mentioned in the Word file attached. The authors should check the "descriptions" in the Word file. After revision is made, I want to see the paper. If the authors make all revisions, I will accept this paper.

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Teoman Erdağ

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at gro.solp@serugif . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Submitted filename: PONE-D-23-22151_reviewer.docx

Author response to Decision Letter 0

10 Oct 2023

We thank your comments and suggestions for improving our articles. A summary of the changes implemented in the manuscript is presented in a letter for each reviewer. These letters were attached during the submission process.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewer 2.pdf

Decision Letter 1

21 Nov 2023

PONE-D-23-22151R1

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ , click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at gro.solp@gnillibrohtua .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #3: Yes

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All is done. I belive that your paper will be helpfull to literature and sector. I accept it. Thank you.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article ( what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Reviewer #3: Yes: Sharmin Akhtar

Acceptance letter

28 Nov 2023

Dear Dr. Ochoa:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact gro.solp@sserpeno .

If we can help with anything else, please email us at gro.solp@eracremotsuc .

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Jamshid Ali

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

Knowledge Base

Methodology

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Published on January 2, 2023 by Shona McCombes . Revised on September 11, 2023.

What is a literature review? A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources on a specific topic. It provides an overview of current knowledge, allowing you to identify relevant theories, methods, and gaps in the existing research that you can later apply to your paper, thesis, or dissertation topic .

There are five key steps to writing a literature review:

Search for relevant literature
Evaluate sources
Identify themes, debates, and gaps
Outline the structure
Write your literature review

A good literature review doesn’t just summarize sources—it analyzes, synthesizes , and critically evaluates to give a clear picture of the state of knowledge on the subject.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

What is the purpose of a literature review, examples of literature reviews, step 1 – search for relevant literature, step 2 – evaluate and select sources, step 3 – identify themes, debates, and gaps, step 4 – outline your literature review’s structure, step 5 – write your literature review, free lecture slides, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions, introduction.

Quick Run-through
Step 1 & 2

When you write a thesis , dissertation , or research paper , you will likely have to conduct a literature review to situate your research within existing knowledge. The literature review gives you a chance to:

Demonstrate your familiarity with the topic and its scholarly context
Develop a theoretical framework and methodology for your research
Position your work in relation to other researchers and theorists
Show how your research addresses a gap or contributes to a debate
Evaluate the current state of research and demonstrate your knowledge of the scholarly debates around your topic.

Writing literature reviews is a particularly important skill if you want to apply for graduate school or pursue a career in research. We’ve written a step-by-step guide that you can follow below.

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Writing literature reviews can be quite challenging! A good starting point could be to look at some examples, depending on what kind of literature review you’d like to write.

Example literature review #1: “Why Do People Migrate? A Review of the Theoretical Literature” ( Theoretical literature review about the development of economic migration theory from the 1950s to today.)
Example literature review #2: “Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines” ( Methodological literature review about interdisciplinary knowledge acquisition and production.)
Example literature review #3: “The Use of Technology in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Thematic literature review about the effects of technology on language acquisition.)
Example literature review #4: “Learners’ Listening Comprehension Difficulties in English Language Learning: A Literature Review” ( Chronological literature review about how the concept of listening skills has changed over time.)

You can also check out our templates with literature review examples and sample outlines at the links below.

Download Word doc Download Google doc

Before you begin searching for literature, you need a clearly defined topic .

If you are writing the literature review section of a dissertation or research paper, you will search for literature related to your research problem and questions .

Make a list of keywords

Start by creating a list of keywords related to your research question. Include each of the key concepts or variables you’re interested in, and list any synonyms and related terms. You can add to this list as you discover new keywords in the process of your literature search.

Social media, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat, TikTok
Body image, self-perception, self-esteem, mental health
Generation Z, teenagers, adolescents, youth

Search for relevant sources

Use your keywords to begin searching for sources. Some useful databases to search for journals and articles include:

Your university’s library catalogue
Google Scholar
Project Muse (humanities and social sciences)
Medline (life sciences and biomedicine)
EconLit (economics)
Inspec (physics, engineering and computer science)

You can also use boolean operators to help narrow down your search.

Make sure to read the abstract to find out whether an article is relevant to your question. When you find a useful book or article, you can check the bibliography to find other relevant sources.

You likely won’t be able to read absolutely everything that has been written on your topic, so it will be necessary to evaluate which sources are most relevant to your research question.

For each publication, ask yourself:

What question or problem is the author addressing?
What are the key concepts and how are they defined?
What are the key theories, models, and methods?
Does the research use established frameworks or take an innovative approach?
What are the results and conclusions of the study?
How does the publication relate to other literature in the field? Does it confirm, add to, or challenge established knowledge?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research?

Make sure the sources you use are credible , and make sure you read any landmark studies and major theories in your field of research.

You can use our template to summarize and evaluate sources you’re thinking about using. Click on either button below to download.

Take notes and cite your sources

As you read, you should also begin the writing process. Take notes that you can later incorporate into the text of your literature review.

It is important to keep track of your sources with citations to avoid plagiarism . It can be helpful to make an annotated bibliography , where you compile full citation information and write a paragraph of summary and analysis for each source. This helps you remember what you read and saves time later in the process.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

To begin organizing your literature review’s argument and structure, be sure you understand the connections and relationships between the sources you’ve read. Based on your reading and notes, you can look for:

Trends and patterns (in theory, method or results): do certain approaches become more or less popular over time?
Themes: what questions or concepts recur across the literature?
Debates, conflicts and contradictions: where do sources disagree?
Pivotal publications: are there any influential theories or studies that changed the direction of the field?
Gaps: what is missing from the literature? Are there weaknesses that need to be addressed?

This step will help you work out the structure of your literature review and (if applicable) show how your own research will contribute to existing knowledge.

Most research has focused on young women.
There is an increasing interest in the visual aspects of social media.
But there is still a lack of robust research on highly visual platforms like Instagram and Snapchat—this is a gap that you could address in your own research.

There are various approaches to organizing the body of a literature review. Depending on the length of your literature review, you can combine several of these strategies (for example, your overall structure might be thematic, but each theme is discussed chronologically).

Chronological

The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time. However, if you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order.

Try to analyze patterns, turning points and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred.

If you have found some recurring central themes, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic.

For example, if you are reviewing literature about inequalities in migrant health outcomes, key themes might include healthcare policy, language barriers, cultural attitudes, legal status, and economic access.

Methodological

If you draw your sources from different disciplines or fields that use a variety of research methods , you might want to compare the results and conclusions that emerge from different approaches. For example:

Look at what results have emerged in qualitative versus quantitative research
Discuss how the topic has been approached by empirical versus theoretical scholarship
Divide the literature into sociological, historical, and cultural sources

Theoretical

A literature review is often the foundation for a theoretical framework . You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts.

You might argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach, or combine various theoretical concepts to create a framework for your research.

Like any other academic text , your literature review should have an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion . What you include in each depends on the objective of your literature review.

The introduction should clearly establish the focus and purpose of the literature review.

Depending on the length of your literature review, you might want to divide the body into subsections. You can use a subheading for each theme, time period, or methodological approach.

As you write, you can follow these tips:

Summarize and synthesize: give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
Analyze and interpret: don’t just paraphrase other researchers — add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
Critically evaluate: mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
Write in well-structured paragraphs: use transition words and topic sentences to draw connections, comparisons and contrasts

In the conclusion, you should summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance.

When you’ve finished writing and revising your literature review, don’t forget to proofread thoroughly before submitting. Not a language expert? Check out Scribbr’s professional proofreading services !

This article has been adapted into lecture slides that you can use to teach your students about writing a literature review.

Scribbr slides are free to use, customize, and distribute for educational purposes.

Open Google Slides Download PowerPoint

If you want to know more about the research process , methodology , research bias , or statistics , make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples.

Sampling methods
Simple random sampling
Stratified sampling
Cluster sampling
Likert scales
Reproducibility

Statistics

Null hypothesis
Statistical power
Probability distribution
Effect size
Poisson distribution

Research bias

Optimism bias
Cognitive bias
Implicit bias
Hawthorne effect
Anchoring bias
Explicit bias

A literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related to a specific topic or research question .

It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation , or research paper , in order to situate your work in relation to existing knowledge.

There are several reasons to conduct a literature review at the beginning of a research project:

To familiarize yourself with the current state of knowledge on your topic
To ensure that you’re not just repeating what others have already done
To identify gaps in knowledge and unresolved problems that your research can address
To develop your theoretical framework and methodology
To provide an overview of the key findings and debates on the topic

Writing the literature review shows your reader how your work relates to existing research and what new insights it will contribute.

The literature review usually comes near the beginning of your thesis or dissertation . After the introduction , it grounds your research in a scholarly field and leads directly to your theoretical framework or methodology .

A literature review is a survey of credible sources on a topic, often used in dissertations , theses, and research papers . Literature reviews give an overview of knowledge on a subject, helping you identify relevant theories and methods, as well as gaps in existing research. Literature reviews are set up similarly to other academic texts , with an introduction , a main body, and a conclusion .

An annotated bibliography is a list of source references that has a short description (called an annotation ) for each of the sources. It is often assigned as part of the research process for a paper .

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

McCombes, S. (2023, September 11). How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates. Scribbr. Retrieved July 21, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/dissertation/literature-review/

Is this article helpful?

Shona McCombes

Other students also liked, what is a theoretical framework | guide to organizing, what is a research methodology | steps & tips, how to write a research proposal | examples & templates, "i thought ai proofreading was useless but..".

I've been using Scribbr for years now and I know it's a service that won't disappoint. It does a good job spotting mistakes”

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Success criteria and critical success factors in project success: a literature review

Project success criteria are dependent variables that measure the successful outcome of a project, while project success factors are the independent elements of a project that can increase the likelihood of success. In other words, success criteria are used to measure success whilst success factors facilitate the achievement of success. The purpose of this paper is to systematically record and identify project success criteria as well as critical success factors found in the literature and published in academic journals in order to form an effective and widely accessible framework to measure project success. Time - schedule, cost - budget, user satisfaction, quality-performance, business and commercial performance are the most frequently used success criteria, followed by technical specifications and requirements, stakeholders’ satisfaction, strategic goals/objectives and competitiveness, functionality, project team satisfaction and safety. Some researchers also refer to contractor ...

Related Papers

Dzulkarnaen Ismail, MACPM

Post-disaster reconstruction (PDR) is a complex and highly demanding process that involves a number of different and well-coordinated courses of action. Therefore, it is vital that these complex activities are well planned. The objective of this research is to study the post-disaster reconstruction complexity, the phases of PDR, the project classification, the parties involved in PDR, the needs of project management approach on PDR, and suggest the most critical success factors highlighted by previous authors in this field. The goal of this research is to improve project management practice in PDR project specifically for International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs) that participate in the phase of Post-Disaster Reconstruction.

International Journal of Built Environment and Sustainability

NUR EMMA MUSTAFFA

Construction projects play an important role in the advancement of a nation through infrastructure development that leads to economic growth. They are planned carefully to accomplish certain goals. However, not all the projects achieved the goals as per planned. Many factors contribute to the successes and failures, and it becomes an interesting arena for research. The primary objective of this paper is to outline the development trend of project success measurement globally and locally. The research method employed was to make selected reviews on critical success factors' (CSFs) literature and to compare international standards and progress in incorporating human behavioural aspects of project management to the situation in Malaysia. A somewhat similar pattern can be observed in Malaysia where the studies have departed from the usual criteria of time, cost and quality, to define project success in a more holistic way. However, the domestic industry has failed to respond to the ...

Thomas Dimopoulos , Dimitris Antoniou

Sun, Air and Water are the most powerful sources of life on earth. Southern Orientation (SO) and Natural Cross Ventilation (NCV) are the best expressions of our relationship to those eternal forces. SO and NCV are behind any successful Passive Solar Design. Health, comfort, air quality, natural lighting, residential satisfaction, good micro-climatic conditions, green spaces, vegetation, energy-saving, and psychological well-being rely on these two archetypal determinants. Architectural practice is constantly accentuating the fact that our homes and cities need solar access and ventilation. Research in the Health and environmental sector reveals an urgent need for SO and NCV. Research from the real estate field is segmented and not conclusive on these values. People are buying apartments overlooking the importance of SO and NCV. Developers are building in a bulk manner, unaware of any benefits. Realtors are underestimating these qualities. Most importantly, valuers estimate all other factors, except these two. There is confusion on what has a real value for our life and to what extend this can be measured and quantified. Survey-based economic techniques will have to be employed for the valuation of SO and NCV as for now, according to research, they do not seem to have a market value (or price). We might have to rely more on " stated preference " models, in contrast to a price-based " revealed preference " model. The contribution of this work is intended to be the trigger to all, for attention on SO and NCV as archetypal determinants of value.

Information Management and Business Review

adrien FARIALA

The success of the Government's construction projects in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) since 2011 has been anchored on the potential of construction firms in completing these projects based on the planned timeframe as well as the budget. Consequently, from a project management viewpoint, the main objective of the present study was to assess the critical success factors in developing countries' construction projects and to examine the impact of risk management, leadership, experience and expertise, and project size on construction projects in DRC. Data was gathered from respondents in the construction projects in DRC using quantitative methods. A statistical software program, SPSS version 25, was subsequently used to analyze the collected quantitative data. The findings emanating from this study contribute to the body of knowledge on key success factors in construction projects in DRC as a developing country. It was revealed from the study that the success of constru...

