What Is Enough Planning

462
IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 62, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2015
What is Enough Planning? Results From a Global

Quantitative Study
Pedro Serrador and Rodney Turner
AbstractProject planning is widely thought to be an important

contributor to project success. However, there is a little research to
affirm its impact and give guidance as to how much effort should
be spent on planning to achieve best results. We aim to rectify
this omission. Data was collected on 1386 projects from 859 respondents via a global survey. A significant relationship was found
between the quality of the planning deliverables and success. Detailed analysis of the data collected revealed an inverted-U relationship between the percentage of effort spent on planning and project
success. After correcting for key moderator effects, a significant relationship with an R2 of 0.15 was revealed. Further analysis showed
that the fraction of planning effort that maximized the project success was 25% of project effort. This was substantially more than
the 15% mean value reported by respondents. The greatest impact
was found to be on the broad success measures with a lesser effect on project efficiency: time; budget; and scope. The inverted-U
relationship between effort spent on planning and project success
indicates that projects can spend too much time in planning, as
well as too little. But we found that projects are spending less time
in planning than the optimum to achieve best results.
Index TermsEfficiency, planning, project, success.
I. INTRODUCTION
N THIS paper, we investigate the impact of project planning
and project plans on project success. Does better project
planning lead to more successful outcomes on projects? Traditional project management is based to a large extent on conjecture, with little empirical evidence in support of some of the
memes [1]. Project planning is one such meme. Received wisdom is that planning is very important and the more effort that
is put into the planning process, the better the project plans and
the more successful will be the project [2], [3]. Time spent on
planning activities will reduce risk and improve success. On the
other hand, inadequate planning will lead to a failed project,
[4], [5]. If poor planning has led to failed projects, then perhaps
trillions of dollars have been needlessly lost [6]. Our survey of
the literature suggests that there is a relationship between the
amount of project planning and the quality of project plans,
and between both of those and project success. But is there an
optimum amount of planning and how much is too much? We
believe this relationship needs to be clarified. This leads to our
research question:
Manuscript received March 24, 2014; revised October 31, 2014, April 26,
2015, and May 26, 2015; accepted June 12, 2015. Date of publication July 23,
2015; date of current version October 16, 2015. Review of this manuscript was
arranged by Department Editor P. ED Love.
P. Serrador is with Serrador Project Management, Mississauga, ON L5E 3G3,
Canada (e-mail: pedro@serrador.net).
R. Turner is with SKEMA Business School, LSMRC Univ Lille Nord de
France, Lille F59777, France (e-mail: rodneyturner@europrojex.co.uk).
Color versions of one or more of the figures in this paper are available online
at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org.
Digital Object Identifier 10.1109/TEM.2015.2448059
RQ: What is the impact of the amount of planning effort on

project success?
II. LITERATURE REVIEW
A. Project Success
Before we can discuss the impact of the project planning
phase on success, we need to define what we mean by project
success. Unfortunately, as Pinto and Slevin [7, p. 67] note There
are few topics in the field of project management that are so
frequently discussed and yet so rarely agreed upon as the notion
of project success. Shenhar and Dvir [8] suggest five measures
of project success: 1) project efficiency, 2) impact on the team,
3) impact on the customer, 4) business success, and 5) preparing
for the future.
In this paper, we refer to the following.
1) Project efficiency: completing the desired scope of work
on time and within budget, while meeting scope goals.
2) Project success: meeting wider business, strategic and
enterprise goals.
We follow Cooke-Davies [12] who says that project management success is achieving the project efficiency goals and project
success is achieving business and enterprise goals. Ultimately,
whether or not, the latter achieved is a subjective judgment by
key stakeholders [9]. Thomas et al. [5, p. 106] state that Examples abound where the original objectives of the project are
not met, but the client was highly satisfied, as well as the reverse. Zwikael and Globerson [10] and Dvir et al. [2] suggest
that project efficiency and project success are often correlated.
Serrador and Turner have shown that this correlation is 0.60 [9].
While the measure of project success in the past has focused on
tangibles [11], current thinking is that ultimately project success can best be judged by the primary sponsor [12] and will be
based on how well they judge that the project meets the wider
business and enterprise goals.
B. Project Planning
Mintzberg describes planning as the effort to formalizing
decision making activities through decomposition, articulation,
and rationalization [13]. In construction, preproject planning is
defined as the phase after business planning where a deal is
initiated and prior to project execution [14]. Another definition
of planning is what comes before action [15]. For the purpose
of this paper, we will use these definitions.
1) Planning phase: the phases and associated effort that
comes before execution in a project.
2) Planning effort: the amount of effort in work hours expended in planning.
0018-9391 2015 IEEE. Personal use is permitted, but republication/redistribution requires IEEE permission.
See http://www.ieee.org/publications standards/publications/rights/index.html for more information.
SERRADOR AND TURNER: WHAT IS ENOUGH PLANNING? RESULTS FROM A GLOBAL QUANTITATIVE STUDY
C. Planning in Construction
Project management has a long history in the construction
industry and there have been a number of studies on the relationship between planning and project success. Hamilton and
Gibson [16] found that the top third of projects from a planning
completeness perspective had an 82% chance of meeting their
budget goals compared to only 66% of projects in the lower
third. Similar results are seen for schedule and design goals.
Shehu and Akintoye [17] found in a study of construction programs that effective planning had the highest criticality index of
0.870 of all the critical success factors studied.
The project definition rating index (PDRI) is a widely adopted
method for industrial projects to measure completeness of
project planning [14]. By filling a questionnaire, the completeness of project planning can be assessed. No planning is indicated by a PDRI score of 1000 while a score of 200 or less
is good planning [3]. Gibson, Wang, Cho, and Pappas show
that effective preproject planning using PDRI leads to improved
performance in terms of cost, schedule, and operational characteristics. They found that scores under 200 were associated
with cost and schedule performance 3% below budget, whereas
PDRI scores above 200 were associated with costs 13% over
budget, 21% behind schedule, and twice as many change orders
[18]. (Please note, PDRI is a measure of the completeness of
project plans, not the amount of effort that has gone into the
planning process which differs from our research question.)
In addition, Gibson and Pappas note a marked difference in
empirical measurements of project success based on the PDRI
score [19]. In the construction industry, project success is closely
linked to project efficiency so this can apply to efficiency and
success [20].
D. Planning in the Information Technology industry
The reports of high failure rates for software projects are well
known [6], [21]. Some studies in this area have tried to quantify
how much planning should be done for software projects. Poston
[22] states that in software development projects, testing was
43% of overall project effort for the projects studied, whereas
planning and requirements accounted for only 6% of effort. He
also notes that the earlier defects are identified such as in the
planning/design phase, the less they cost to fix.
Muller and Turner reported a correlation between
postcontract signing planning and project schedule variance
[23]. Also, Tausworthe notes the importance of the work breakdown structure (WBS), a planning artifact, on software project
success [24]. Deephouse et al. showed that project planning was
consistently associated with success more than other practices
[25, p. 198]. The dependence for successful planning was 0.791
for meeting targets and 0.228 for quality. However, they do qualify their findings by noting that respondents may have thought
that if the project was late, clearly the plan was not realistic.
E. Planning and Success in the General Project Management
Literature
Thomas et al. [5, p. 105] state, the most effective team cannot
overcome a poor project plan and projects which started down
463
the wrong path can lead to the most spectacular project failures.
Morris [4, p. 5] similarly argues that The decisions made at
the early definition stages set the strategic framework: Get it
wrong here, and the project will be wrong for a long time.
Munns and Bjeirmi [26] state that for a project which is flawed
from the start, successful execution may matter to only to the
project team, while the wider organization will see the project
as a failure. Thus, there is a recurring theme that planning is
inherently important to project success or one could argue that
without it project management would not exist. However, in
these works it is just conjecture.
Pinto and Prescott [27] found that a schedule or plan had a
correlation of 0.47 with project success, while technical tasks
had a correlation of 0.57 and mission definition a correlation of
0.70. Pinto and Prescott [27] again found that planning factors
dominated throughout the project lifecycle. Planning was found
to have the greatest impact on the following success criteria:
perceived value of the project (R2 = 0.35); and client satisfaction
(R2 = 0.39).
Shenhar [28] notes that better planning is the norm in
high- and superhigh-technology projects. This was found to
apply consistently to the deliverables normally produced in the
planning phase. Dvir and Lechler [29] found that the quality of
planning had a +0.35 impact on R2 for efficiency and a +0.39
impact on R2 for customer satisfaction. Dvir et al. [2] noted the
correlation between aspects of the planning phase and project
success. The planning procedures effort was found to be less
important to project success than defining functional and technical requirements of the project. The correlation was 0.297 for
functional requirements and 0.256 for technical requirements.
Zwikael and Globerson [10, p. 694] noted the following, organizations, which scored the highest on project success, also
obtained the highest score on quality of planning. What appears
to be clear is that activities we defined as a part of the planning
phase: requirements definition, scope definition, and technical
analyses are important to project success [30].
It is clear that activities occurring prior to execution and
along with planning are important to project success [2]. Turner
and Muller note that There is growing evidence that competence in the traditional areas of the project management body
of knowledge are essential entry tickets to the game of project
management, but they do not lead to superior performance [31,
p. 6]. They are hygiene factors, necessary conditions for project
management performance.
F. Reasons not to Plan
Andersen [32, p. 89] questions the assumption that project
planning is beneficial from a conceptual standpoint. He asks,
How can it be that project planners are able to make a detailed
project plan, when either activities cannot be foreseen or they
depend on the outcomes of earlier activities? Bart [33] makes
the point that in research and development projects too much
planning can limit creativity.
Collyer et al. [20, p. 109] describe examples of failed projects
such as the Australian submarine and the Iridium satellite
projects. They say, While useful as a guide, excessive detail in
the early stages of a project may be problematic and misleading
464
in a dynamic environment. Collyer and Warren suggest that in