TEST Engineering & Management

Hanafi Ghafur

Today, the challenges faced by a construction project manager are to improve the level of efficiency and overall productivity levels while at the same time maintaining harmonious relationships with stakeholders. They need to be able to communicate and interact at an all level and know how to use tools and methods to improve outcomes. Although Emotional Intelligence is an individual capability concerning a project team, it can provide a level of motivation and energy for the entire project team to detect and avoid any sign of project failure. To be aligned appropriately, a good project manager should be able to evaluate and track potential risks and make clear plans and manage the project. This article examines Emotional Intelligence as one of the drivers for the project manager's achievement and shows how to combine Emotional Intelligence and effective project management. If Emotional Intelligence focuses mainly on the level of communication within management staff, the ultimate goal of project management is to avoid defects during and after project, efficient time management, overall cost-controlled, and comprehensive project planning structured thoroughly into achieving a successful project. The question is, in the end, "Can project managers' Emotional intelligence contributes to the success of construction projects?" By combining several critical aspects of Emotional Intelligence, this paper proposes a more comprehensive approach to how construction project management is managed in the future.

Felician Komu , Felician Komu

Valuation services have become increasingly less credible in Tanzania despite an impressive digital data penetration from an inisignificant 115,000 people at the end of 2000 to over 11.5m by June 2017. Practicing valuers have been accused of valuing that which never existed, overvaluing and undervaluing to suit different situations. The key research problem for the study revolved around the lack of measure on reliability and precision of value estimates as was once observed by Dell (2013). While findings from the interviews revealed little appreciation of the intertwin relationships that exist between real estate and finance markets amongst practising valuers, it was evident, external influences mainly through government guidelines and certification processes had strong impact on the valuation estimates. The local practice is apprehensive of strict adherence to government circulars on valuation assessment and reporting standards,which to a large extent might account for the limited valuers' inquisitiveness on the dynamics of value affecting factors. It was also established that practicing valuers have limited understanding of the general investment market which as Scarrett (2008) observes is crucial in trying to interpret the working of property investment markets. The paper observes a dichotomy between values derived from local market operations and those estimated by valuers. The paper attributes this to reliance on government published guidelines and limited continued professional training amongst valuers. The paper concludes that valuation accuracy and certainty in developing countries are influencecd by the limited roles that professional valuation boards exercise in keeping their members in pace with development in the profession.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REAL ESTATE AND LAND PLANNING

Jean Doumit

The use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) in geosciences is now widespread and operational for several applications – 3D modeling, quarry monitoring, archeology, forestry and terrain analysis. Land surveyors for the economy of time and money are using UAVs in their big projects. Real estate market in Lebanon is very specific and unstable, parcels prices vary from place to another without any criteria. The objective of this study is to evaluate parcels based on terrain weighted analysis of elevations, slope, and curvatures generated from UAV datasets. As a result of the geospatial analysis, a land evaluation derivative map of the study area generated to be a base for parcel classification. Parcels classified according to the map of standards resulting from our research gives the opportunities to real estate companies and cadastral experts to evaluate and put the suitable land pricing for a powerful and stable market. The final output resulted from terrain analysis is a cadastral map showing the real estate rate of parcels.

Asia-Pacific Journal of Management Research and Innovation

Achintya Ghatak

In a competitive business environment, project management aligned with the business strategy caters to the organisation goals. Researchers and practitioners are constantly probing into the possible enhancement of the existing approaches to manage projects. Though the relevant literature recommends numerous methodologies to enhance the achievement of project performance, yet the importance of power evacuation projects is still unnoticed and little has been done in this area. This research aims to develop a strategic layout using critical influence factors (CIFs) of power evacuation projects. A survey is carried out in 47 companies which are working on power evacuation projects. The results of the statistical analysis revealed that there is a significant direct and indirect impact of the strategy, risk, contract, information technology (IT) and stakeholders on the project performance with respect to power evacuation projects.

International Journal of Academic Accounting, Finance & Management Research (IJAAFMR)

Bilal Eneizan

This is a conceptual paper to study the effect of intellectual capital and accountants' turnover on SMEs: The mediating role of financial knowledge management. The paper aims at presenting the reviews of the literature on the effect of intellectual capital and accountants' turnover on small and medium enterprises' success, and the role of the mediating variable of financial knowledge management system on in the relationship between intellectual capital and accountants' turnover with small and medium enterprises' success. The conclusion that was drawn is that, intellectual capital and accountants' turnover positively effect on small and medium enterprises' success. In addition, financial knowledge management positively effect on the relationship between intellectual capital and accountants' turnover with small and medium companies' success.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

João Varajão , Anabela Paiva , Caroline Dominguez

HUMAN RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND REAL ESTATE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SUCCESS IN AWKA SOUTH L.G.A., ANAMBRA STATE

Osita Ifediora

International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management

Temitope Omotayo

IJAR Indexing

Aleksandra Đurić

International Journal of Project Management and Productivity Assessment

Jorge Gomes

Ralf Müller , Kam Jugdev

Chivonne Algeo , Damian Candusso

RELAND: International Journal of Real Estate & Land Planning

Georgia Pozoukidou

ajer research

Jesus Aramayo

Studies in Business and Economics

G.A.S.K. Silva

Iranian Journal of Science and Technology, Transactions of Civil Engineering

Ramin Ansari , Roohollah Taherkhani

Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences

Rodney Turner

Journal of technology management & innovation

Fernando José B Laurindo

PhD Dissertation, ISEG Lisbon School of Economics and Business

Gestão & Produção

Paulo S Figueiredo

Ayodeji E Oke

Lillian Otieno-Omutoko

lillian omutoko

Project Management Journal

Lavagnon A . Ika

Journal of Civil Engineering and Management

Zoran Cekic

Sigurður Fjalar Sigurðarson

IUJ Journal of Management

Philip Crosby

International Journal of Managing Projects in Business

Ralf Müller

Alan Murphy

Muhammad Saeed

International Journal of Project Management

Stephen O Ogunlana

Han Ping Fung

ekaka suleiman

Amaeshi et al

Francis Amaeshi

Amadou matel Diallo

humera amin

Julien Pollack

oluseye olugboyega , Abimbola Windapo

International Journal of Engineering & Technology

ghanim Bakr

The Effect of Project Governance and Sustainability on Project Success of the Public Sector Organizations in Pakistan

Muhammad Irfan

How To Complete A Project Evaluation: Tips & Benefits

Expert Evidence

Galen is a digital project manager with over 10 years of experience shaping and delivering human-centered digital transformation initiatives in government, healthcare, transit, and retail. He is a digital project management nerd, a cultivator of highly collaborative teams, and an impulsive sharer of knowledge. He's also the co-founder of The Digital Project Manager and host of The DPM Podcast.

Why bother with project evaluations? They’re your ticket to looking back on what went great, spotting areas for improvement, and making smarter choices for future projects. Here's how to get one done.

You know that feeling when you've just wrapped up a project? You're exhausted, proud, excited, and mostly just ready to move on to the next challenge. But there's one crucial step left: completing a project evaluation.

In this article, I’ll discuss the many benefits of project evaluations, practical tips on how and when to conduct one, and how project management software can help.

What Is Project Evaluation?

The project evaluation process systematically assesses and analyzes a project's performance, outcomes, and impacts against pre-defined objectives and criteria.

Why is project evaluation important? It’s a valuable tool for learning through retrospection . Completing one can help you reflect on your project's overall performance, identify improvement areas, and make informed decisions about future projects.

When Should You Complete A Project Evaluation?

Project evaluations aren’t just a box to check off—they’re an important part of the project management process. They’re also not just for reflecting at the end of your projects. Conducting a project evaluation can help provide a detailed look at what to expect during your project, how your project is going, and how you can make things better next time.

You can evaluate your project at any time, but it is especially important at three key points in your project life cycle .

Pre-Project Evaluation

When creating your project charter , you should evaluate its feasibility and share it with your team members and stakeholders. Before moving forward, a pre-project evaluation plan ensures you can justify the project's relevance, benefits, and effectiveness.

With the pre-project evaluation, you’re actually completing all of the information that will go into your project charter, including:

Project goals
Project scope
Responsibilities
Potential risks

This information provides the basis and justification for your project to gain approval.

Pre-project evaluations differ from ongoing and post-project evaluations, which are focused more on taking corrective action either during or after a project has been completed.

Ongoing Project Evaluation

You should continually evaluate your projects in real time throughout the project life cycle to ensure they’re progressing as planned and meeting all scheduling and budget milestones. Your previously determined KPIs (Key Performance Indicators) will serve as your guide for evaluation here. The use of project management software can also make this process much easier, as it ensures that all of your data is centrally available.

Post-Project Evaluation

At project completion, once deliverables are provided, the project has been closed, and lessons learned have been discussed and documented, you should review all paperwork and analyze all applicable data. This can help you identify what worked and what went wrong to get a clear picture of how to improve future projects.

Two Common Types Of Project Evaluation Methods

You can use these two effective evaluation methodologies at different project phases.

Formative Evaluation

This evaluation approach is the process of gathering feedback and analyzing data while a project is ongoing. During the project planning and implementation phase, formative evaluation can help with the following:

Providing feedback and guidance to improve project performance and outcomes
Identifying issues earlier on in the project
Making the necessary adjustments to ensure project success

Your email *
Yes, I want to sign up to receive regular emails filled with tips, expert insights, and more to build my PM practice.
By submitting you agree to receive occasional emails and acknowledge our Privacy Policy . You can unsubscribe at any time. Protected by reCAPTCHA; Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Summative Evaluation

A summative evaluation helps you assess your project's overall impact and effectiveness once the project has been completed. This evaluation approach can help with:

Measuring how well a project’s objectives were achieved
Outlining what outcomes were delivered
Guiding future decision-making

How To Complete A Project Evaluation

Now, let’s get into the four essential steps needed to evaluate your projects effectively. These steps will primarily help you complete ongoing and post-project evaluations.

Step 1: Define Evaluation Criteria

The first step to completing a project evaluation is to establish clear evaluation criteria. These guidelines ensure that your project work aligns with the project's objectives, goals, scope, and expected outcomes. Defining specific evaluation criteria ensures that your assessment will be focused, relevant, and meaningful.

Make sure to use KPIs (key performance indicators) that will help you measure success, such as:

Payback period analysis. This measures the amount of time it will take to recover the net initial investment in a project. Think of it as measuring the project investment risk.

Calculation: Payback period = Amount of the investment ÷ annual cash flow
Hint: The goal is the have a shorter recovery period.

Accounting rate of return (ARR). This KPI measures a project's financial return.

Calculation: Accounting rate of return = Annual net income ÷ initial investment
Hint: Investments with a higher ARR are likely to be better.

Net present value (NPV). This calculates all expected future cash inflows and outflows to determine a project's expected net monetary gain or loss.

Calculation: NPV = Today's value of the expected cash flows − Today's value of invested cash.

Step 2: Gather Relevant Project Data

Collecting relevant quantitative and qualitative data about the project will help provide a comprehensive view of your project's performance, which is essential for comparing against expectations.

Quantitative data : This type of data identifies measurable things like how many, how much, or how often.
Qualitative data : This data type uncovers certain behavioral things like why, how, or what happened.

Relevant data gathering sources might include:

Project documentation (project objectives, goals, deliverables, and metrics)
Performance reports
Previous evaluation reports
Stakeholder feedback
Surveys and interviews
Focus groups
Case studies
Industry benchmarks

Step 3: Carefully Analyze Data

Once you’ve gathered your data, it’s time to analyze it. This process involves examining trends, patterns, and relationships in the data to identify key findings and conclusions. This will help you uncover strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to the project.

This is especially important for correcting actions throughout projects and making calculated decisions about future initiatives.

With large amounts of data to sift through, isolating what to look for can feel overwhelming. I advise utilizing project goals and outcomes as the basis for determining the type of information you need.

Step 4: Draw Conclusions

Based on the data analysis, draw conclusions about the project's performance, impact, and success in achieving its objectives. Identify things like:

Key takeaways
Lessons learned
Areas for improvement

These conclusions are necessary to support corrective actions and for data-driven decisions in future projects. All conclusions and corrective actions should be discussed and centrally shared with all stakeholders, preferably through project management software. This is where KPIs will help you isolate how well your project is performing and what you need to change in the future to enhance project delivery.

5 Benefits Of Project Evaluation

Project evaluations are essential to learning from your mistakes and delivering successful projects in the future. Here are some worthwhile project evaluation benefits.

1. Developing best practices

Through project evaluation, you can identify and document best practices that have contributed to project success. In doing so, your company can replicate these best practices in future projects to improve performance and outcomes.

It’s important for companies to develop, document, and communicate all best practices in person. Keeping everyone on the same page going forward also requires maintaining a central repository for best practices that everyone can refer to at any time to ensure consistency.

2. Promoting a culture of learning and continuous improvement

Regular project evaluation promotes a culture of learning and continuous improvement. By reflecting on past projects, your company can achieve the following:

Identify lessons learned
Implement corrective actions
Enhance project management practices
Build company-wide knowledge
Foster innovation and creativity

3. Enhancing stakeholder satisfaction

Project evaluations provide your company with valuable insights into stakeholder needs, preferences, and expectations. By understanding stakeholder perspectives, your company can further tailor project delivery to meet stakeholder requirements. This ultimately enhances stakeholder satisfaction and builds strong relationships.

4. Increasing accountability and transparency

Evaluation helps enhance accountability and transparency in project management. Evaluating project performance and results ensures your company can demonstrate its commitment to delivering quality outcomes and utilizing resources efficiently. Increased transparency builds and strengthens trust with stakeholders and enhances your company’s credibility.

5. Supporting evidence-based decision-making

By collecting and analyzing data on project performance, organizations can make more informed decisions about resource allocation , strategic direction, and future project investments. This data-driven approach ensures all decisions are based on facts rather than assumptions, leading to better outcomes and increased impact.

3 Common Project Evaluation Mistakes

Here are some of the potential mistakes you may make while completing a project evaluation and things you can do to prevent them.

Mistake 1: Lack of Clear Objectives

A common mistake in project evaluation is not defining clear objectives and criteria for assessment. Without clear objectives, measuring a project's success and deriving meaningful insights for improvement becomes challenging.

I’ve often seen project managers rush through this step only to watch their projects go off track, miss goals and deliverables, or require modifying the project scope more than once. My advice is to slow things down and allow ample time to form clear objectives at the start of a project.

Mistake 2: Ignoring Stakeholder Feedback

Another mistake is disregarding stakeholder feedback in the evaluation process. Try to remember that stakeholders often have more experience and insight into how a project impacts their role and how a project will be impacted.

Stakeholders are integral to your project's success, and their perspectives should be incorporated at all evaluation points to ensure you have a comprehensive assessment.

Mistake 3: Failing to Act on Findings

Another significant mistake is not taking action based on evaluation findings. Translating evaluation results into actionable recommendations and implementing changes is essential for driving continuous improvement. Some key things need to be done to act on learnings:

Communicate all initial findings and potential solutions with all relevant stakeholders, both in person and in writing
Document and evaluate each recommended solution and its impact
Seek input from stakeholders and subject matter experts
Adjust solutions where needed
Assign solutions
Measure and document the results
Repeat these steps as needed

Questions To Ask During A Project Evaluation

Completing project evaluations successfully requires you and your team to be able to answer a few key questions. Use these to help guide your evaluations at different stages throughout the project:

Setting project goals and objectives

What are the business drivers behind the project?
What’s the purpose of the project?
Is the project essential, and will it align with the company’s strategy?
What are the project’s goals and their priorities?
Who will champion or sponsor the project?

Defining project scope and deliverables

Is the project scope realistic?
Does the scope of the project detail everything that matters?
What are each of the deliverables, and can they be achieved within scope?
What assumptions are built in?

Identifying project stakeholders

Are all stakeholders identified and available?
Who are the stakeholders?
Has the project been communicated with all stakeholders? When?
Are they fully invested in the project? If not, why?
Does the project team have the right skills and capabilities?

Developing a project timeline and milestones

What is the timeline, and how was it determined?
Is it realistic?
Has a contingency plan been put in place if tasks or the project isn’t completed on time?
What KPIs will be used to measure success?

Allocating resources and budget

Are the right resources assigned to project tasks?
Is the project budget realistic?

Implementing project monitoring and control measures

How and when will project performance be measured?
Who will be responsible for monitoring different aspects of the project?
What measures will be in place for change control?
How and when will changes be communicated?

Analyzing project results and lessons learned

What criteria will be used for analysis and identifying the right questions?
What tools will be used to track results?
What tools will be used to analyze results?
When will results be communicated, and how?
When and where will lessons learned be documented and communicated?
Who will lessons learned be communicated with?
What is the process of acting on lessons learned?

It’s important to note that this isn’t an exhaustive list. Depending on the situation and the project, other questions may need to be addressed to complete a full evaluation.

Project Evaluation Tools That Can Help

Evaluating projects can generate numerous action items and moving pieces. I would advise anyone completing a project evaluation to gather feedback using survey tools, use data analytics platforms to decipher findings, and leverage project management software with dashboards to track everything in real time.

Project Management Software

Project management software such as Monday.com , Wrike , or SmartSheet can help in tracking and monitoring project progress, milestones, and key performance indicators. Some of these tools also provide real-time visibility into project status and simplify data collection for evaluation purposes.

Here are the best tools for helping you monitor project progress and evaluate success.

1. monday.com — Best for workflow automation
2. Wrike — Best for large projects and scaling organizations
3. Celoxis — Best for Project Management with BI analytics and dashboards
4. ClickUp — Best for task customization
5. Jira — Best for cross-team project tracking
6. Zoho Projects — Best for integration with Zoho Suite
7. Visor — Best for spreadsheet-based management
8. Quickbase — Best for process automation
9. Hub Planner — Best for resource scheduling
10. Workzone — Best for comprehensive project visibility

Surveys and Feedback Tools

Surveys and feedback tools like SurveyMonkey, Google Forms, or Jotform can be used to gather stakeholder feedback, opinions, and satisfaction levels. They can help you collect valuable insights for project evaluation and improvement.

Data Analytics Platforms

Data analytics platforms like Tableau, Power BI, or Google Analytics are great tools for analyzing project data and deriving meaningful insights. These platforms offer advanced data visualization capabilities, predictive analytics, and reporting functionalities to support evidence-based decision-making. Some project management tools have built-in analytics tools or integrate with analytics tools. The most useful project management dashboards provide dynamic tools that allow analysis of current projects and completed and canceled projects for future analytics.

Remember, completing ongoing evaluations is essential for assessing your current and future project performance, identifying areas for improvement, and driving future success. Following the steps outlined in this article, using project management software and analytics tools, and avoiding some of the common mistakes will set you on the path toward successful projects.

Join For More Project Evaluation Insights

Want to connect with other digital project managers to share resources and best practices? Join our membership community and get access to 100+ templates, samples, and examples, and connect with 100s of other digital project managers in Slack.

3 Ways To Increase Your Project Management Software Security

9 expert tips for managing your all-star team of subcontractors, how to improve workflow efficiency & tips to boost productivity.

Advanced Search

Exploring issues of story-based effort estimation in Agile Software Development (ASD)

New citation alert added.

This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:

You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.

To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.

New Citation Alert!

Please log in to your account

Information & Contributors

Bibliometrics & citations, view options, recommendations, data-driven effort estimation techniques of agile user stories: a systematic literature review.

At an early stage in the development process, a development team must obtain insight into the software being developed to establish a reliable plan. Thus, the team members should investigate, in depth, any information relating to the development. ...

Effort estimation in agile software development: a survey on the state of the practice

Context: There are numerous studies on effort estimation in Agile Software Development (ASD) and the state of the art in this area has been recently documented in a Systematic Literature Review (SLR). However, to date there are no studies on the state ...

Data-driven agile software cost estimation models for DHS and DoD

Since the Manifesto for Agile Software Development, the cost analysis community has struggled to find the most appropriate size measures for developing accurate agile software development cost estimates at an early ...

Functional Story and Issues are good predicters of effort for agile development.

Information

Published in.

Elsevier North-Holland, Inc.

United States

Publication History

Author tags.

Effort estimation
Issues and challenges
User story effort estimation
Systematic Literature Review (SLR)
Research-article

Contributors

Other metrics, bibliometrics, article metrics.

0 Total Citations
0 Total Downloads
Downloads (Last 12 months) 0
Downloads (Last 6 weeks) 0

View options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Share this publication link.

Copying failed.

Share on social media

Affiliations, export citations.

Please download or close your previous search result export first before starting a new bulk export. Preview is not available. By clicking download, a status dialog will open to start the export process. The process may take a few minutes but once it finishes a file will be downloadable from your browser. You may continue to browse the DL while the export process is in progress. Download
Download citation
Copy citation

We are preparing your search results for download ...

We will inform you here when the file is ready.

Your file of search results citations is now ready.

Your search export query has expired. Please try again.

DOI: 10.53898/jsce2024115
Corpus ID: 271251827

Analysis of the Relationship Between Engineering Project Management and Engineering Product Development: A Review

Lynda Chinwendu Mbadugha , Franklin Arinze Ikeotuonye , I. Idoko
Published in Journal of Studies in Civil… 19 June 2024
Engineering
Journal of Studies in Civil Engineering

47 References

The drivers of success in new-product development.

Highly Influential

Variation Risk Management: Focusing Quality Improvements in Product Development and Production

A resource-based view on smes regarding the transition to more sophisticated stages of industry 4.0, developing global competence in global virtual team projects: a qualitative exploration of engineering students’ experiences, product development of natural fibre-composites for various applications: design for sustainability, managing the development of complex product systems: an integrative literature review, roles of artificial intelligence in construction engineering and management: a critical review and future trends, proactive risk management, it worked there, so it should work here: sustaining change while improving product development processes, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Systematic review
Open access
Published: 15 July 2024

Teamwork and implementation of innovations in healthcare and human service settings: a systematic review

Elizabeth A. McGuier ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6219-6358 1 ,
David J. Kolko 1 ,
Gregory A. Aarons 2 , 3 , 4 ,
Allison Schachter 5 , 6 ,
Mary Lou Klem 7 ,
Matthew A. Diabes 8 ,
Laurie R. Weingart 8 ,
Eduardo Salas 9 &
Courtney Benjamin Wolk 5 , 6

Implementation Science volume 19 , Article number: 49 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

610 Accesses

10 Altmetric

Metrics details

Implementation of new practices in team-based settings requires teams to work together to respond to new demands and changing expectations. However, team constructs and team-based implementation approaches have received little attention in the implementation science literature. This systematic review summarizes empirical research examining associations between teamwork and implementation outcomes when evidence-based practices and other innovations are implemented in healthcare and human service settings.

We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO and ERIC for peer-reviewed empirical articles published from January 2000 to March 2022. Additional articles were identified by searches of reference lists and a cited reference search for included articles (completed in February 2023). We selected studies using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods to examine associations between team constructs and implementation outcomes in healthcare and human service settings. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess methodological quality/risk of bias and conducted a narrative synthesis of included studies. GRADE and GRADE-CERQual were used to assess the strength of the body of evidence.

Searches identified 10,489 results. After review, 58 articles representing 55 studies were included. Relevant studies increased over time; 71% of articles were published after 2016. We were unable to generate estimates of effects for any quantitative associations because of very limited overlap in the reported associations between team variables and implementation outcomes. Qualitative findings with high confidence were: 1) Staffing shortages and turnover hinder implementation; 2) Adaptive team functioning (i.e., positive affective states, effective behavior processes, shared cognitive states) facilitates implementation and is associated with better implementation outcomes; Problems in team functioning (i.e., negative affective states, problematic behavioral processes, lack of shared cognitive states) act as barriers to implementation and are associated with poor implementation outcomes; and 3) Open, ongoing, and effective communication within teams facilitates implementation of new practices; poor communication is a barrier.

Conclusions

Teamwork matters for implementation. However, both team constructs and implementation outcomes were often poorly specified, and there was little overlap of team constructs and implementation outcomes studied in quantitative studies. Greater specificity and rigor are needed to understand how teamwork influences implementation processes and outcomes. We provide recommendations for improving the conceptualization, description, assessment, analysis, and interpretation of research on teams implementing innovations.

Trial registration

This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews. Registration number: CRD42020220168.

Peer Review reports

Contributions to the Literature:

This paper reviews more than 20 years of research on teams and implementation of new practices in healthcare and human service settings.

We concluded with high confidence that adaptive team functioning is associated with better implementation outcomes and problems in team functioning are associated with poorer implementation outcomes. While not surprising, the implementation science literature has lacked clear empirical evidence for this finding.

Use of the provided recommendations will improve the quality of future research on teams and implementation of evidence-based practices.

Healthcare and human service providers (e.g., clinicians, case managers) often work in team-based settings where professionals work collaboratively with one another and service recipients toward shared goals [ 1 , 2 ]. Team-based care is intended to include multiple professionals with varying skills and expertise [ 1 , 3 ]. It requires shared responsibility for outcomes and increases team members’ dependence on one another to complete work [ 1 , 3 , 4 ]. Effective team-based care and higher quality teamwork are associated with improvements in care access and quality, patient safety, patient satisfaction, clinical outcomes, and costs [ 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 ].

We use the term ‘teamwork’ to refer to an array of team constructs using the input-mediator-outcome-input (IMOI) framework (Fig. 1 ) [ 10 , 11 , 12 ]. The IMOI framework recognizes that team interactions are dynamic and complex, with processes unfolding over time and feedback loops between processes, outcomes, and inputs [ 10 ]. Team inputs include team structure and composition, task demands, and contextual features [ 13 ]. Mediators are aspects of team functioning (i.e., what team members think, feel, and do [ 12 ]) through which inputs influence outcomes. These processes and emergent states may be cognitive, affective, or behavioral [ 5 , 14 , 15 , 16 ]. Team effectiveness outcomes are multidimensional and include team performance as well as team viability and the impact of the team on members’ development [ 12 , 17 , 18 , 19 ].

Conceptual model of team effectiveness and key terminology. Figure adapted from “Advancing research on teams and team effectiveness in implementation science: An application of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework” by E.A. McGuier, D.J. Kolko, N.A. Stadnick, L. Brookman-Frazee, C.B. Wolk, C.T. Yuan, C.S. Burke, & G.A. Aarons, 2023, Implementation Research and Practice , 4 , 26334895231190855. [CC BY-NC]

Implementation of new practices in team-based service settings requires team members to work together to respond to changing demands and expectations. Extensive research has identified barriers and facilitators to implementation of new practices at the individual provider, organization, and system levels; however, the team level has received little empirical attention [ 20 , 21 ]. This is a problem because implementation efforts increasingly rely on teams, and responses to a new practice are likely to be influenced by team characteristics and processes. See McGuier and colleagues [ 20 ] for an overview of team constructs in the context of implementation science and the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework [ 22 , 23 ]. Given increasing use of team-based care and interest in implementation strategies targeting teams, examining how teamwork is associated with implementation processes and outcomes is critical. This systematic review identified and summarized empirical research examining associations between teamwork and implementation outcomes when evidence-based practices (EBPs) and other innovations were implemented in healthcare and human service settings.

This systematic review was registered (PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42020220168) and conducted following the published protocol [ 24 ]. The review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA and SWiM guidance [ 25 , 26 ]; relevant checklists are in Additional File 1.

Information sources and search strategy

We searched the following databases: MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), APA PsycINFO (Ovid), and ERIC (Ebsco). Database searches were run on August 7, 2020, and again on March 8, 2022. For all searches, a publication date from 2000 to current was applied; there were no language restrictions (see [ 24 ]). An experienced health sciences librarian (MLK) designed the Ovid MEDLINE search and translated that search for use in the other databases (see additional file in [ 24 ]). The search strings consisted of controlled vocabulary (when available) and natural language terms representing concepts of teamwork and implementation science or innovation or evidence-based practice. Results were downloaded to an EndNote (version X9.3.3) library and duplicate records removed [ 27 ]. Additional relevant articles were identified by hand searches of reference lists of included articles, a cited reference search for included articles in the Web of Science (Clarivate) bibliographic database (completed in February 2023), and requests sent to implementation science listservs and centers for suggestions of relevant articles.