dynamic environments, creating detailed long-term plans can
waste time and resources and lead to false expectations [34].
Aubrey et al. [35] note that for one project management office (PMOs) they studied, overly rigorous planning processes
resulted in an impediment to rapidity. Flyvbjerg et al. [36] highlight that senior management can choose not to use the estimates
from the planning phase.
Zwikael and Globerson [10] note that even though there is
a high quality of planning in software and communications
organizations, these projects still have low ratings on success.
Chatzoglou and Macaulay [37] note that any extra planning will
result in a chain reaction delay in the next phases of the project.
Thomas et al. [5] write that for most projects there are pressures
to reduce the time and effort spent on the planning phase. Also,
Chatzoglou and Macaulay [37, p. 174] consider why planning
is sometimes shortened or eliminated because managers think,
It is better to skip the planning and to start developing the
requested system. However, experience shows that none of the
above arguments are valid. The literature does not support the
conclusion that planning should not be done in projects though
some caveats are highlighted.
G. How Much to Plan?
Surprisingly, little research has been done on how much
planning should be done in projects. We have looked at planning quality and now we will look at the impact of the amount of
effort spent planning. Daly stated, without presenting evidence,
that schedule planning should be 2%, specifications 10%, and
final design 40% of the total cost [38]. Now much of this design
is done during execution. Similarly, Poston states that planning
and requirements should be 6% of project cost, product design
should be 16%, and detailed design should be 25% [22]. Empirical guidance on how much time should be spent in planning has
become less common over time. Whether this is because this
guidance was found not to be effective, the diversity of technology projects increased or it simply fell out of favor is not clear.
Nobelius and Trygg [39] found front-end activities made up at
least 20% of the project time. Similarly, Wideman [40] states
that the typical effort spent in the planning phase in construction
projects is approximately 20% of the total work hours.
Chatzoglou and Macaulay [37, p. 183] outline a rule of thumb
for planning effort for IS/IT projects, the three times programming rule and the lifecycle stage model: one estimates how
long it would take to program the system and then multiply by
three to get the total effort. Software testing is estimated to
take roughly an equal amount of effort as development [41].
This leaves one third of total effort for the planning phase and
other miscellaneous tasks.
However, all of the above are just observations of how much
time people spend on projects planning. There is no indication
of what is the appropriate amount of planning. Choma and Bhat
[42, p. 5, 7] found that the projects with the worst results
were those that were missing important planning components.
However, they also found that the projects in this sample that
took longer in planning had the worst results. Their analysis
points to that either too much planning can be negative to project

success or that a planning phase that lasts too long can be an
indicator of a problem project.
Similarly, Choo reported that there is a U-shaped relationship
between problem definition time and project duration [43] in
a study of 1558 projects in a global computer manufacturing
firm. He reported a clear relationship between problem definition time, which shows similarity to the planning phase, and
one measure of success, project duration. In this firm, it was
correlated with project savings which he inferred was related
to project success. In his final model, he reported a R2 of 14.8
between problem definition time and project duration and an
optimal problem definition time between 0.20 and 0.30 of the
overall project time for the cases studied, which were just IT
projects in one company.
H. Conclusion
Dvir et al. [2, p. 94] state that With the advancement in
computerized planning tools and the blooming in project management training, a certain level of planning is done in all
projects, even in those that eventually turn out to be unsuccessful projects. Hence, when a certain level of planning is done
in all types of projects, a significant statistical correlation cannot
be found in the data. This is an important point. The question
of whether some planning versus no planning is correlated with
project success may be a moot. The benefits of planning have
been confirmed through the practice of project management. It
has, thus, become an expected part of all projects. It has become, as suggested by Turner and Muller [31], and as a part of
all project management books of knowledge, a hygiene factor
for successful projects. The question now is how much planning
leads to the greatest success.
Table I summarizes our literature review above. From this
table, we can see that the preponderance of the literature suggests
that planning is important for project success. Some of this is
based on empirical evidence, some just on conjecture. A smaller
number of authors suggest that there is a negative correlation,
but one of these is based on conjecture, and this paper suggests
that you can do too much planning, but it is also beneficial up
to a point.
Table II summarizes the empirical results from the
literature review. A metaanalysis using weighting was considered as described in Hwang et al. [44] but we did not consider
this valid, given the varied nature of the source documents: different industries, different methodologies, and different types of
cross-functional projects. A high-level metaanalysis reviewing
the means was completed instead. These studies used different
methodologies and even different definitions of planning and
success. If we compare this to the approximately 2033% effort
spent on planning reported by Nobelius, Trygg, and Wideman,
there appears to a clear return on this investment in terms of
project success [39], [40].
Thus, from the literature review, we can get a preliminary
answer to our research question: project planning effort has
been found important for project success. However, what is
465
TABLE I
SUMMARY OF THE REVIEWED LITERATURE ON RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLANNING AND SUCCESS
Positive empirical
relationship between
planning and success
Pinto and Prescott [27]
Hamilton and Gibson [16]
Deephouse et al. [25]
Muller and Turner [23]
Shenhar et al. [30]
Dvir et al. [2]
Gibson and Pappas [19]
Dvir and Lechler [29]
Gibson et al. [18]
Zwikael and Globerson [10]
Salomo et al. (2007)
Wang and Gibson [3]
Choma and Bhat [42]
Conceptual positive
No relationship between
Conceptual negative
Empirical negative
Tausworthe [24]
Chatzoglou and Macaulay
[37]
Munns and Bjeirmi [26]
Morris [4]
Shenhar [47]
Shenhar et al. [47]
Ceschi [55]
Thomas et al. [5]
Shehu and Akintoye [17]
Blomquist et al. (2010)
Collyer et al. [20]
Flyvbjerg et al. [36]
Bart [33]
Andersen [32]
Choma and Bhat [42]