Eligibility criteria

We included empirical journal articles describing studies using quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods. Study protocols, reviews, and commentaries were excluded. All studies were conducted in healthcare or human service settings (e.g., hospitals, clinics, child welfare) and described the implementation of a practice to improve patient care. Studies of interventions to improve teamwork (e.g., team building interventions) and studies of teams created to implement the innovation (e.g., quality improvement teams, implementation support teams) were excluded. Eligible studies assessed at least one team construct and described its influence on implementation processes and outcomes.

Changes from protocol

Several changes were made from our systematic review protocol (PROSPERO CRD42020220168; [ 24 ]). Specifically, during the full-text review stage, we broadened the scope from team functioning (i.e., processes and states) to include team structure and performance because of the small number of studies that assessed and reported specific processes or states. This change increased the number of included studies. Similarly, because implementation outcomes were often inconsistently defined and poorly reported [ 28 , 29 , 30 ], we broadened our scope to include studies that identified team constructs as implementation determinants (i.e., barriers/facilitators) without explicitly defining and measuring an implementation outcome. Because of changes in university access to bibliographic databases, the cited reference search was performed in the Web of Science only instead of the Web of Science and Scopus. This bibliographic database indexes more than 21,000 scientific journals [ 31 ]. Lastly, because of time and resource constraints, we did not search conference abstracts or contact authors for unreported data.

Selection process and data extraction

Title/abstract screening and review of full-text articles were conducted by pairs of trained independent reviewers in DistillerSR. Conflicts were resolved through re-review, discussion between reviewers, and when needed, discussion with a senior team member (EAM). A final review of all included articles was conducted by EAM. Relevant data from each article was extracted into an Excel spreadsheet by one reviewer (AS). A second reviewer (EAM) conducted a line-by-line review and verification. Our data extraction form was informed by existing forms and guides (e.g., [ 32 , 33 ]). For each included study, we extracted information on measures of teamwork and implementation-relevant outcomes, characteristics of the setting, teams, and participants, analysis methods, and results. For quantitative studies, we recorded correlation coefficients and/or regression coefficients as standardized metrics of association. For qualitative studies, we recorded themes [ 33 ].

Quality and risk of bias assessment

The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) [ 34 ] was used to evaluate quality and risk of bias for each included study. Multiple publications from the same study were evaluated separately because they reported different outcomes. Consistent with Powell and colleagues [ 35 ], quality evaluations were only made for the components of the study relevant to our question. Quality evaluations were conducted by two independent reviewers (EAM, MAD) with discrepancies resolved through consensus discussion. After completing the MMAT, the reviewers jointly categorized each article as high, moderate, or low quality. High quality studies were those with affirmative responses to all MMAT questions. Moderate quality studies had at least one minor methodological problem, and low-quality studies had serious flaws (e.g., qualitative studies with poor coherence between data, analysis, and conclusions; quantitative studies with biased samples and/or inappropriate statistical analyses).

We rated the relevance of each publication to our research question as high, moderate, or low. Highly relevant studies reported implementation of a well-defined innovation, thoroughly described team constructs and implementation outcomes, and clearly linked team constructs to implementation outcomes. Most studies rated as low relevance provided very limited information about teamwork and/or implementation outcomes. Studies that only described barriers/facilitators were rated as low or moderate relevance. Ratings were conducted by two independent reviewers (EAM, CBW) with discrepancies resolved through consensus discussion.

Data synthesis

We conducted a narrative synthesis of included studies following guidelines for synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) [ 36 ]. We prioritized reporting of high quality, highly relevant studies. Studies categorized as low quality and/or low relevance were not included in the synthesis but are included in the description of study characteristics to convey the breadth of the literature. We organized studies based on the IMOI framework (i.e., team inputs, processes/states, and outputs) and organized studies of processes/states by affective, behavioral, and cognitive constructs when possible. Because of the heterogeneity in team constructs and implementation outcomes, we were unable to quantitatively synthesize results using meta-analysis or formally investigate heterogeneity; this challenge is common in implementation science systematic reviews [ 30 ]. We assessed the strength of the overall body of evidence with GRADE for quantitative studies [ 37 ] and GRADE-CERQual for qualitative studies [ 38 , 39 ]. GRADE results in ratings of high, moderate, low, or very low quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. GRADE-CERQual results in ratings of high, moderate, low, or very low confidence in each review finding. GRADE ratings were made independently with discrepancies resolved through consensus discussion; GRADE-CERQual ratings were made through iterative discussions as recommended [ 39 ]. All ratings and decisions were made by the first and senior authors.

Search results

Our initial search, after removal of duplicates, yielded 7181 results. The second search (August 2020-March 2022) captured an additional 1341 results. The cited reference search yielded 1961 results. A total of 10,489 results were included in title/abstract review. Figure 2 provides a PRISMA flow diagram for included studies. After full-text review, 58 articles from 55 studies were included in analyses [ 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 ].

PRISMA flow diagram of included articles. From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 . For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/

As shown in Fig. 3 , publications on teamwork and implementation have increased substantially since 2000. Three articles on this topic (5%) were published between 2000 and 2007, 14 (24%) between 2008 and 2015, and 41 (71%) between 2016 and early 2023.

Included articles by year of publication

Study characteristics

Interrater agreement was good for assessment of study quality (81% agreement on MMAT questions) and ratings of relevance (88% agreement). There were 20 high quality articles, 23 moderate quality articles, and 15 low quality articles. Fourteen articles were rated as high relevance, 22 as moderate, and 22 as low relevance. Only 4 were rated as both high quality and high relevance. We report study characteristics for all 58 eligible articles. Our narrative synthesis includes 32 articles categorized as moderate/high quality and moderate/high relevance; it excludes 26 articles categorized as low quality and/or relevance.

Studies were conducted in inpatient healthcare ( n = 22), outpatient/ambulatory healthcare ( n = 21), mental health settings ( n = 9), and other settings (e.g., residential facilities, multiple settings; n = 6). There were 33 qualitative, 15 quantitative, and 10 mixed methods studies. All quantitative studies were descriptive observational studies.

Most studies examined team processes/states ( n = 53); fewer examined team inputs ( n = 27). Only two studies examined a team effectiveness outcome. The most common implementation outcomes were fidelity ( n = 16) and other specified implementation outcomes (e.g., “extent of use,” “implementation success”) ( n = 15). Less frequently identified implementation outcomes included adoption ( n = 5), sustainment ( n = 4), reach ( n = 4), and perceptions of the innovation (e.g., acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility; n = 3). Approximately one-third of studies ( n = 21) did not report specific implementation outcomes but described implementation determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators).

Synthesis: team inputs & implementation outcomes

Team inputs examined in studies included team stability/instability and staffing shortages, aspects of team structure and composition, interdependence, and hierarchy and professional roles. Quantitative findings are presented in Table 1 . A CERQual Summary of Qualitative Findings related to team inputs is shown in Table 2 . A CERQual Evidence Profile is provided in Additional File 2 (Table A1).

Team stability/instability and staffing shortages

Team stability/instability (i.e., consistency in membership over time) was examined in one mixed methods study [ 48 , 49 ] and three qualitative studies [ 70 , 81 , 94 ]. A study of surgical teams found variations in membership stability but no association between stability and “implementation success” (i.e., composite measure based on number of uses of new technique, proportion of uses, and changes in use) [ 48 , 49 ]. The authors suggested that stability facilitates the development of team coordination but that selecting small and exclusive teams may limit the spread of innovations within the organization. Another study found that a dedicated and stable team in which members were selected and trained together in the use of a new surgical technique led to quicker uptake and better integration into practice, theorizing that dedicated and stable teams increased trust, motivation, and collaborative problem-solving [ 81 ]. However, dedicated teams were difficult to sustain, and some sites instead used rotating team members from a larger pool of trained staff. In rural primary care, stability of team members facilitated sustainment of memory care clinics [ 70 ]. Lastly, another study in primary care found mixed perceptions of stable vs. rotating staff when adding a new team role (i.e., health coach); some team members liked rotating through different roles while others wanted more stability [ 94 ]. Across studies, we found that dedicated and stable team members facilitate implementation while instability in team membership is a barrier to implementation (moderate confidence).

Qualitative studies identified staffing shortages and turnover on teams as barriers to implementation [ 50 , 67 , 75 , 78 , 92 ]. In Veterans Health Administration (VA) clinics, “inadequate staffing posed an insurmountable barrier,” hindering communication and delivery of optimal care during the implementation of the patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model [ 92 ]. Similarly, staff shortages, turnover, and high workloads hindered guideline implementation in Kenyan hospitals [ 75 ]. Two studies found negative impacts of staffing shortages and turnover on sustainment. Staff turnover contributed to discontinuity in Dialectical Behavior Therapy (DBT) team members [ 78 ], and appropriate staffing (i.e., ensuring manageable workloads) and blocking time for team members were identified as critical to sustainment of a team-based model in the VA [ 67 ]. We found that staffing shortages and turnover hinder implementation (high confidence).

Team structure/composition

Studies examined multiple aspects of team structure and composition, specifically team size, workload, longevity (i.e., how long team members had worked together), history of change, and team member characteristics. Team size was examined in two studies of DBT. In a mixed methods study, team size was positively correlated with fidelity, and qualitative data suggested that team size may increase as a result of successful implementation [ 47 ]. In contrast, another study found that DBT team size was not associated with the number of DBT components adopted and was negatively associated with reach, suggesting reach may reflect high workloads [ 72 ]. In VA mental health clinics, team workload (i.e., number of patients seen) was negatively associated with sustainment of trauma-focused therapies [ 68 ]. In these studies, team longevity and history of change were not associated with implementation outcomes [ 47 , 68 ]. Team member characteristics, specifically team member competency/expertise, experience, and commitment/engagement, were identified as facilitators of implementation in some qualitative studies [ 40 , 70 , 81 , 84 , 95 ].

Overall, few findings could be made from quantitative studies examining team structure and composition. Two studies of team size found mixed results, and workload, longevity, and history of change were examined in only one study each. Across qualitative studies, we found team member competency/expertise, experience, and commitment/engagement facilitate implementation (moderate confidence).

Team interdependence

One quantitative study examined team interdependence [ 65 ]. In multidisciplinary child abuse teams implementing a mental health screening/referral protocol, task interdependence (i.e., reliance on team members to share resources and coordinate workflows) was positively associated with reach but not time to adoption. Outcome interdependence (i.e., extent to which outcomes are evaluated at the team vs. individual level) was significantly negatively correlated with time to adoption but not reach. Neither task nor outcome interdependence were associated with team members’ perceptions of acceptability, appropriateness, or feasibility of the innovation [ 65 ]. Because only one study examined interdependence, no review findings were made.

Hierarchy & professional roles

Hierarchy, power distributions, and rigid roles were identified as barriers to implementation in several qualitative studies [ 50 , 53 , 74 , 97 ]. Flatter hierarchies (i.e., more equal distribution of power and authority) supported guideline implementation in pediatric primary care; practices with low compliance to guidelines had more hierarchical relationships while practices with high compliance had more shared decision-making [ 97 ]. In a setting with hierarchy and rigid division of roles, nurses trained in an innovation reported concern that their decisions would be questioned by physicians without expertise in the innovation but more authority [ 74 ]. Similarly, in surgical teams, rigid professional roles and a hierarchical team culture constrained open discussion and created contention over how and when a “time-out” should be completed, resulting in inconsistent use and poor fidelity [ 50 , 53 ]. Across studies, we found that in multidisciplinary settings, rigid professional roles, hierarchical relationships, and power differentials are barriers to implementation (moderate confidence).

Summary of team inputs & implementation outcomes

There was no overlap among team input variables and implementation outcomes examined in quantitative studies (Table 1 ). Accordingly, we were unable to generate estimates of effects or ratings of evidence quality. Qualitative review findings are shown in Table 2 . We found: 1) Dedicated and stable team members facilitate implementation while instability in team membership is a barrier to implementation (moderate confidence); 2) Staffing shortages and turnover hinder implementation (high confidence); 3) Team member competency/expertise, experience, and commitment/engagement facilitate implementation (moderate confidence); and 4) In multidisciplinary settings, rigid professional roles, hierarchical relationships, and power differentials are barriers to implementation (moderate confidence).

Synthesis: team processes/states & implementation outcomes

Studies examined overall team functioning as well as specific affective states, behavioral processes, and cognitive states. Quantitative findings are presented in Table 3 , and a GRADE Evidence Profile is provided in Additional File 2 (Table A2). A CERQual Summary of Qualitative Findings related to team processes and states is shown in Table 4 . A CERQual Evidence Profile is provided in Additional File 2 (Table A3).

Overall team functioning

Nine studies examined quantitative associations between overall team functioning and implementation outcomes. Team functioning was positively associated with intervention fidelity in 2 of 3 studies. One study examined implementation of transition programs for adolescents with chronic health conditions in 29 teams. More positive team climate, measured by the Team Climate Inventory (i.e., shared vision, participative safety, task orientation, support for innovation), at study start was associated with greater improvements in quality of chronic care delivery one year later [ 45 ]. Additionally, improvements in team climate were associated with greater improvement in care delivery [ 45 ]. These findings were consistent across teams working with different patient populations, suggesting the influence of team climate generalizes across teams and settings [ 45 ]. Greater team climate for innovation was also associated with greater fidelity (i.e., implementation of more program elements) among DBT teams [ 47 ]. In contrast, no significant associations were found between team climate and fidelity to a multifaceted cardiovascular disease management intervention, with qualitative data suggesting variation in the influence of teamwork across practices [ 77 ]. There was no overlap in the metrics of association reported in these studies; therefore, we were unable to generate an estimate of the effect of team functioning on fidelity. The quality of the evidence for fidelity was rated very low because of serious methodological limitations, serious inconsistency, and very serious imprecision due to the small number of studies.

Three studies examined associations between teamwork and adoption, with no significant associations found. The first study found that teamwork climate (i.e., perceived quality of collaboration between personnel) was not significantly associated with adoption of a comprehensive safety program in intensive care units, although there were associations between adoption and organizational constructs (e.g., lower safety climate, more management support) [ 59 ]. In a study of DBT teams, neither positive nor negative team functioning was associated with the number of DBT modes adopted [ 72 ]. The third study assessed relational coordination (i.e., shared goals, communication, respect) in primary care practices implementing patient engagement strategies. Relational coordination was high across practices initially and did not differ for practices with high vs. low adoption, although it increased over time in practices with high adoption [ 83 ]. There was no overlap in the metrics of association reported in these studies; therefore, we were unable to generate an estimate of the effect of team functioning on adoption. The quality of the evidence was rated very low because of serious methodological limitations and very serious imprecision due to the small number of studies.

Reach and sustainment were each examined in one quantitative study. DBT teams with more negative functioning had greater reach, suggesting that reach may reflect high workloads; positive functioning was not associated with reach [ 72 ]. In VA mental health clinics, team functioning was positively correlated with sustainment of evidence-based trauma-focused psychotherapies and significantly associated with sustainment after controlling for covariates [ 68 ]. Two studies examined other implementation outcomes. One found that better team functioning was associated with greater implementation of changes to improve access to care in VA clinics [ 62 ]. In the other, primary care practices reporting better teamwork were more likely to be in later stages of transformation to PCMHs than practices with poorer teamwork [ 88 ]. Because of the small number of studies examining reach, sustainment, and other implementation outcomes, we were unable to generate estimates of effects or ratings of evidence quality for these outcomes.

Our qualitative review findings are based on 12 studies describing how team functioning influenced implementation processes and outcomes. There was considerable variation across studies in how team functioning was defined and what implementation outcomes were examined. Most findings were based on relatively thin and superficial data. Studies occurred in a variety of healthcare settings with varying resources and implemented diverse interventions. We found with high confidence that 1) Adaptive team functioning, characterized by positive affective states (e.g., trust, mutual respect, belonging), effective behavior processes (e.g., frequent communication and coordination), and shared cognitive states (e.g., clear roles, shared mental models of how to provide care), facilitates implementation and is associated with better implementation outcomes; and 2) Problems in team functioning, including negative affective states (e.g., tension, lack of trust), problematic behavioral processes (e.g., conflict, competition, poor communication), and a lack of shared cognitive states (e.g., unclear roles, lack of shared awareness, competing goals), act as barriers to implementation and are associated with poor implementation outcomes.

Affective states

Specific affective states were examined in one quantitative study, three mixed methods studies, and one qualitative study. There was no overlap in the associations between affective states and implementation outcomes reported in quantitative studies (Table 3 ). In a study of multidisciplinary teams responding to child abuse, affective integration (i.e., liking, trust, respect) was positively associated with acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility but not time to adoption or reach [ 65 ]. In DBT teams, cohesion was associated with fidelity, and qualitative data indicated that liking one’s team members and having a shared team identity were critical to effective implementation [ 47 ]. Another study of DBT teams described conflicts and lack of safety and trust within teams resulting in their dissolution [ 78 ].

Edmondson and colleagues found that psychological safety and ease of speaking up (i.e., interpersonal climate that allows members to share questions and concerns) were associated with implementation success [ 48 , 49 ]. In teams with low psychological safety, lower-status team members were hesitant to speak up, hindering change and proficiency in the new practice [ 49 ]. Psychological safety was closely related to learning behavior within the team, including speaking up with questions and concerns [ 48 , 49 ]. From the mixed methods and qualitative studies, we found that trust, cohesion, and psychological safety within teams facilitate implementation by contributing to team members’ willingness to speak up and share experiences and feedback. Negative affective states, fear of judgment, conflict, and lack of safety hinder implementation (moderate confidence).

Behavioral processes

Specific behavioral processes, including communication, learning behavior, and coordination, were examined in two quantitative studies, two mixed methods studies, and five qualitative studies. There was no overlap in the associations between behavioral processes and implementation outcomes reported in quantitative studies (Table 3 ).

Only one study reported quantitative findings for communication. Communication in DBT teams was positively associated with fidelity [ 47 ]. Qualitative studies frequently identified communication as a determinant of implementation (Table 4 ). From qualitative studies, we found that open, ongoing, and effective communication within teams facilitates implementation of new practices; poor communication is a barrier (high confidence).

Quantitative associations between team learning behavior and implementation outcomes were reported in three studies. Team learning behavior in child abuse teams was positively correlated with acceptability and feasibility; it was not associated with appropriateness, time to adoption, or reach [ 65 ]. Learning behavior was positively associated with knowledge and use of innovations in nursing teams [ 91 ] and with implementation success in surgical teams [ 48 ]. Because each of these studies examined different implementation outcomes, we were unable to generate an estimate of the effect of learning behavior or rate evidence quality.

Inter-team communication, specifically speaking up and learning from other teams (i.e., boundary spanning), was identified as a critical part of team learning processes associated with successful implementation [ 48 ]. Communication beyond the team was also identified as a facilitator of implementation in two qualitative studies [ 47 , 75 ]. We found that communication beyond the team facilitates implementation by providing opportunities for team learning (low confidence).

Lastly, two qualitative studies examined coordination among healthcare teams [ 40 , 95 ]. Findings were somewhat ambiguous and based on thin data. We found with low confidence that poor coordination among healthcare professionals interferes with providing high-quality care and can be a barrier to implementation of new approaches (low confidence).

Cognitive states

Specific cognitive states were examined in two quantitative studies. There was no overlap in the associations between cognitive states and implementation outcomes reported (Table 3 ). The first study found no significant associations between shared goals and implementation outcomes [ 65 ]. The second study found that greater team knowledge and skills were associated with greater implementation of key changes to improve access to care; team problem recognition was not associated with implementation [ 62 ].

Two studies reported qualitative findings related to shared goals. In VA mental health teams, shared mission differentiated teams with sustained high reach of EBPs from those with low reach [ 84 ]. Commitment to a shared goal consistent with the EBP supported sustainment [ 84 ]. Similarly, shared goals and vision were identified as a facilitator of DBT programs [ 47 ]. We found that shared goals, mission, and vision within teams facilitate implementation and sustainment (low confidence).

Summary of team processes/states & implementation outcomes

There was very little overlap in the reported associations between team processes/states and implementation outcomes (Table 3 ). We were unable to generate estimates of effects for any associations. When there was sufficient overlap to rate evidence quality, the evidence was rated very low quality (Table A2, Additional File 2).

Qualitative review findings are shown in Table 4 . We found the following: 1) Adaptive team functioning, characterized by positive affective states (e.g., trust, mutual respect, belonging), effective behavior processes (e.g., frequent communication and coordination), and shared cognitive states (e.g., clear roles, shared mental models of how to provide care), facilitates implementation and is associated with better implementation outcomes (high confidence); 2) Problems in team functioning, including negative affective states (e.g., tension, lack of trust), problematic behavioral processes (e.g., conflict, competition, poor communication), and a lack of shared cognitive states (e.g., unclear roles, lack of shared awareness, competing goals), act as barriers to implementation and are associated with poor implementation outcomes (high confidence); 3) Trust, cohesion, and psychological safety within teams facilitate implementation by contributing to team members’ willingness to speak up and openly share experiences and feedback. Negative affective states, fear of judgment, conflict, and lack of safety hinder implementation (moderate confidence); 4) Open, ongoing, and effective communication within teams facilitates implementation of new practices; poor communication is a barrier (high confidence); 5) Communication beyond the team facilitates implementation by providing opportunities for team learning (low confidence); 6) Poor coordination among healthcare professionals interferes with providing high-quality care and can be a barrier to implementation of new approaches (low confidence); and 7) Shared goals, mission, and vision within teams facilitate implementation and sustainment (low confidence).

Synthesis: team effectiveness outcomes & implementation outcomes

Team effectiveness outcomes are multidimensional and include performance (i.e., productivity, efficiency, and quality of the team’s work), team viability, and the impact of the team on members’ development [ 12 , 17 , 18 , 19 ]. Only two studies examined associations between team effectiveness and implementation outcomes. Quantitative findings are presented in Table 5 . One quantitative study found that team members’ ratings of team performance were associated with innovation acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility; performance was not associated with time to adoption or reach [ 65 ]. One qualitative study found that positive outcomes for team members (e.g., increased comfort working together, greater knowledge) were associated with sustainment [ 70 ]. No studies examined associations of team viability and implementation outcomes.

Summary of team effectiveness outcomes & implementation outcomes

Only one quantitative study examined associations between a dimension of team effectiveness and implementation outcomes (Table 5 ). Accordingly, we were unable to generate ratings of evidence quality or estimates of any effects. Similarly, because there was only one qualitative study, we were unable to make a review finding.

This systematic review summarizes over 20 years of empirical literature on the associations between teamwork and implementation outcomes in the context of implementation of new practices in health and human services. Consistent with increased attention to teams and reliance on team-based models of care, as well as the growth of implementation science, studies increased substantially over time. We included studies that used quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods, yielding a total of 58 articles representing 55 studies. Included studies spanned naturalistic implementation evaluations and planned implementation research.

Key findings with high confidence were: 1) Staffing shortages and turnover hinder implementation, 2) Adaptive team functioning, characterized by positive affective states, effective behavior processes, and shared cognitive states, facilitates implementation and is associated with better implementation outcomes. Problems in team functioning, including negative affective states, problematic behavioral processes, and a lack of shared cognitive states, act as barriers to implementation and are associated with poor implementation outcomes, and 3) Open, ongoing, and effective communication within teams facilitates implementation of new practices; poor communication is a barrier. Our results generally align with conventional wisdom and scientific research outside of healthcare, increasing confidence in the findings. Team effectiveness and change management research in other types of organizations and settings (e.g., military, aviation, space exploration) [ 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 ] is largely converging.

Overall, the literature was heterogeneous, and many studies lacked specificity regarding team composition and implementation activities and outcomes. Teamwork was defined and measured inconsistently and with limited precision across studies, which hindered our ability to draw conclusions about how teams influence implementation processes and outcomes. There was also poor measurement and reporting of implementation outcomes in many studies, consistent with a recent review of research on implementation outcomes [ 28 , 29 ]. Many studies used broad measures encompassing multiple dimensions of teamwork. Among studies that assessed specific team processes and states, there was very little overlap across constructs assessed. Qualitative studies identified a rich array of specific team processes and states; research to confirm the presence of these factors in other settings and determine their associations with implementation outcomes is needed.

In Table 6 , we summarize the limitations of existing research on teams and implementation and provide recommendations for future research. Notably, increased specificity and rigor in how teamwork is conceptualized and assessed is needed to advance our understanding of how teamwork affects implementation processes and outcomes. Limited inclusion of teams and team constructs in implementation theories, models, and frameworks has likely contributed to the neglect of teams in implementation science [ 20 ]. Updates to theories, models, and framework should consider integrating teams and team-level constructs [ 20 ]. In addition, there are well-established theories of team effectiveness that could inform hypotheses about how specific team constructs affect implementation [ 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 ].

There is considerable room for improvement in the definition and description of teams and analysis of data from teams. Describing the structure and purpose of teams, as well as interdependencies within the team, can help differentiate teams from groups of individuals who do not constitute a team, an important conceptual distinction that can be difficult to discern in study descriptions. Reporting of sampling and recruitment procedures for teams and team-level response rates is needed. For quantitative studies, use of standardized, validated measures of teamwork constructs is recommended. Researchers should be careful to base inferences about teams on team-level data. Lastly, future research should follow recommendations for improving measurement and reporting of implementation outcomes [ 29 , 108 ] and consider the multilevel context of teams in theory, measurement, analysis, and interpretation of results [ 109 ].

Limitations

As with all systematic reviews, it is possible that we failed to identify some relevant articles or data. We did not search gray literature or conference abstracts or contact authors for unreported data. Our organization of studies by the IMOI framework is likely imperfect given the broad array of team constructs included and poor reporting in many studies. We included diverse innovations intended to improve patient care, including specific EBPs, clinical practice guidelines, models of care, care bundles, procedural changes, and technological innovations. This diversity in objects of implementation reflects ongoing debates about the necessary strength of evidence for objects of implementation and varying thresholds in different contexts [ 110 ]. In this review, high quality studies tended to involve clinical interventions with strong research evidence (e.g., DBT) and clinics in structured and often team-based healthcare systems (e.g., VA). Diversity of innovations and settings provides greater external validity for our findings but may mask some findings specific to certain innovations or settings.

We only included studies of existing teams providing clinical services, however, many studies provided limited descriptions of teams, and in some cases the distinction between clinical teams and implementation/quality improvement teams was unclear. There is increasing attention to use of teams in implementation frameworks [ 20 , 111 ] and evidence that functioning of implementation teams matters [ 112 , 113 ]. Research on the composition and functioning of implementation teams is an important area for future research.

Our systematic review findings indicate that teamwork matters for implementation. However, greater specificity and rigor are needed to advance our understanding of how teamwork influences implementation processes and outcomes. We provide recommendations for improving the conceptualization, description, assessment, analysis, and interpretation of research on teams implementing new practices.

Availability of data and materials

All data cited in this review came from published papers and are therefore already available. The data created as part of the review process are included in this published article and its supplementary information files.