Collyer et al. [20]
TABLE II
SUMMARY OF EMPIRICAL RESULTS AFTER SERRADOR [46]
Study
Empirical Relationship
Aggregate
Pinto and Prescott [27]
Deephouse et al. [25]
Dvir et al. [2]
Dvir and Lechler [29]
Planning found to have the

greatest impact on success factors
perceived
value of the project
client satisfaction
The dependence for successful
planning was 0.791 for meeting
targets and 0.228 for quality.
Meeting the planning goals is

correlated 0.570 to overall project
success measures.
Quality of planning had a +0.35
impact on R2 for efficiency and a
+0.39 impact on R2 for customer
satisfaction.
Impact of planning on success, normalized to R2

Efficiency
2
Overall Success
R2 = 0.39
R = 0.35
R = 0.35
R2 = 0.39
Average R2 = 0.37
R2 = 0.625
R2 = 0.34
R2 = 0.052
Average R2 = 0.34
R2 = 0.32
R2 = 0.32
R2 = 0.35
R2 = 0.35
R2 = 0.39
R2 = 0.28
R2 = 0.29
R2 = 0.39
Average R2 = 0.37
Gibson et al. [18]
Salomo et al. (2007)
Wang and Gibson [3]
Overall Average
Planning quality correlates as

follows:
R = 0.52 for cost
R = 0.53 schedule
R = 0.57 technical performance
R = 0.51 customer satisfaction
R2 = 0.42 Correlation between
planning completeness and
project success
Project planning/risk planning
and innovation success
Goal clarity/process formality and
innovation success
PDRI score of a building
construction project is related to
project cost and schedule success
(R = 0.475)
R2 = 0.27
R2 = 0.28
R2 = 0.32
R2 = 0.26
Average R2 = 0.28
R2 = 0.42
R2 = 0.42
R2 = 0.33
R2 = 0.30
R2 = 0.27
Average R2 = 0.30
R2 = 0.23
R2 = 0.23
R2 = 0.33
R2 = 0.33
R2 = 0.34
466
the relationship? We, therefore, will investigate the following

hypotheses.
H1: There exists a relationship between planning quality
and project success.
H2: There exists a relationship between planning effort and
project success.
H3: There is an optimum amount of planning effort.
III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
We undertook a research to build on the existing literature and
test our hypotheses. To do this, we took a post positivist view
that a relationship can be found between the amount of project
planning and project success. Postpositivism falls between positivism, where a completely objective solution can be found to
a research question, and phenomenology, where all experiences
are subjective [45]. Because perception and observation are at
least partially based on subjective opinion, our results cannot be
fully objective. Some concepts such as project success may not
be fully quantifiable and are impacted by subjective judgment of
the participants and sponsors. Postpositivism understands that
though positivism cannot tell the whole truth in business research, its insights are nonetheless useful. We used inductive
analysis to examine these relationships. We gathered data on
quantities such as effort of planning phase, effort of overall
project, and percentage of project effort which was dedicated to
the planning phase. This information could be gathered using
a quantitative approach employing techniques such as surveys,
a qualitative technique such as interviews, or a mixed methods
approach. The research question being examined here is well
defined, so a quantitative approach was taken.
A. Survey
Data were collected from practitioners who are members of
Project Management Institute (PMI) or members of LinkedIn
project management groups. Invitations to fill out a questionnaire (an on-line questionnaire using surveymonkey.com) were
posted on discussion boards of PMI communities of practice
(CoPs) as well as a number of LinkedIn groups. A notice was
also included in some groups mailings. We sought to gather a
large dataset over as wide range as possible of different types
of projects. Identifying the overall population sample pool was
not possible. Though the membership numbers for the LinkedIn
groups are available (typically in the 1000s) and membership
numbers in the PMI CoPs are also available (membership up
to the 10 000s), memberships in each of these groups are not
mutually exclusive. There is also no way to know how many
members read group postings.
Respondents were asked to think of projects they had been
involved with and select two: one more successful and one
that they defined as less successful. The survey was targeted at
project managers but was not restricted to people who managed
the projects. The majority of respondents identified themselves
as project managers or senior project managers. Participants
were also asked about aspects of the project which we used as
the 12 moderators in our analysis, see Table VIII for a full list
and appendix for the survey questions.
It is the case that with most studies of project success that