Mitchell P, Wynia M, Golden R, McNellis B, Okun S, Webb CE, et al. Core principles and values of effective team-based health care. NAM Perspectives. 2012. Available from: https://nam.edu/perspectives-2012-core-principles-values-of-effective-team-based-health-care/ Cited 2020 Sep 23

Reiss-Brennan B, Brunisholz KD, Dredge C, Briot P, Grazier K, Wilcox A, et al. Association of integrated team-based care with health care quality, utilization, and cost. JAMA. 2016;316(8):826–34.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Katkin JP, Kressly SJ, Edwards AR, Perrin JM, Kraft CA, Richerson JE, et al. Guiding principles for team-based pediatric care. Pediatrics. 2017;140(2):e20171489.

Lipton HL. Home is where the health is: Advancing team-based care in chronic disease management. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(21):1945–8.

Dinh JV, Traylor AM, Kilcullen MP, Perez JA, Schweissing EJ, Venkatesh A, et al. Cross-disciplinary care: A systematic review on teamwork processes in health care. Small Group Research. 2020;51(1):125–66.

Article Google Scholar

Fiscella K, McDaniel SH. The complexity, diversity, and science of primary care teams. Am Psychol. 2018;73(4):451–67.

Herbert JL, Bromfield LM. A quasi-experimental study of the Multi-Agency Investigation & Support Team (MIST): A collaborative response to child sexual abuse. Child Abuse Negl. 2020;27:104827.

Google Scholar

Reiss-Brennan B. Mental Health Integration: Normalizing Team Care. J Prim Care Community Health. 2014;5(1):55–60.

Schmutz J, Manser T. Do team processes really have an effect on clinical performance? A systematic literature review. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110(4):529–44.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Ilgen DR, Hollenbeck JR, Johnson M, Jundt D. Teams in organizations: From input-process-output models to IMOI models. Annu Rev Psychol. 2005;56:517–43.

Kozlowski SWJ, Bell BS. Work groups and teams in organization. In: Borman WC, Ilgen DR, Klimoski RJ, editors. Handbook of Psychology (Vol 12): Industrial and Organizational Psychology. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. 2003. p. 333–75. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop212017 Cited 2020 Apr 10

Mathieu JE, Maynard MT, Rapp T, Gilson L. Team effectiveness 1997–2007: A review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. J Manag. 2008;34(3):410–76.

Cordery JL, Tian AW. Team Design. In: The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Team Working and Collaborative Processes. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2017;p. 103–28. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118909997.ch5 Cited 2021 Apr 2

Kozlowski SWJ, Bell BS. Work groups and teams in organizations: Review update. In: Schmitt N, Highhouse S, editors. Handbook of Psychology (Vol 12): Industrial and Organizational Psychology. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2013. p. 111.

Kozlowski SWJ, Ilgen DR. Enhancing the effectiveness of work groups and teams. Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2006;7(3):77–124.

Marks MA, Mathieu JE, Zaccaro SJ. A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. AMR. 2001;26(3):356–76.

Hackman JR. A normative model of work team effectiveness. Arlington, VA: Office of Naval Research; 1983. Available from: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA136398 Cited 2022 May 16

Mathieu JE, Hollenbeck JR, van Knippenberg D, Ilgen DR. A century of work teams in the Journal of Applied Psychology. J Appl Psychol. 2017;102(3):452–67.

Rosen MA, Dietz AS. Team performance measurement. In: The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the Psychology of Team Working and Collaborative Processes. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2017. p. 479–502.

Chapter Google Scholar

McGuier EA, Kolko DJ, Stadnick NA, Brookman-Frazee L, Wolk CB, Yuan CT, et al. Advancing research on teams and team effectiveness in implementation science: An application of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Implementation Research and Practice. 2023;1(4):26334895231190856.

Williams NJ, Beidas RS. Annual research review: The state of implementation science in child psychology and psychiatry: A review and suggestions to advance the field. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2019;60:430–50.

Aarons GA, Hurlburt M, Horwitz SM. Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(1):4–23.

Moullin JC, Dickson KS, Stadnick NA, Rabin B, Aarons GA. Systematic review of the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment (EPIS) framework. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):1.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

McGuier EA, Kolko DJ, Klem ML, Feldman J, Kinkler G, Diabes MA, et al. Team functioning and implementation of innovations in healthcare and human service settings: a systematic review protocol. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):189.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b2535 Cited 2020 Apr 1

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;29(372):n71.

Bramer WM, Giustini D, de Jonge GB, Holland L, Bekhuis T. De-duplication of database search results for systematic reviews in EndNote. J Med Libr Assoc. 2016;104(3):240–3.

Lengnick-Hall R, Gerke DR, Proctor EK, Bunger AC, Phillips RJ, Martin JK, et al. Six practical recommendations for improved implementation outcomes reporting. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):16.

Proctor EK, Bunger AC, Lengnick-Hall R, Gerke DR, Martin JK, Phillips RJ, et al. Ten years of implementation outcomes research: a scoping review. Implement Sci. 2023;18(1):31.

Chapman A, Rankin NM, Jongebloed H, Yoong SL, White V, Livingston PM, et al. Overcoming challenges in conducting systematic reviews in implementation science: a methods commentary. Syst Rev. 2023;12(1):116.

Pranckutė R. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World. Publications. 2021;9(1):12.

Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). Data collection form. EPOC Resources for review authors. Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services. 2013. Available from: http://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-specific-resources-review-authors .

Noyes J, Lewin S. Extracting qualitative evidence. In: Noyes J, Booth A, Hannes K, Harden A, Harris J, Lewin S, et al., editors. Supplementary Guidance for Inclusion of Qualitative Research in Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 1 (updated August 2011). Cochrane Collaboration Qualitative Methods Group; 2011. Available from: http://cqrmg.cochrane.org/supplemental-handbook-guidance

Hong QN, Pluye P, Fàbregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Improving the content validity of the mixed methods appraisal tool: a modified e-Delphi study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;1(111):49-59.e1.

Powell BJ, Patel SV, Haley AD, Haines ER, Knocke KE, Chandler S, Determinants of implementing evidence-based trauma-focused interventions for children and youth: A systematic review. Adm Policy Ment Health, et al. cited 2020 Feb 20. Available from: 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-019-01003-3 .

Article PubMed Central Google Scholar

Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, Katikireddi SV, Brennan SE, Ellis S, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ. 2020;16(368):l6890.

Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2011;64(4):383–94.

Lewin S, Bohren M, Rashidian A, Munthe-Kaas H, Glenton C, Colvin CJ, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings—paper 2: how to make an overall CERQual assessment of confidence and create a Summary of Qualitative Findings table. Implementation Sci. 2018;13(1):11–23.

Lewin S, Booth A, Glenton C, Munthe-Kaas H, Rashidian A, Wainwright M, et al. Applying GRADE-CERQual to qualitative evidence synthesis findings: introduction to the series. Implementation Sci. 2018;13(1):1–10.

Adjognon OL, Shin MH, Steffen MJA, Moye J, Solimeo S, Sullivan JL. Factors affecting primary care implementation for older veterans with multimorbidity in Veterans Health Administration (VA). Health Serv Res. 2021;56(S1):1057–68.

Alidina S, Chatterjee P, Zanial N, Alreja SS, Balira R, Barash D, et al. Improving surgical quality in low-income and middle-income countries: why do some health facilities perform better than others? BMJ Qual Saf. 2021;30(12):937–49.

Boltey EM, Iwashyna TJ, Hyzy RC, Watson SR, Ross C, Costa DK. Ability to predict team members’ behaviors in ICU teams is associated with routine ABCDE implementation. J Crit Care. 2019;51:192–7.

Chenoweth L, Jeon YH, Stein-Parbury J, Forbes I, Fleming R, Cook J, et al. PerCEN trial participant perspectives on the implementation and outcomes of person-centered dementia care and environments. Int Psychogeriatr. 2015;27(12):2045–57.

Costa DK, Valley TS, Miller MA, Manojlovich M, Watson SR, McLellan P, et al. ICU team composition and its association with ABCDE implementation in a quality collaborative. J Crit Care. 2018;44:1–6.

Cramm JM, Strating MMH, Nieboer AP. The role of team climate in improving the quality of chronic care delivery: a longitudinal study among professionals working with chronically ill adolescents in transitional care programmes. BMJ Open. 2014;4(5):e005369.

DePuccio MJ, Gaughan AA, Sova LN, MacEwan SR, Walker DM, Gregory ME, et al. An examination of the barriers to and facilitators of implementing nurse-driven protocols to remove indwelling urinary catheters in acute care hospitals. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety. 2020;46(12):691–8.

Ditty MS, Landes SJ, Doyle A, Beidas RS. It takes a village: A mixed method analysis of inner setting variables and Dialectical Behavior Therapy implementation. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2015;42(6):672–81.

Edmondson AC. Speaking up in the operating room: How team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. J Manage Stud. 2003;40(6):1419–52.

Edmondson AC, Bohmer RM, Pisano GP. Disrupted routines: Team learning and new technology implementation in hospitals. Adm Sci Q. 2001;46(4):685–716.

Gillespie BM, Chaboyer W, Wallis M, Fenwick C. Why isn’t “time out” being implemented? An exploratory study. Qual Saf Health Care. 2010;19(2):103–6.

Gillespie BM, Harbeck E, Lavin J, Gardiner T, Withers TK, Marshall AP. Using normalisation process theory to evaluate the implementation of a complex intervention to embed the surgical safety checklist. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):170.

Gillespie BM, Marshall AP, Gardiner T, Lavin J, Withers TK. Impact of workflow on the use of the Surgical Safety Checklist: a qualitative study: Surgical Safety Checklist and work flow. ANZ J Surg. 2016;86(11):864–7.

Gillespie BM, Withers TK, Lavin J, Gardiner T, Marshall AP. Factors that drive team participation in surgical safety checks: a prospective study. Patient Saf Surg. 2016;10(3):1–9.

Gosling AS. Clinical team functioning and IT innovation: A study of the diffusion of a point-of-care online evidence system. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(3):244–51.

Graetz I, Huang J, Brand R, Shortell SM, Rundall TG, Bellows J, et al. The impact of electronic health records and teamwork on diabetes care quality. American Journal of Managed Care. 2015;21(12):878–84.

PubMed Google Scholar

Haider S, Ali RF, Ahmed M, Humayon AA, Sajjad M, Ahmad J. Barriers to implementation of emergency obstetric and neonatal care in rural Pakistan. Sawyer A, editor. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(11):e0224161.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Harvey C, Killaspy H, Martino S, White S, Priebe S, Wright C, et al. A comparison of the implementation of Assertive Community Treatment in Melbourne, Australia and London. England Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2011;20(2):151–61.

Harvey C, Killaspy H, Martino S, Johnson S. Implementation of Assertive Community Treatment in Australia: Model fidelity, patient characteristics and staff experiences. Community Ment Health J. 2012;48(5):652–61.

Hsu YJ, Marsteller JA. Who applies an intervention to influence cultural attributes in a quality improvement collaborative? J Patient Saf. 2020;16(1):1–6.

Irimu GW, Greene A, Gathara D, Kihara H, Maina C, Mbori-Ngacha D, et al. Explaining the uptake of paediatric guidelines in a Kenyan tertiary hospital – mixed methods research. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):119.

Lall D, Engel N, Devadasan N, Horstman K, Criel B. Team-based primary health care for non-communicable diseases: complexities in South India. Health Policy Plan. 2020;35(Supplement_2):ii22-34.

Lukas CV, Mohr D, Meterko M. Team effectiveness and organizational context in the implementation of a clinical innovation. Qual Manag Health Care. 2009;18(1):25–39.

Mariani E, Vernooij-Dassen M, Koopmans R, Engels Y, Chattat R. Shared decision-making in dementia care planning: barriers and facilitators in two European countries. Aging Ment Health. 2017;21(1):31–9.

Martinez RN, Hogan TP, Balbale S, Lones K, Goldstein B, Woo C, et al. Sociotechnical perspective on implementing clinical video telehealth for veterans with spinal cord injuries and disorders. Telemedicine and e-Health. 2017;23(7):567–76.

McGuier EA, Aarons GA, Byrne KA, Campbell KA, Keeshin B, Rothenberger SD, et al. Associations between teamwork and implementation outcomes in multidisciplinary cross-sector teams implementing a mental health screening and referral protocol. Implementation Science Communications. 2023;4(1):13.

Meloncelli N, Barnett A, de Jersey S. Staff resourcing, guideline implementation and models of care for gestational diabetes mellitus management. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;60(1):115–22.

Miller CJ, Kim B, Connolly SL, Spitzer EG, Brown M, Bailey HM, et al. Sustainability of the Collaborative Chronic Care Model in outpatient mental health teams three years post-Implementation: A qualitative analysis. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2023;50(1):151–9.

Mohr DC, Rosen CS, Schnurr PP, Orazem RJ, Noorbaloochi S, Clothier BA, et al. The influence of team functioning and workload on sustainability of trauma-focused evidence-based psychotherapies. PS. 2018;69(8):879–86.

Morgan D, Kosteniuk J, O’Connell ME, Kirk A, Stewart NJ, Seitz D, et al. Barriers and facilitators to development and implementation of a rural primary health care intervention for dementia: a process evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19(1):709.

Morgan D, Kosteniuk J, O’Connell ME, Seitz D, Elliot V, Bayly M, et al. Factors influencing sustainability and scale-up of rural primary healthcare memory clinics: perspectives of clinic team members. BMC Health Serv Res. 2022;22(1):148.

Munce SEP, Graham ID, Salbach NM, Jaglal SB, Richards CL, Eng JJ, et al. Perspectives of health care professionals on the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of a stroke rehabilitation guidelines cluster randomized controlled trial. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):440.

Navarro-Haro MV, Harned MS, Korslund KE, DuBose A, Chen T, Ivanoff A, et al. Predictors of adoption and reach following Dialectical Behavior Therapy Intensive Training™. Community Ment Health J. 2019;55(1):100–11.