use questionnaires or interviews, the results rely on participants
stating how successful a project was. This is subjective by nature. One could argue that there may be ways to measure success
in an objective way; however, this likely only applies to project
efficiency. Therefore, this paper will largely be concerned with
perceived project success as reported by participants. To measure this factor, questions in the survey were largely based on a
combination of the success dimensions defined by Muller and
Turner [23] and Shenhar et al. [47]. Survey questions, in general,
used a 5 or 7 point Likert-like numeric scale [48]. Pure Likert
scales were not used as there were several questions where numerical responses were appropriate. The varying scale was used
partially to follow the scales from the existing literature: using 7
point scales to allow optimum ordinal value for numeric ranges
and 5 point scales for subjective ratings. Since a variety of scales
was used, this ensured that item context effects as per Podsakoff
et al. [49] were not an issue. Monosource bias and other response biases can occur in self-rated performance measures as
discussed by Podsakoff et al. [49]. By targeting project managers, we intended to receive information from the individual
who would have the best overall view of the project. The participants were asked to rate how other stakeholders viewed the
success of the project. Some monosource bias was, therefore,
inevitable. However, to reduce the impact and for privacy reasons, anonymity was allowed in the survey and company names
were not captured.
Projects can vary extensively and their need for planning can
also be variable [34]. The goal of the research was to gather
a large enough dataset to study the importance of planning in
general over a wide range of projects. A total of 865 people
started the survey with 859 completing at least the first portion
of it which requested information on one successful project.
Although each participant was asked to provide data on two
projects, not all participants entered data for two projects; therefore, the total number of projects was 1539. After removal of
outliers and bad data, the usable total available for study was
1386 projects. Projects which reported planning efforts over 2
standard deviation (SD) were considered outliers or abandoned
projects and fell outside the scope of this research. Projects
which reported no planning time were removed as bad data.
The remaining projects were reviewed for normality over the
success factors and were found to have a normal distribution.
People from over 60 countries answered the survey. The
largest numbers came from the USA, 313 (36.5%), India, 59
(6.9%), Canada, 57 (6.6%), and Australia, 19 (2.2%). Some 183
(21.3%) chose not to answer the question. Although there was
a preponderance of responses from North America, there was
good representation from the whole world.
B. Approach
Inductive analysis was used to find the relationship between
planning and success. In general, the simplest relationships were
tested first and then testing continued using progressively more
involved techniques. The typical progression is to use correlation analysis to understand if there is a relationship followed
by linear regression to see if there is a dependent relationship.
467
TABLE III
SUMMARY OF INDICES AND FACTORS
Indices and factors
Planning Effort Index
Efficiency Factor
Success Factor
Overall success Factor
Description
Ratio of planning phase effort (in hours) compared to overall project effort.
Summated scale of project time, budget, and scope (17).
Summated scale of the success of the project from the point of view of sponsors, clients, team, and end users (as reported by respondents) (15).
Summated scale of project success including efficiency variables, success variables, and respondents overall assessment (15).
TABLE IV
CRONBACH ALPHA ANALYSIS OF SUCCESS MEASURES
Summary for scale: Mean = 30.776; SD = 8.45; Valid N: 1378; Cronbach alpha: 0.905; Standardized alpha: 0.922; Average interitem corr.: 0.632
Mean if deleted
Var. if deleted
StDv. if deleted
Itm-Totl- Correl.
Squared-Multp. R
Alpha if deleted
Project time goals
Project budget goals
Scope and requirements goals
Project sponsors success rating
Project teams satisfaction
Clients satisfaction
End users satisfaction
Overall project success rating
26.496
26.045
25.831
27.398
27.437
27.366
27.411
27.446
51.906
55.008
54.238
55.604
57.063
55.901
57.228
55.770
7.205
7.417
7.365
7.457
7.554
7.477
7.565
7.468
0.640
0.539
0.637
0.821
0.791
0.827
0.767
0.814
0.516
0.416
0.421
0.840
0.725
0.851
0.744
0.783
0.903
0.912
0.900
0.884
0.888
0.884
0.889
0.885
TABLE V
DESCRIPTIVES BY INDUSTRY WITH ANOVA RESULTS
Construction
Financial services
Utilities
Government
Education
Other
High technology
Telecommunications
Manufacturing
Health care
Professional services
Retail
All Groups
p(F)
Planning effort index
Success Factor
Project success rating
Efficiency Factor
Overall Success Factor
Valid N
0.146
0.133
0.145
0.126
0.132
0.140
0.123
0.170
0.132
0.145
0.139
0.173
0.153
0.010
3.486
3.328
3.349
3.382
3.410
3.284
3.401
3.419
3.214
3.408
3.328
3.151
3.347
0.689
3.528
3.355
3.455
3.423
3.480
3.231
3.477
3.393
3.286
3.303
3.352
2.933
3.361
0.882
4.630
4.618
4.535
4.731
5.080
4.455
4.784
4.805
4.298
4.895
4.685
4.367
4.656
0.397
3.660
3.354
3.553
3.438
3.530
3.233
3.538
3.458
3.295
3.408
3.292
3.000
3.397
0.496
41
257
42
152
42
157
223
133
122
113
69
35
1386
This is followed by a nonlinear regression if a significant linear

relationship is not discovered. Finally, moderated hierarchical
regression analysis (MHRA) was used to understand how this
relationship is impacted by moderating variables [50].
IV. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Respondents were asked to provide project person hours spent
on both planning and on the project as a whole. To facilitate the
analysis, we created some indexes and factors (see Table III).
Success factors were calculated using a summated scale, that is,
each term was normalized, summed together, and then the sum
was again normalized to a 15 or 17 range.
After a confirmatory factor analysis using normalized varimax rotation was completed on the success factor, a Cronbach
alpha analysis was performed (see Table IV). In general, an
alpha value of 0.9 is required for practical decision making situations. while a value of 0.7 is considered to be sufficient for
research purposes [51]. The average was greater than 0.8 in all
cases, and alpha would not greatly improve by deleting any of
the survey questions (see appendix). The results of Cronbachs
alpha analysis supported the initial assumptions that the elements identified for measuring success were valid measures of
success for this survey and accurately measured the judgments
of respondents [2], [10], [47]. Projects came from a wide variety
of industries (see Table V). The analysis of variance (ANOVA)
results show a significant p value for planning effort index. This
shows that planning varies with industry. Success does not vary
significantly by industry; there are successful projects in all
industries.
A. Planning Quality Versus Success
After performing a factor analysis on the 12 moderators
collected (see Table VIII), it became clear that four of them
were connected and described an underlying planning quality
468
TABLE VI
REGRESSION ANALYSIS FOR PLANNING QUALITY FACTOR VERSUS THE SUCCESS MEASURE
Regression Summary for Dependent Variable: Success Factor R = 0.515; R2 = 0.265; Adjusted R2 = 0.265; p < 0.0001
Beta
Intercept
Planning Quality Factor
0.515
B
5.259
0.891
factor. We, therefore, named it the planning quality factor. A

normalized varimax rotation was selected to achieve the highest
loadings and best model fit. The other factors were not found to
be significant.
Planning Quality Factor = mean of the following four responses: 1) quality of the WBS; 2) quality of goals/vision; 3)
stakeholder engagement level; and 4) experience level of team.
Some components can be clearly seen to be the result of a
thorough analysis and planning exercise: Quality of the WBS
and quality of goals/vision. Another component can be seen
as an important input to a good planning effort: Stakeholder
engagement level. Experience level of the team does not immediately come to mind as a planning related variable. However,
based on the factor analysis, it is related to planning quality. One
can speculate that this may be because a better planning cycle
may allow the selection of a more effective team or that more
experienced teams complete more effective planning.
Now that the meaning of the factor has been defined, we next
completed a regression of success versus the planning quality
factor (see Table VI). This shows a statistically significant relationship with a low p < 0.0001 between the planning quality
factor and overall success. In addition, there is a strong R2 of
0.265. This result is in broad agreement with the average R2
reported in the literature of 0.34. The planning quality factor
calculated here is a measure of planning quality similar to what
was studied in the previous research. However, it is not as comprehensive, so a lower R2 is to be expected. This result is in
keeping with previous research and validated the methodology
of this research. Therefore, hypothesis H1 is supported.
H1: There exists a relationship between planning quality and
project success.
B. Planning Effort Versus Success

To start the effort impact analysis, we examined the
relationship between planning effort index and project success rating. Note that the rating was the single measure of
overall success reported by participants. The rating was used
rather than the success factors because it is easier to graph for
illustration purposes. We found that in general the planning index increases within the success category. The exception is the
failure category that showed the highest mean planning effort
index of any group. The ANOVA analysis did not show a statistically significant relationship. By looking at these means, it
appeared that a simple linear relationship did not exist.
These data were now plotted to get a visual picture of the
relationship (see Fig. 1). Looking at this graph, we can see the
lowest amount of effort was typically spent on projects deemed
p-level
0.000
0.000
Fig. 1. Mean plot of planning effort index by project success rating with error
bars (where 5 is a highly successful project).
not fully successful. In this case, one can hypothesize that inadequate planning impacted project success. Projects deemed
outright failures reported the mean highest percentages of upfront project planning. This is an interesting finding in keeping
with Choma and Bhat [42].
Based on Fig. 1, it was decided to review the data with an
assumption that the relationship between the effort index and
project success is not linear but could be polynomial in nature
(see Fig. 2). There is clearly a quadratic relationship between
the planning effort index and the overall success factor. This
fits with position that if a project spends too much effort in the
planning phase, too much of the overall budget and time will be
spent before execution [37]. This would make the project less
successful overall. Also, complex or challenging projects with a
low probability of success may have very long planning phases.
Conversely, a project that spends too little upfront time planning
will also be less successful [2]. Therefore, an inverted-U curve
fits with the proposition and the findings of the literature review.
Table VII shows a more detailed analysis based on a nonlinear
regression. The overall was p < 0.0059 which shows statistical significance of the polynomial model specification. The fit
of this relationship is quite low with R2 less than 0.01. This
suggests a small causal relationship indicating that less than
1% of project success can be attributable to the amount of effort spent planning. This is counterintuitive and deserved further
analysis. The residuals were examined to confirm normality and
homoscedasticity and results were acceptable. Twelve variables
were examined to find their impact on the relationship between
469
TABLE VII
NONLINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF PLANNING EFFORT INDEX VERSUS OVERALL SUCCESS FACTOR
Regression Summary for Dependent Variable: Overall Success Factor R = 0.086; R2 = 0.007; Adjusted R2 = 0.006, p < 0.0059
Beta
B
p-level
Intercept
Planning effort index 2
0.255
0.239
3.191
2.026
4.063
0.000
0.001
0.003
TABLE IX
MHRA ANALYSIS FOR SIGNIFICANT MODERATORS IN THE PLANNING EFFORT
INDEX VERSUS OVERALL SUCCESS FACTOR RELATIONSHIP
Variables entered
Main Effects
Moderators
Internal vs vendor based
Interaction Terms
WBS Planning effort index
WBS Planning effort index 2
Experience Planning effort index
Experience Planning effort index 2
Internal Planning effort index
Internal Planning effort index 2
F for Regression
R2
Fig. 2. Scatterplot and curve fitting for overall success factor versus planning
effort index.
TABLE VIII
SUMMARY OF MODERATOR FINDINGS FOR DEPENDENT VARIABLE SUCCESS
AND INDEPENDENT VARIABLE PLANNING EFFORT INDEX
Moderator
Quality of WBS
Quality of the goals/vision
Stakeholder engagement level
Experience level of team
Internal versus Vendor based
Methodology type (traditional versus
agile)
Novelty to organization
Technology level of the project
Project length
Project complexity
New product versus Maintenance
Team size
Role Versus Project Success

Independent variable and moderator
Independent variable
Independent variable and moderator
Moderator
Independent variable and potential
moderator
No relationship
No relationship
No relationship
No relationship
No relationship
planning and success, initially in the factor analysis and then as

moderators (see Table VIII).
When we completed an MHRA using these interaction relationships, we get the results shown inTable IX. For the MHRA
analysis, we will be trying to discover the underlying relationship between dependent and independent variables and understand how it is impacted by moderating variables as per Sharma
et al. [50]. MHRA analysis in SPSS enables us to explore these
relationships in more detail. We can see that through the moderator analysis, a more significant relationship between planning
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
1.972
4.044
2.030
4.103
13.007
25.064
0.028
0.010
8.510
0.016
2.927
4.662
3.965
8.944
0.619+
1.330+
26.851
0.145
5.404
0.006
+ p < 0.10; p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.001.
effort and project success has been uncovered, with R2 = 0.145,

p < 0.001.
In order to confirm the final model, we completed a general
regression analysis with the interaction terms (see Table X). The
result of this model is both a very good p value <0.001 and a
relatively strong R2 = 0.145. Tests of residuals for this model
also showed good results. Normal probability plots, pp plots
and homoscedasticity plots were good. This model was also
regressed against the success factor and efficiency factor. The
success factor produced very similar results, while regression
against the efficiency factor had a good p value but a lower R2
of 0.079.
We can now graph the resulting curve (see Fig. 3). However,
since there are three moderators impacting the shape of this
curve, we need to make assumptions on their values. If we
assume that these moderators have maximum impact on the
relationship, a project is potentially impacted by 1.5 success
factor levels out of 5 if planning time is too low.
One can note from this graph that the y intercept indicates that
for zero upfront planning projects still show average success.
However, these curves refer to averages of variable projects with
numerous moderators in play. Many projects also do substantial
planning during execution. The point we must take away is that
for the average project, doing no upfront planning will reduce
its success rating by 0.5 to 1 success levels. That is, turn a
successful project to an average project, or an average project to
an unsuccessful one. The impact on projects that have an overly
long planning phase is even more severe.
470
TABLE X
MULTIPLE REGRESSION OF FINAL MODEL AGAINST OVERALL SUCCESS FACTOR WITH MODERATOR INTERACTION TERMS
Regression Summary for Dependent Variable: Overall success factor R = 0.387; R2 = 0.150; Adjusted R2 = 0.145; p < 0.000
Beta
B
p-level
Intercept
WBS Planning effort index
WBS Planning effort index 2
experience Planning effort index
experience Planning effort index 2
internal Planning effort index
internal Planning effort index 2
0.898
0.629
0.984
0.966
0.405
0.358
0.405
0.358
3.222
12.648
24.405
2.924
4.653
3.960
8.928
0.713
1.495
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.005
TABLE XI
CALCULATED OPTIMUM PLANNING INDEX VALUES FOR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLANNING INDEXES AND SUCCESS FACTORS
Planning Effort index
Overall success
Project success
Project Efficiency
Mean
Reported planning index average
0.255
0.248
0.250
0.251
0.153
helps to validate the research methodology. Finally, the results

are higher than the averages found in this survey as reported in
Table V.
Finally, our third hypothesis is supported.
V. SUMMARY
Fig. 3.
Planning effort index versus success for maximum moderator values.
Our second hypothesis is therefore supported.

project success.
C. Optimum Planning Effort
Since there is a quadratic relationship between planning
effort and success factors, it was possible to calculate a maximum to the resulting quadratic curve [52]. The results are given
in Table XI. We can see from this table that the optimum planning amounts are relatively consistent between the three success
factors. In addition, optimum planning values were calculated
on various subsets of the data.
The mean project planning effort reported by respondents
was substantially lower at 15.3% of total effort. This confirms a
view that should not be surprising to practitioners; not enough
planning is being done and that if longer planning phases were
the norm, there would be higher overall project success.
These results are interesting from a number of viewpoints.
They are in line with the approximately 2033% effort spent
on planning identified in the literature review [37], [39], [40].
Second, this result is lower than the R2 = 0.33 with efficiency
and R2 = 0.34 with success reported from the literature review
metaanalysis (see Table II) implying that there can still be a return on investment from spending 25% of effort on the planning
phase. The three results are also within 0.01 of each other, which
Our hypotheses were as follows.