Newbould L, Ariss S, Mountain G, Hawley MS. Exploring factors that affect the uptake and sustainability of videoconferencing for healthcare provision for older adults in care homes: a realist evaluation. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2021;21(1):13.

Nyondo-Mipando AL, Woo Kinshella ML, Bohne C, Suwedi-Kapesa LC, Salimu S, Banda M, et al. Barriers and enablers of implementing bubble Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP): Perspectives of health professionals in Malawi. Ameh CA, editor. PLoS ONE. 2020;15(2):e0228915.

Nzinga J, Mbindyo P, Mbaabu L, Warira A, English M. Documenting the experiences of health workers expected to implement guidelines during an intervention study in Kenyan hospitals. Implementation Sci. 2009;4(1):44.

Papoutsi C, Poots A, Clements J, Wyrko Z, Offord N, Reed JE. Improving patient safety for older people in acute admissions: implementation of the Frailsafe checklist in 12 hospitals across the UK. Age Ageing. 2018;47(2):311–7.

Patel B, Usherwood T, Harris M, Patel A, Panaretto K, Zwar N, et al. What drives adoption of a computerised, multifaceted quality improvement intervention for cardiovascular disease management in primary healthcare settings? A mixed methods analysis using normalisation process theory. Implementation Sci. 2018;13(1):140.

Popowich AD, Mushquash AR, Pearson E, Schmidt F, Mushquash CJ. Barriers and facilitators affecting the sustainability of dialectical behaviour therapy programmes: A qualitative study of clinician perspectives. Couns Psychother Res. 2020;20(1):68–80.

Prom MC, Canelos V, Fernandez PJ, Gergen Barnett K, Gordon CM, Pace CA, et al. Implementation of integrated behavioral health care in a large medical center: Benefits, challenges, and recommendations. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2021;48(3):346–62.

Provost S, Pineault R, Grimard D, Pérez J, Fournier M, Lévesque Y, et al. Implementation of an integrated primary care cardiometabolic risk prevention and management network in Montréal: does greater coordination of care with primary care physicians have an impact on health outcomes? Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2017;37(4):105–13.

Randell R, Honey S, Alvarado N, Greenhalgh J, Hindmarsh J, Pearman A, et al. Factors supporting and constraining the implementation of robot-assisted surgery: a realist interview study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(6):e028635.

Robbins J, McAlearney AS. Encouraging employees to speak up to prevent infections: Opportunities to leverage quality improvement and care management processes. Am J Infect Control. 2016;44(11):1224–30.

Rodriguez HP, Poon BY, Wang E, Shortell SM. Linking practice adoption of patient engagement strategies and relational coordination to patient-reported outcomes in accountable care organizations. Milbank Q. 2019;97(3):692–735.

Sayer NA, Rosen CS, Bernardy NC, Cook JM, Orazem RJ, Chard KM, et al. Context matters: Team and organizational factors associated with reach of evidence-based psychotherapies for PTSD in the Veterans Health Administration. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2017;44(6):904–18.

Shin MH, Montano ARL, Adjognon OL, Harvey KLL, Solimeo SL, Sullivan JL. Identification of implementation strategies using the CFIR-ERIC matching tool to mitigate barriers in a primary care model for older veterans. Gerontologist. 2022;63(3):439–50.

Sopcak N, Aguilar C, O’Brien MA, Nykiforuk C, Aubrey-Bassler K, Cullen R, et al. Implementation of the BETTER 2 program: a qualitative study exploring barriers and facilitators of a novel way to improve chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care. Implementation Sci. 2016;11(1):158.

Steinmo SH, Michie S, Fuller C, Stanley S, Stapleton C, Stone SP. Bridging the gap between pragmatic intervention design and theory: using behavioural science tools to modify an existing quality improvement programme to implement “Sepsis Six.” Implementation Sci. 2016;11(1):14.

Stout S, Zallman L, Arsenault L, Sayah A, Hacker K. Developing high-functioning teams: Factors associated with operating as a “real team” and implications for patient-centered medical home development. Inquiry. 2017;12(54):0046958017707296.

Svensson B, Hansson L, Markström U, Lexén A. What matters when implementing Flexible Assertive Community Treatment in a Swedish healthcare context: A two-year implementation study. Int J Ment Health. 2017;46(4):284–98.

Tadyanemhandu C, van Aswegen H, Ntsiea V. Barriers and facilitators to implementation of early mobilisation of critically ill patients in Zimbabwean and South African public sector hospitals: a qualitative study. Disabil Rehabil. 2021;44(22):6699–709.

Timmermans O, Van Linge R, Van Petegem P, Van Rompaey B, Denekens J. A contingency perspective on team learning and innovation in nursing: Team learning and innovation in nursing teams. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(2):363–73.

Tuepker A, Kansagara D, Skaperdas E, Nicolaidis C, Joos S, Alperin M, et al. “We’ve not gotten even close to what we want to do”: A qualitative study of early patient-centered medical home implementation. J GEN INTERN MED. 2014;29(S2):614–22.

van Bruggen S, Kasteleyn MJ, Rauh SP, Meijer JS, Busch KJG, Numans ME, et al. Experiences with tailoring of primary diabetes care in well-organised general practices: a mixed-methods study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1218.

Van der Wees PJ, Friedberg MW, Guzman EA, Ayanian JZ, Rodriguez HP. Comparing the implementation of team approaches for improving diabetes care in community health centers. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):608.

von Meyenfeldt EM, van Nassau F, de Betue CTI, Barberio L, Schreurs WH, Marres GMH, et al. Implementing an enhanced recovery after thoracic surgery programme in the Netherlands: a qualitative study investigating facilitators and barriers for implementation. BMJ Open. 2022;12(1):e051513.

Wakefield BJ, Lampman MA, Paez MB, Stewart GL. Care management and care coordination within a patient-centered medical home. J Nurs Admin. 2020;50(11):565–70.

Wiener-Ogilvie S, Huby G, Pinnock H, Gillies J, Sheikh A. Practice organisational characteristics can impact on compliance with the BTS/SIGN asthma guideline: Qualitative comparative case study in primary care. BMC Fam Pract. 2008;9(1):32.

Errida A, Lotfi B. The determinants of organizational change management success: Literature review and case study. International Journal of Engineering Business Management. 2021;1(13):18479790211016270.

Phillips J, Klein JD. Change management: From theory to practice. TechTrends. 2023;67(1):189–97.

Rousseau DM, ten Have S. Evidence-based change management. Organ Dyn. 2022;51(3):100899.

Goodwin GF, Blacksmith N, Coats MR. The science of teams in the military: Contributions from over 60 years of research. Am Psychol. 2018;73(4):322–33.

DiazGranados D, Woods JJ, Wilder A, Curtis MT. Team dynamics in the air: A review of team research relevant to aviation. Human factors in aviation and aerospace. 2023. p. 199–215.

Salas E, Tannenbaum SI, Kozlowski SWJ, Miller CA, Mathieu JE, Vessey WB. Teams in space exploration: A new frontier for the science of team effectiveness. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2015;24(3):200–7.

Hackman JR. From causes to conditions in group research. J Organ Behav. 2012;33(3):428–44.

Tannenbaum SI, Salas E. Teams that work: The seven drivers of team effectiveness. Illustrated. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2020. p. 272.

Book Google Scholar

Tuckman BW. Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychol Bull. 1965;63:384–99.

Salas E, Stagl KC, Burke CS. 25 years of team effectiveness in organizations: Research themes and emerging needs. In: International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology 2004. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. 2004; p. 47–91. Available from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/ https://doi.org/10.1002/0470013311.ch2 Cited 2022 May 16

Proctor EK, Silmere H, Raghavan R, Hovmand P, Aarons G, Bunger A, et al. Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Adm Policy Ment Health. 2011;38(2):65–76.

Lengnick-Hall R, Williams NJ, Ehrhart MG, Willging CE, Bunger AC, Beidas RS, et al. Eight characteristics of rigorous multilevel implementation research: a step-by-step guide. Implement Sci. 2023;18(1):52.

Wensing M, Sales A, Aarons GA, Xu D (Roman), Wilson P. Evidence for objects of implementation in healthcare: considerations for Implementation Science and Implementation Science Communications. Implementation Sci. 2022;17(1):83.

Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Widerquist MAO, Lowery J. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implement Sci. 2022;17(1):75.

Shortell SM, Marsteller JA, Lin M, Pearson ML, Wu SY, Mendel P, et al. The role of perceived team effectiveness in improving chronic illness care. Med Care. 2004;42(11):1040–8.

Yakovchenko V, Morgan TR, Chinman MJ, Powell BJ, Gonzalez R, Park A, et al. Mapping the road to elimination: a 5-year evaluation of implementation strategies associated with hepatitis C treatment in the veterans health administration. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1348.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Thank you to Ikzzui Chu, Jamie Feldman, Grace Kinkler, Rachael Park, and Jaely Wright for their assistance with article screening.

This work was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health grants MH123729 (EAM), MH124914 (DJK), and MH126231 (GAA), the National Cancer Institute U01CA275118 (GAA), National Institute on Drug Abuse R01DA049891 (GAA), the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality grant R18HS026862 (CBW), and the Collaboration and Conflict Research Lab at Carnegie Mellon University Tepper School of Business. The content of this manuscript does not represent the views of funding agencies and is solely the responsibility of the authors.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychiatry, School of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, 3811 O’Hara Street, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA

Elizabeth A. McGuier & David J. Kolko

Department of Psychiatry, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Gregory A. Aarons

ACTRI Dissemination and Implementation Science Center, UC San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA

Child and Adolescent Services Research Center, San Diego, CA, USA

Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Allison Schachter & Courtney Benjamin Wolk

Penn Implementation Science Center at the Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Health Sciences Library System, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Mary Lou Klem

Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Matthew A. Diabes & Laurie R. Weingart

Department of Psychological Sciences, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA

Eduardo Salas

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

EAM conceptualized and developed the protocol for this review, participated in article screening, data extraction, quality appraisal, and analysis, and led manuscript development and writing. DJK, GAA, LRW, ES, and CBW provided guidance and input into the protocol and methods and interpretation of results. AS participated in article screening, data extraction, and preparation of supplementary files. MLK developed the search strategy and conducted database searches. MAD participated in quality appraisal. DJK, GAA, LRW, ES, and CBW reviewed multiple drafts of the manuscript and provided critical input and editing. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elizabeth A. McGuier .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

GAA is a Co-Editor-in-Chief of Implementation Science and on the Editorial Board of Implementation Science Communications ; all decisions on this paper were made by another editor. The authors declare that they have no other competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Supplementary material 1., supplementary material 2., rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

McGuier, E.A., Kolko, D.J., Aarons, G.A. et al. Teamwork and implementation of innovations in healthcare and human service settings: a systematic review. Implementation Sci 19 , 49 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01381-9

Download citation

Received : 18 January 2024

Accepted : 07 July 2024

Published : 15 July 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01381-9

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Implementation outcomes

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: [email protected]

Bill Barrow, Associated Press Bill Barrow, Associated Press

Michelle L. Price, Associated Press Michelle L. Price, Associated Press

Leave your feedback

Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/5-takeaways-from-trumps-rnc-speech

5 takeaways from Trump’s RNC speech

MILWAUKEE (AP) — The Republican National Convention celebrated former President Donald Trump not just as a party leader but a living martyr who survived a would-be assassin’s bullet and is ready to work for everyday Americans after a sweeping victory in November.

WATCH: Donald Trump speaks at 2024 Republican National Convention

The portrayals of unity, including in Trump’s first speech since he was injured in the assassination attempt last Saturday, sought to erase the image of a man whose presidency often swirled in chaos and infighting and ended with a violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Democrats have repeatedly wielded images of that day to try to thwart his return and have spotlighted his recurring use of inflammatory and hardline rhetoric.

Inside the Milwaukee arena, he was “an American folk hero” and “strong commander in chief,” alive because of a “miracle.” To the left, he remains a threat to democracy, with authoritarian designs.

Live updates: Trump speaks at the Republican National Convention Night 4

There’s plenty of campaigning left between now and the election, so the effectiveness of the competing messages remains to be seen. But it’s been a striking four days for a Republican Party that over three presidential elections has been reshaped by Trump’s personality and his politics.

Here are some takeaways from the closing stanza of the GOP gathering in Wisconsin.

Trump promised to serve ‘all of America’ (But …)

Trump, who has not won the popular vote in two tries, opened with the sweeping tone common to inaugural addresses.

“The discord and division in our society must be healed. As Americans, we are bound together by a single fate and a shared destiny,” he said. “I am running to be president for all of America, not half of America, because there is no victory in winning for half of America.”

It was a sharp departure from his first convention acceptance in Cleveland eight years ago, when he painted a dark portrait of American life and declared, “I alone can fix it.”

It seemed at first that Trump was trying to embody a less partisan, less caustic version of himself — still a giant personality, but one that uses his stature for the country’s benefit. Yet as quickly as he called for an end of the “demonization of political enemies,” he turned the issue exclusively toward Democrats. He reprised his accusations that his criminal conviction and other prosecutions were because of the weaponization of the justice system. And he answered the critique that he is upending democracy by insisting, “I am the one saving democracy.”

Republicans in the convention hall embraced the idea. But it was aimed at what’s almost certainly a more circumspect crowd: swing voters and sporadic voters, those people Republicans will need in order to have the kind of sweeping victory they talked about in Milwaukee.

Trump tried to humanize his image by telling of assassination attempt

The former president spoke in vivid detail of his experience being injured and nearly killed on Saturday.

“You will never hear it from me a second time because it’s actually too painful,” he said before recalling at length a “beautiful day” that took a fateful turn. He recalled “a loud whizzing sound” and realized his ear was injured. He praised Secret Service agents, avoiding any mention of the criticism the agency is taking in Washington.

“I felt serene,” he said.

“I stand before you in this arena only by the grace of Almighty God,” Trump continued, echoing the same idea of divine intervention that flowed freely from the stage during the convention. “I’m not supposed to be here tonight,” he said, with delegates responding with a chant of “Yes you are! Yes you are!”