H1: There exists a relationship between planning quality
and project success.
project success.
These three hypotheses were all supported. This research did
confirm the relationship between planning effort and project
success and that a quadratic relationship exists between the
percentage of effort spent planning and project success. This
relationship showed statistical significance with a low p value
but also had a low R2 value, which showed a relatively weak
relationship. After completing moderator analysis, a model was
derived that showed that this relationship had an R2 of 0.15,
which is a notable relationship for factors in the study of project
management. Projects are often large, complex efforts and any
one factor that can account for 15% of their success is important.
This satisfactorily answered our research question: What is the
impact of the amount of planning effort on project success.
Table XII gives a summary of the findings. We can see that
with the moderator analysis complete, we have both a model
with a better fit as well as higher statistical significance. This
shows even more statistical significance for the full model including moderators. The planning effort has a stronger link with
overall success than with project efficiency. This may indicate
that shortening planning cycles impact projects by reducing
their final value to the company and stakeholders even though
managers may still be able to deliver them on time and budget.
471
TABLE XII
SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS OF BINOMIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLANNING INDEXES AND SUCCESS FACTORS
Base
Overall success factor (R2 )
Success Factor (R2 )
Efficiency Factor (R2 )
Moderators included
Overall success factor (R2 )
Success Factor (R2 )
Efficiency Factor (R2 )
0.006
0.006
0.003
0.145
0.142
0.079
Planning Effort index
p < 0.05; p < 0.01; p < 0.001
TABLE XIII
SUMMARY OF SUBGROUPS ANALYSIS FOR OPTIMUM PLANNING LEVELS
Region North
America
Team type
International
Industry
Professional
Services
IndustryEducation
Industry
Government
IndustryRetail
B-Intercept
B-Planning
effort index
B-Planning
effort index 2
Valid N
Average
planning effort
Optimum
planning level
3.278
2.559
5.656
0.031
756
0.151
0.226
3.156
3.035
7.032
0.03
442
0.149
0.216
3.065
4.313
8.575
0.087
54
0.139
0.251
3.009
6.631
15.779
0.118
42
0.132
0.210
3.346
1.517
5.167
0.105
152
0.126
0.147
2.421
5.303
5.208
0.108
30
0.173
0.509
Our findings and methodology are supported by those of

Choo [43]. He adopted a similar methodology and found
R2 = 0.148 between problem definition duration and project
duration/savings though our findings are more general in definition and breadth [43]. In addition, our optimum planning index
findings fall within Choos range of optimum problem definition
times of between 0.20 and 0.30 of total project time. The very
close concordance of these results from two unrelated studies,
speak to the robustness of the results.
A. Limitation of the Study and Robustness
Monosource bias is a limitation of this study. Data on each
project were collected from only one individual. This is, unfortunately, is somewhat unavoidable in a global, open, on-line
survey. Steps were taken to reduce this impact by requesting
a successful and an unsuccessful project from each participant
and by granting both company and personal anonymity to participants [49]. As well, the results of this research are in concordance with other research such as Choo [43] where monosource
bias was not an issue. Future research could, however, measure this effect through interviews with a wider range of project
stakeholders either in a smaller, more targeted survey or using
qualitative techniques.
The initial low R2 value was a concern area in this research.
Low R values with low p values can still be significant, though
some questions the importance of the relationship [48]. A variety
of investigations were undertaken to confirm the robustness of
this result when the initial R2 was lower than expected.
1) Analysis of polynomials with higher powers: This did
not yield solutions with better p or higher R. p values
increased p = 0.08 for power 3 models and p = 0.15 for
models with powers of 4 rendering them not statistically
significant.
2) Linear analysis of subsets of the data from planning effort index of 0.01 to 0.24: This did not produce a more
statistically significant result while R2 fell to 0.0047.
3) Analysis using log of effort index: This did not produce a
statistically significant result: p increased to 0.15
4) Regression of the hours spent planning rather than the
index value: This did not yield solutions with better p or
higher R.
5) Alternative measurement specifications for project success were investigated and produced results were comparable to the reported ones.
None of these attempts yielded results that had both an
acceptable p value and higher R values. As well, subsets of
the data were examined in the analysis of some subgroups such
as industries and regions. For those groups where there were adequate data for statistical significance, R2 results were similarly
low. They typically fall in the 0.0050.02 range. Subsets with
p values in the 0.10 range, which are out of statistical range
for this research, also showed similar low R characteristics.
This supports the validity of the research methodology. With
the moderator impact accounted for, higher R2 values became
apparent.
Subgroups were also analyzed to confirm optimum planning
levels (see Table XIII). Below is a summary of some of those
analyses. The statistical significance level (p 0.05) was
relaxed to p0.10 to allow a broader view. Note that these
smaller groups do not have the very good p values of the other
parts of this paper. Subgroups not noted below had even higher
p values and were not considered. This is likely due to the issue
that several hundred projects are required for a statistically valid
sample and in most cases, this volume of data was not available
for those groups. The results show some of the variation
between industries. Retail, for example, shows a very high
472
SURVEY QUESTIONS
Category
Project effort
Planning phase effort
Project success ratingoverall

Success: Sponsor feedback
Success: Meeting budget goals
Success: Meeting timeline goals

Success: Meeting scope/requirements
Success: Teams view
Success: Clients view
Success: Users view
Project team size
Project complexity
Project length
WBS
Goals/Vision Statement
Novelty to the organization

Internal versus vendor
Local versus remote team
Level of use of technology
New product versus maintenance
Experience level of team

Degree of stakeholder engagement
Methodology type
Question
Response ranges
Reference
What was the total project effort (in person

days).
What was the total effort expended on the
planning phase (person days)? Planning:
everything before execution.
How do you rate the overall success of the
project?
How did the project sponsors and
stakeholders rate the success of the
project?
How successful was the project in meeting
project budget goals?
Numericalperson days
[53]
Numericalperson days
[53]
5 point scalefailure, not fully successful,

mixed, successful, very successful
5 point scalesee above
[47]

project time goals?
scope and requirements goals?
How do you rate the project teams
satisfaction with project?
How do you rate the clients satisfaction
with the projects results?
How do you rate end users satisfaction
with project results?
How large was the project team (full time
staff equivalent)
Rate the complexity of the project
What was the project length (full lifecycle)
Rate the detail level of the WBS used the
project
Rate the applicability/quality of the vision
statement or project goal definition for the
project.
How new is this type of project to the
organization?
What percentage of project was completed
by vendors?
Where were the team members located?
Choose the option that best fits the
majority of team members.
Low tech indicates none or very mature
technology where super high-tech
indicates the use or development of
completely new technology.
Does this project involve developing a new
product, installation or system or is it
related to maintenance of what already
exists?
How experienced was the project team?
How engaged were the key stakeholders
for the project?
How much of the project was done using
agile or iterative techniques? (100 = fully
agile, 0 = fully waterfall, 50 = an equal
mix of agile and waterfall techniques.)
planning optimum perhaps because for retail projects, the majority of work is really in the planning. There is a little to build
in execution compared to construction and IT, for example. This
is an interesting result with only 30 datapoints. Interestingly,
the optimum planning level for government projects was quite
low. One can speculate that they are less dependent on upfront
planning and perhaps more dependent on other success drivers
such as change management or stakeholder management. One
can argue this is in keeping with the work of Flyvbjerg et al.
[36]. In general, however, the subgroups analysis is in the range
of and validates the overall results.
[23], [47]
7 point scale> 60% over, 4559% over,

3044% over, 1529% over, 114% over,
on budget, under budget
[2], [10], [47]
[2]
[23]
[23]
[23]
7 point scale
[53]
3 point scaleLow, Medium, High

3 point scale< 1 year 1 to 3 years, >
3 years
4 point scaleExcellent, Good, Poor,
Very Poor/Not used
[54]
[12]
[27], [53]
[47]
6 point scale
[53]
3 point scale
[53]
4 point scale
[47]
3 point scale
[47]
3 point scale
4 point scale
[5]
[9]
6 point scale80100%, 6079%,

4059%, 2039%, 119%, 0%
[55]
[2], [10]
[24]
B. Summary of Recommendations
Planning is important to project success as numerous authors
have previously written [4], [5], [22]. It is clear from this research that the average project is not spending enough time on
upfront planning to maximize success. This should not be surprising to researchers or practitioners; it appears that in industry,
not enough planning is being done and that if longer planning
phases were the norm, there would be higher overall project
success. The inverted-U-shaped relationship between planning
effort and success is significant and should be considered in
future research.
The planning phase effort does not impact all aspects of success equally. The planning phase effort has the strongest relationship with overall project success. Reducing the effort spent
on the planning phase may impact projects by reducing their
final value to customers, stakeholders, and the company. This
may be the case even though managers may still be able to
deliver them on time and within budget.
The phenomenon that projects may not be planning adequately could be a factor in the high project failure rates reported
in the literature [6], [21]. It is recommended that projects consider doing more planning upfront both for traditional projects
and for agile projects. However, projects with a too long
planning phase were also found to have lower success ratings.
Projects that schedule more than 25% effort on the upfront
planning phase should be reviewed for progress and risk factors. Overplanning could be a symptom of a project that is too
complex to deliver successfully, a lack of firm requirements or
of a team that is not experienced enough in this project area: all
of which could potentially lead to a failed project.
C. Areas for Future Research
This research does present some results that warrant further
investigation.
1) Industry differences: Further research should consider
focusing on specific industries, consolidating industry
groups or collecting a larger volume of data.
2) Regional differences: This may be potential for research
on regional differences from a variety of viewpoints: business environment, culture, infrastructure, and tradition.
3) Planning phase time: A research effort, perhaps qualitative, looking specifically at the factors that define the time
spent on the planning phase could be considered.
4) Planning expertise: The impact of planning expertise,
planning experience, or planning phase training on the
required planning time and impact on project success is a
factor that could be further examined.
5) Cost/Benefit of planning: The cost/benefit of additional
planning for organizations that deliver projects is an area
for potential future investigation.
C. APPENDIX
See Appendix Table in previous page.
REFERENCES
[1] J. R. Turner, M. Huemann, F. T. Anbari, and C. N. Bredillet, Perspectives
on Projects. Evanston, IL, USA: Routledge, 2010.
[2] D. Dvir, T. Raz, and A. Shenhar, An empirical analysis of the relationship
between project planning and project success, Int. J. Project Manage.,
vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 8995, 2003.
[3] Y.-R. Wang and G. E. Gibson, A study of preproject planning and project
success using ANN and regression models, in Proc. 25th Int. Symp.
Autom. Robot. Constr., 2008, pp. 110.
[4] P. W. G. Morris, Key issues in project management, in Project Management Institute Project Management Handbook, J. K. Pinto, Ed. Newtown
Square, PA, USA: Project Management Institute, 1998.
[5] M. Thomas, P. H. Jacques, J. R. Adams, and J. Kihneman-Woote, Developing an effective project: Planning and team building combined, Project
Manage. J., vol. 39, no. 4, pp. 105113, 2008.
473
[6] R. Sessions, The IT complexity crisis: Danger and opportunity, (2009).