On stage was the uniform of the retired fire chief, Corey Comperatore, who was killed behind Trump. It was powerful stagecraft and storytelling. When Trump returns to his post-convention rally circuit, it will be notable to watch whether the former president sticks to his claim that he will not talk again about the assassination attempt that shocked the nation.

The brand man rebranded — with limits

Trump, the name and the man, has been ubiquitous for decades. Americans and the world recognized those gold letters, T-R-U-M-P, and watched him say, “You’re fired!” on his hit show “The Apprentice” long before Trump first ran for president. He took over the GOP and won the presidency in 2016 as the unapologetically bombastic political outsider.

The convention program sought to frame the former president as a softer, more compassionate man who helps people individually and is determined to help Americans across the country. Alina Habba , a Trump attorney, talked of “his character, his kindness, his commitment to saving this great country.” Personal friend Steve Witkoff described Trump as a lover of music, “a man who in the darkest hours shows up, listens and always acts.”

Between speeches Thursday, videos of Trump filled the arena with another tone. Democrats, a stern-looking Trump said, “are destroying our country. … They do cheat. And, frankly, it’s the only thing they do well. … Swamp them — they can’t cheat.”

Leading up to his speech, Trump called on a number of figures from the world of professional fighting, including retired wrestler Hulk Hogan and Linda McMahon , the former president and CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. She made perhaps the most overt attempt to straddle the competing messages: “Donald Trump is not only a fighter, ladies and gentleman,” she said. “He is a good man.”

It perhaps added up to a confusing message.

Certainly, you can square images of an aggressive politician and a compassionate man who loves music, his friends, his family and even Americans he does not know.

But there’s a difference in selling Trump as someone who leverages his determination on behalf of those “everyday Americans” and one who uses hyperbolic attacks on whole classes of Americans and still fights over a presidential election that he lost. Voters who believe Trump’s false assertions about 2020 and relish his broadsides are already in his corner. He’s trying to grow his coalition, or at least he needs to if Republicans want to have the kind of November sweep they’ve talked about in Milwaukee.

Short on details of another term

Trump made sweeping promises to end inflation and secure the border. He said “Republicans have a plan” to bring down energy prices “very, very rapidly.” He didn’t say what it is.

He said he’d “drill, baby, drill” and “reduce your taxes.” He suggested falsely that Democrats want to raise taxes “by four times” what they are now.

The most specific he got was promising to roll back Biden administration efforts to combat climate change, direct all infrastructure spending to “roads and bridges,” and impose steep tariffs.

Live fact check: Night 4 of the Republican National Convention

GOP leaders said ahead of the convention that Trump should lay out a clear vision of what a second presidency would look like. If he did that, it was only in the broadest strokes, mostly using crowd-pleasing talking points.

Trump barely mentioned Biden or Harris

Many Republican speakers this week made a point not just to blast President Joe Biden but also Vice President Kamala Harris. It’s an obvious move to position the party for the possibility that the 81-year-old Biden ends his campaign and Democrats turn to his second-in-command.

WATCH: Harris says Vance’s RNC speech didn’t tell ‘the full story,’ left out Project 2025

Trump himself barely acknowledged the Democratic incumbents. “I’m only going to say it one time,” he said, after mentioning Biden by name. At another point, he said merely “this person.”

That approach could be because of how much Democrats are in flux, leaving Trump unsure of who he will actually face in the fall. It could just as easily reflect how confident Trump is that he will win. Perhaps he believes he does not need to take on Biden any longer at all.

Support Provided By: Learn more

Educate your inbox

Subscribe to Here’s the Deal, our politics newsletter for analysis you won’t find anywhere else.

Thank you. Please check your inbox to confirm.

IMAGES

(PDF) What is Project Success: A Literature Review
Uncovering Factors of Project Success: A Literature Review
Literature Review Management Writing Guide
Success criteria and critical success factors in project success A literature review
Literature Review & Critique on Project Success
Literature mapping of project success.

VIDEO

Positive Academy Session 8 Writing Research Papers Literature Review Part 1
Literature Review Process (With Example)
Review of Literature
Cetacean Social Structure in Captivity
Project 8: Literature Review Project #PPA1R65T3P8 #รัฐประศาสนศาสตร์
Benefits of APM Recognised Assessment: University of Reading

COMMENTS

What is Project Success: A Literature Review
The research was conducted in several phases, the first of which was a literature review on the topic of project success, in order to define a comprehensive list of dimensions, factors and ...
Evaluation of project success: a structured literature review
Furthermore, the authors seek to identify of additional key factors influencing project success assessment next to the choice of project success criteria.,The paper uses a review of recent literature published in academic journals, in standard references and in widespread project management frameworks (Organisational Competence Baseline ...
PDF What is Project Success: A Literature Review
Guru Prakash Prabhakar Bristol Business School University of the West of England Coldharbour Lane, Frenchay Campus Bristol- BS16 1QY, UK Tel: 44-117-328-3461 E-mail: [email protected].
Full article: A literature review on construction project success
The literature review on project success evaluation criteria and methods has the following implications: Practical implications: The study identifies stakeholder-responsive project success evaluation criteria for construction projects, addressing issues in evaluation and contributing to continuous improvement, management, and future planning ...
How do project managers' competencies impact project success? A
Despite the existence of systematic literature reviews focused on examining the factors contributing to project success, there remains a scarcity of reviews addressing the relationship between the project managers' competencies and project success. To fill this gap in the literature, this review aimed to evaluate peer-reviewed articles, published between 2010 and 2022, and analyze the impact ...
The Impact of Planning on Project Success-A Literature Review
The literature in project management, and to a lesser extent in general management, is reviewed to find the reported link between planning and project success. Overall, the literature points to a ...
The "re-meaning" of project success: Updating and recalibrating for a
Project success: a literature review and some persistent gaps. ... "The body of literature on project success also encompasses project failures" (Jugdev & Müller, 2005, p. 26). "A success is just that - a success. It is something that works well for a variety of reasons, not the least of which may be luck. But a true success often ...
What is Project Success: A Literature Review
A systematic literature review focused on compiling and synthesizing project success factors in IT projects and proposes a structure that synthesizes the most referenced critical factors that have in common soft attributes as involvement, support, communication, and commitment. Expand. 65. PDF. 1 Excerpt.
How do project managers' competencies impact project success? A
Moreover, Crawford [ 49] posited a close relationship between PMGs' competencies and PS. Recent literature has underscored the pivotal role of PMGs' competencies in attaining higher levels of success, enhancing efficiency and effectiveness, and consequently increasing the likelihood of PS [ 8 ]. 2.2. Project success.
A Systematic Literature Review of Project Management Tools and Their
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW . The purpose of this literature review was to examine the research conducted within the field of project management to identify the most successful tool and methods for managing them. This will add to the body of project management knowledge and be useful for developing suggestions for areas of further research.
The Relationship between Project Success and Project Efficiency
What is project success: A literature review. International Journal of Business and Management, 3(8), 3-10. Google Scholar. Project Management Institute. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK® guide) - Fifth edition. Newtown Square, PA: Author.
How to Write a Literature Review
Examples of literature reviews. Step 1 - Search for relevant literature. Step 2 - Evaluate and select sources. Step 3 - Identify themes, debates, and gaps. Step 4 - Outline your literature review's structure. Step 5 - Write your literature review.
Defining Project Success: Multilevel Framework
To unlock this issue of defining project success, we review how the problem has been approached in the literature as input to proposing an integrated multilevel project success framework as a way forward. Project success has attracted much attention in the research and practice literature. Three main streams are found.
PDF Success criteria and critical success factors in project success ...
20. Project team/team members competence & effectiveness (CSF14) 20. ersonnel issues (CSF15)19Project size/value/complexity, project duration (CSF16)19It is obvious that the two most cited critical success factors in the corresponding literature are project mission/goals and objectives (CSF1) and top.
A Systematic Literature Review
We need to separate project success criteria from project success factors (De Witt, 1988, as cited in Rota & Zanasi, 2011; Koops et al., 2016). In fact, Ika's (2009) literature review of articles between 1986 and 2004 in the main two project management journals identifies very few articles discussing both success factors and success criteria.
The front-end of projects: a systematic literature review and
The dedicated literature on the front-end is sparse: although the front-end has been shown to be critical to the strategic success of the project, this phase of the lifecycle is not well understood. This paper presents the literature on the concept of the front-end, and defines a temporarily ordered structure of generic processes that form the ...
IT project success in perspective: systematic literature review
Aligning the project management approach to a particular project is considered to be essential for project success. Based on the literature review, in this research, the project management ...
PDF Critical Success Factors in Project Management: A Comprehensive Review
cope, human resources, communication, risk and procurement management. Morris and Hough (1986) mentioned four suc. ess factors, apart from time, cost and quality they introduced safety. Stakeholder's satisfaction, benefits to project's owner-organization and long-term impacts on project en.
(PDF) Success criteria and critical success factors in project success
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF REAL ESTATE AND LAND PLANNING VOL.1 (2018) eISSN 2623-4807 Available online at https://ejournals.lib.auth.gr/reland Success criteria and critical success factors in project success: a literature review Athanasios Lamproua, Dimitra Vagionab, aPhD b student, Department of Spatial Planning and Development, Aristotle ...
PDF The Impact of Project Leadership and Team Work on Project Success
Project success. It examines the relevant literature on project success and project leadership and teamwork from altered procedural elements and amalgamates his finding on the enlargement of innovative structure. Literature review facts on display the tasks which stay behind to originalities, measuring also quantifying the perks of project success.
How To Complete A Project Evaluation: Tips & Benefits
Project evaluations are essential to learning from your mistakes and delivering successful projects in the future. Here are some worthwhile project evaluation benefits. 1. Developing best practices. Through project evaluation, you can identify and document best practices that have contributed to project success.
Exploring issues of story-based effort estimation in Agile Software
To achieve the research objectives, a systematic literature review (SLR) is conducted, surveying a wide range of sources to gather insights into issues surrounding user story-based effort estimation. The review encompasses diverse estimation methods, user story attributes, and the array of challenges that can result from inaccurate estimations.
How do project managers' competencies impact project success? A
Abstract. Despite the existence of systematic literature reviews focused on examining the factors contributing to project success, there remains a scarcity of reviews addressing the relationship ...
Analysis of the Relationship Between Engineering Project Management and
This study explores the two distinct parts of engineering management: engineering product management and engineering project management. A qualitative systematic review method was employed, using purposively sampled literature and a desk-based research approach. Using thematic analysis, the researchers produced significant data findings. The findings suggest that Engineering Project Management ...
Teamwork and implementation of innovations in healthcare and human
Implementation of new practices in team-based settings requires teams to work together to respond to new demands and changing expectations. However, team constructs and team-based implementation approaches have received little attention in the implementation science literature. This systematic review summarizes empirical research examining associations between teamwork and implementation ...
5 takeaways from Trump's RNC speech
WATCH: Harris says Vance's RNC speech didn't tell 'the full story,' left out Project 2025. Trump himself barely acknowledged the Democratic incumbents. "I'm only going to say it one ...
Success criteria and critical success factors in project success: a
Success criteria are the dependent variables that measure and ev aluate project. success, whilst critical success factors are the independent variable s that can influence and increase the ...
Dental Care for People With Sickle Cell Disease: A Rapid Response
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has partnered with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to identify dental services that are inextricably linked and substantially related to the clinical success of Medicare-covered medical services for people with SCD. AHRQ has commissioned a rapid response summarizing recent evidence on this topic.

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Design/methodology/approach

Research limitations/implications

Practical implications

Originality/value

Related articles

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

How do project managers’ competencies impact project success? A systematic literature review

1. Introduction

2. Competencies and project success

2.1. Competencies

2.2. Project success

3.1. Search strategy

3.2. Study selection

3.2.1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria.

3.2.2. Article screening process.

3.2.3. Quality assessment.

3.3. Data extraction and analysis

4.1. Study characteristics

4.2. Project managers’ competencies

4.2.2. Categorization of project managers’ competencies.

4.3. Project success criteria

4.4. Empirical analysis of the relationship between project managers’ competencies and project success

4.4.1. Relationship between cognitive competencies and project success.

4.4.2. Relationship between personal competencies and project success.

4.4.3. Relationship between social competencies and project success.

4.4.4. Relationship between sustainability competencies and project success.

5. Discussion

6. Limitations and strengths

7. Conclusions

Supporting information

S1 Table. Inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the SLR.

S2 Table. Quality assessment criteria scoring guide.

S3 Table. Quality assessment results.

S4 Table. Brief description of the Project Managers’ competencies in included articles.

S5 Table. Brief description of the project success criteria in included articles.

Paola Ochoa Pacheco

David Coello-Montecel

1. Introduction

2. Competencies and project success

2.1. Competencies

2.2. Project success

3.1. Search strategy

3.2. Study selection

3.2.1. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

3.2.2. Article screening process

3.2.3. Quality assessment

3.3. Data extraction and analysis

4.1. Study characteristics

4.2. Project managers’ competencies

4.2.2. Categorization of project managers’ competencies

4.3. Project success criteria

4.4. Empirical analysis of the relationship between project managers’ competencies and project success

4.4.1. Relationship between cognitive competencies and project success

4.4.2. Relationship between personal competencies and project success

4.4.3. Relationship between social competencies and project success

4.4.4. Relationship between sustainability competencies and project success

5. Discussion

6. Limitations and strengths

7. Conclusions

Supporting information

Funding Statement

Data Availability

Decision Letter 0

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Acceptance letter

Have a language expert improve your writing

How to Write a Literature Review | Guide, Examples, & Templates

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Table of contents

Prevent plagiarism. Run a free check.

Make a list of keywords

Search for relevant sources

Take notes and cite your sources

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Chronological

Methodological

Theoretical

Cite this Scribbr article