[Online]. Available: http://objectwatch.com/whitepapers, accessed Oct.
2013.
[7] J. K. Pinto and D. P. Slevin, Project success: Definitions and measurement
techniques, Project Manage. J., vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 6772, 1988.
[8] A. Shenhar and D. Dvir, Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond
Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation. Watertown, MA, USA:
Harvard Business, 2007.
[9] P. Serrador and J. R. Turner, The relationship between project success
and project efficiency, Project Manage. J., vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 3039, 2015.
[10] O. Zwikael and S. Globerson, Benchmarking of project planning and
success in selected industries, Benchmarking, Int. J., vol. 13, no. 6,
pp. 688700, 2006.
[11] K. Jugdev and R. Muller, A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success, Project Manage. J., vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 1931,
2005.
[12] T. J. Cooke-Davies, The real success factors in projects, Int. J. Project
Manage., vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 185190, Apr. 2002.
[13] H. Mintzberg, The Rise and Fall of Strategic Planning: Reconceiving Roles
for Planning, Plans, Planners. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall,
1994.
[14] E. Gibson and R. Gebken, Design quality in pre-project planning: applications of the project definition rating index, Building Res. Inform.,
vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 346356, 2003.
[15] A. Shenhar, IEEE Pers. Commun., 2011.
[16] M. R. Hamilton, and J. G. E. Gibson, Benchmarking preproject-planning
effort, J. Manage. Eng., vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 2533, 1996.
[17] Z. Shehu and A. Akintoye, The critical success factors for effective
programme management: a pragmatic approach, Built Human Environ.
Rev., vol. 2, pp. 124, 2009.
[18] G. Gibson, Y. Wang, C. Cho, and M. Pappas, What is pre-project planning, anyway? J. Manage. Eng., vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 3542, 2006.
[19] E. Gibson and M. P. Pappas, Starting Smart: Key Practices for Developing
Scopes of Work for Facility Projects. Washington, DC, USA: National
Academy Press, 2003.
[20] S. Collyer, C. Warren, B. Hemsley and C. Stevens, Aim, fire, aim
Project planning styles in dynamic environments, Project Manage. J.,
vol. 41, no. 4, pp. 108121, 2010.
[21] The Standish Group, CHAOS Manifesto 2011, 2011.
[22] R. M. Posten, Preventing software requirements specification errors with
IEEE 830, IEEE Softw., vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 8386, Jan. 1985.
[23] R. Muller and J. R. Turner, The impact of performance in project management knowledge areas on earned value results in information technology
projects, Int. Project Manage. J., vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 4451, 2001.
[24] R. C. Tausworthe, The work breakdown structure in software project
management, J. Syst. Softw., vol. 1, pp. 181186, 1980.
[25] C. Deephouse, T. Mukhopadhyay, D. R. Goldenson, and M. I. Kellner,
Software processes and project performance, J. Manage. Inform. Syst.,
vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 187205, Dec. 1995.
[26] A. Munns and B. Bjeirmi, The role of project management in achieving
project success, Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 8187, 1996.
[27] J. K. Pinto and J. E. Prescott, Variations in critical success factors over
the stages in the project life cycle, J. Manage., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 518,
Mar. 1988.
[28] A. J. Shenhar, One size does not fit all projects: Exploring classical contingency domains, Manage. Sci., vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 394414,
2001.
[29] D. Dvir and T. Lechler, Plans are nothing, changing plans is everything:
The impact of changes on project success, Res. Policy, vol. 33, no. 1, pp.
115, Jan. 2004.
[30] A. J. Shenhar, A. Tishler, D. Dvir, S. Lipovetsky, and T. Lechler, Refining the search for project success factors: A multivariate typological
approach, R&D Manage., vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 111126, 2002.
[31] J. R. Turner and R. Muller, On the nature of the project as a temporary organization, Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 18,
2003.
[32] E. S. Andersen, Warning: Activity planning is hazardous to your
projects health, Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 2, no. 14, pp. 8994,
1996.
[33] C. Bart, Controlling new product R&D projects, R&D Manage., vol. 23,
no. 3, pp. 187198, 1993.
[34] S. Collyer and C. M. Warren, Project management approaches for dynamic environments, Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 355364,
2009.
474
[35] M. Aubry, B. Hobbs, and D. Thuillier, Organisational project management: An historical approach to the study of PMOs, Int. J. Project Manage., vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 3843, 2008.
[36] B. Flyvbjerg, M. S. Holm, and S. Buhl, Underestimating costs in public
works projects: Error or lie? J. Am. Planning Assoc., vol. 68, no. 3, pp.
279295, 2002.
[37] P. Chatzoglou and L. A. Macaulay, Requirements capture and IS methodologies, Inform. Syst. J., vol. 6, no. 3,
pp. 209225, 1996.
[38] E. B. Daly, Management of software development, IEEE Trans. Softw.
Eng., vol. 3, pp. 229242, May 1977.
[39] D. Nobelius and L. Trygg, Stop chasing the front end process
Management of the early phases in product development projects, Int.
J. Project Manage., vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 331340, 2002.
[40] M. Wideman, Managing the Development of Building Projects for Better
Results. (2000, Dec.) [Online]. Available: www.maxwideman.com
[41] C. Kaner, J. Falk, and H. Q. Nguyen, Testing Computer Software, 2nd ed.
Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley, 1993.
[42] A. A. Choma and S. Bhat, Success vs failure: What is the difference between the best and worst projects? presented at the PMI Global Congress,
Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
[43] A. S. Choo, Defining problems fast and slow: The u-shaped effect
of problem definition time on project duration, Prod. Oper. Manage.,
vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 14621479, 2014.
[44] M. Hwang, J. Windsor, and A. Pryor, Building a knowledge base for MIS
research: A meta-analysis of a systems success model, Inform. Resources
Manage. J., vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 2632, 2000.
[45] W. Trochim, Positivism and post-positivism, Research Methods Knowledge Base. Cincinnati, OH, USA: Atomic Dog, 2006.
[46] P. Serrador, The impact of planning on project success: A literature
review, J. Mod. Project Manage., vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 2839, 2013.
[47] A. J. Shenhar, D. Dvir, O. Levy, and A. C. Maltz, Project success: A
multidimensional strategic concept, Long Range Planning, vol. 34, no.
6,xbrk pp. 699725, 2001.
[48] D. Cooper, and P. Schindler, Business Research Methods. New York, NY,
USA: McGraw-Hill, 2001.
[49] P. Podsakoff, S. MacKenzie, J. Lee, and N. Podsakoff, Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies, J. Appl. Psychol., vol. 88, no. 5, pp. 879903, 2003.
[50] S. Sharma, R. Durand, and O. Gur-Arie, Identification and analysis of
moderator variables, J. Marketing Res., vol. 18, pp. 291300, 1981.
[51] J. Nunnally, Psychometric Theory. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill,
1978.
[52] W. Beyer, CRC Standard Mathematical Tables. Boca Raton, FL, USA:
CRC Press, 1987.
[53] L. H. Crawford, J. B. Hobbs, and J. R. Turner, Project categorization
systems and their use in organisations: An empirical study, presented at
the PMI Research Conference, Jul. 2004, London, U.K., 2004.
[54] V. Dulewicz and M. Higgs, Assessing leadership styles and organisational
context, J. Manage. Psychol., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 105123, 2005.
[55] M. Ceschi, A. Sillitti, G. Succi, and S. De Panfilis, Project management
in plan-based and agile companies, IEEE Softw., vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 2127,
May/Jun. 2005.
Pedro Serrador received the B.Sc.(Hons.) degree in

physics and computer science from the University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada; the MBA degree
from Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, Scotland;
and the Ph.D. degree in strategy and programme and
project management from SKEMA Business School
(Ecole Suprieure de Commerce de Lille), Euralille,
France.
He is a Writer and a Researcher on project management topics and the Owner of Serrador Project
Management, a consultancy in Toronto, Canada. He
is also an Adjunct Professor at Humber College, Toronto, and the University of Toronto, Toronto. He specializes in technically complex and high risk
projects, vendor management engagements, and tailoring and implementing
project management methodologies; he has worked on projects in the financial,
telecommunications, utility, medical imaging, and simulations sectors for some
of Canadas largest companies. His areas of research interest are project success,
planning, and agile, and he has presented a number of peer-reviewed papers on
these topics at academic conferences. He is an author of books and articles on
project management, and is also a regular speaker at PMI global congresses.
Dr. Serrador received the PMI 2012 James R. Snyder International Student
Paper of the Year Award and the Major de Promotion Award for best Ph.D.
Thesis 20122013 from SKEMA Business School.
Rodney Turner is a Professor of Project Management at SKEMA Business School, Lille, France,
where he is the Scientific Director for the Ph.D.
in Project and Programme Management, and is the
SAIPEM Professor of Project Management at the
Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy. He is also an
Adjunct Professor at the University of Technology
Sydney, Sydney, Australia. He is the author or editor
of 18 books. His research areas cover project management in small to medium enterprises, the management of complex projects, the governance of project
management including ethics and trust, project leadership, and human resource
management in the project-oriented firm.
Mr. Turner is an editor of the International Journal of Project Management.
He is the Vice-President and an Honorary Fellow of the United Kingdoms
Association for Project Management, and an Honorary Fellow and former President and Chairman of the International Project Management Association.

What Is Enough Planning

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

What Is Enough Planning

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

462

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, VOL. 62, NO. 4, NOVEMBER 2015