7 CASE STUDIES
7.6 Cross-case analysis
7.6.1 Project success and performance
Case A and case B have been rated as successful. Both of them fulfil all the success criteria introduced in the previous chapter. In addition to this, all the informants in the case companies A and B perceived the projects as successful. Case C and case D have been rated as unsuccessful. Both of them fail to fulfil three of the four success criteria. Only the future potentiality fulfils the criteria, being rated as satisfactory in both unsuccessful cases. In addition to this, all the informants of the case companies in question perceived the project as unsuccessful. The categories determining the project success are described in Table 7.25.
Characteristic for both the successful and unsuccessful cases is that the quality ratings of the future potentiality -category are on the highest level compared with the other categories. Also the unsuccessful cases benefited from the project through learning in spite of the fact that the project was a failure in terms of project efficiency, impact on customer and business success.
Table 7.25 Perceived project success
Case A Case B Case C Case D
Project efficiency Very good Good Poor Poor
Impact on customer Very good Good Fair Fair
Business success Excellent Good Poor Poor
Future potentiality Excellent Very good Satisfactory Satisfactory
Perceived project success Successful Successful Unsuccessful Unsuccessful
In Table 7.26 the success of the development projects is evaluated in the light of the perceived improvements or impairments on the performance. The improvements have been marked with a plus sign (+) and the impairments with a minus sign (-). As can be figured out with the successful cases, the positive results have been spread widely, covering all the categories of the project success. With the unsuccessful cases the same phenomenon can be found in case C, but not in case D due to the project’s external nature for the performing company. In case C the performance changes were as expansive as in the successful cases, but mostly negative in nature.
The cases suggest that the internal business development projects have affected the performing organisations widely also in areas and functions not mentioned as project goals. With the successful cases the success seems to spread out to areas and functions not mentioned as project goals, and also with the unsuccessful cases the failure seems to spread out to other areas and functions. Further, the cases suggest that both the successful and unsuccessful projects produce performance improvements to the company. As a result of learning, in every case the knowledge and the skills of the employees and the managers improved in a way that is perceived to generate benefits to the company in the future.
The case evidence also suggests that the visible project success during the implementation phase have an effect on the other dimensions especially through the motivation of the project participants.
Table 7.26 Perceived performance of the business development projects Case A
Successful Case B
Successful Case C
Unsuccessful Case D Unsuccessful
Employee satisfaction, working atmosphere
+/- = both negative and positive impacts
When measuring or assessing the impact of the project on the case company and its performance, within every case the success categories were appropriate, but the indicators inside these categories varied depending on the project and on the company’s measuring practices.
The project efficiency was able to assess or measure in every case with the indicators of time, cost and quality, derived from the Iron Triangle of the project.
The impact on customer was able to assess with three indicators: customer satisfaction, delivery reliability and business image, reflecting changes in appreciation in the eyes of the customers. Customer satisfaction and the business image were used in both successful cases and in one unsuccessful case. Only one of the case companies was measuring delivery reliability. The business success was able to measure or assess with seven indicators, five of them from the list validated by Gupta and Govindarajan (1984). It was necessary to add two indicators, because they were essential for the performance measurement in two of the case companies; productivity of the employees measured by the sales/salaries, and quality measured by delivery time, product quality and/or production quality. The operating profit ratio was used in every case and the sales growth was used in both successful cases. The future potentiality -category includes one indicator used in all the cases, learning over time. The rest of the indicators vary depending on the project. The assessment of the project success is mostly based on the perceived performance figured out with perceptual and quasi-perceptual measures. The objective performance gave support to the assessments.
7.6.2 Entrepreneurial dimension
With the successful cases the strength of the intention and the business ability were at least at a good level. Both case companies perceived these factors as critical for the project success. Both successful cases perceived the opportunity arena as good, but not very promising.
With unsuccessful cases the strength of the intention and the opportunity arena were perceived at least as good, but both case companies lacked the business ability to realise these opportunities. The strength of the intention and the business ability were perceived as failure factors. The factors key to success and key to failure were similar in the entrepreneurial dimension. Table 7.27 summarises the factors of the entrepreneurial dimension.
Table 7.27 Summary of the entrepreneurial dimension
Case A
Successful Case B
Successful Case C
Unsuccessful Case D Unsuccessful Strength of intention Very good Success factor Very good
Success factor Good
Failure factor Very good Business ability Excellent
Success factor Good
Success factor Satisfactory
Failure factor Fair
Failure factor
Opportunity arena Good Good Good Very good
The cases suggest that the strength of the intention and the business ability are key factors to project success. Both are needed in order to realise new business opportunities. The cases also indicate that the strength of the intention is necessary for the project success, but is not enough to prevent failure.
7.6.3 Project preparation dimension
The successful cases had managed to balance setting of goals and allocation of resources. In both successful cases the business impact was not clearly defined.
Prior knowledge was the factor indicating contradictory quality ratings within the successful cases, being excellent in case B and neutral in case A. Case A had started the project without prior knowledge, but managed successfully with the knowledge creation and sharing process inside the company.
The unsuccessful cases differed from the successful ones in terms of adequate prior knowledge and the balance between goals and resources. The resources were under-estimated in relation to the goals and both cases lacked prior knowledge. The business impact was unclear in both the successful and unsuccessful cases.
Prior knowledge was a key factor affecting both the project success and the project failure. The clarity of the business impact was not a key factor to either the project success or to the project failure. Table 7.28 gives a summary of the project preparation dimension.
Table 7.28 Summary of the project preparation dimension
Case A
Successful Case B
Successful Case C
Unsuccessful Case D Unsuccessful Balance between goals and
resources Good Very good Neutral Neutral
Prior knowledge of the
project area Neutral Excellent
Success factor Poor Very poor Failure factor Clarity of business impact Neutral Fair Neutral Fair
Failure factor
The cases suggest that prior knowledge is an important factor for the project success, but it was not considered as critical in two of the cases. The evidence from case A suggests that without prior knowledge the business development project can be successful, when efficient and continuous learning is organised to support the project implementation. The case evidence from the unsuccessful cases also tells that if the company fails to create the missing knowledge, the lack of knowledge will be a failure factor. So, adequate knowledge is a key factor, but it can be either prior knowledge or created for the project implementation.
7.6.4 Change management dimension
In general terms, the successful cases succeeded with the change management.
Almost all the factors had good or very good quality ratings, with the two exceptions in case B, where communication and the need for change were rated as satisfactory. Both successful cases regarded the participation of the employees as an important factor to the project success. In addition to this, in case A high motivation was perceived as a key factor. In case B the high motivation was considered as a source for the high participation.
With the unsuccessful cases all the quality ratings of the factors were below the ones of the successful cases.
Participation was perceived as an important factor for the project success.
Motivation was perceived as important for both the project success and the project failure. Table 7.29 summarises the change management dimension.
Table 7.29 Summary of the change management dimension
Case A
Successful Case B
Successful Case C
Unsuccessful Case D Unsuccessful
Leadership Very good Good Fair Neutral
Need for change Very good Satisfactory Neutral Satisfactory
Participation Very good
Success factor Very good
Success factor Neutral Good
Communication Good Satisfactory Neutral Neutral
Motivation Very good
Success factor Very good Neutral
Failure factor Good
The cases suggest that participation and motivation are key factors for the project success. Motivation was considered as critical in case A, and as a factor affecting the participation positively in case B. Case C perceived the lack of motivation as a factor for the project failure.
7.6.5 Project management dimension
In general, the successful cases also succeeded better with the project management. All the factors were rated between neutral and very good. The planning and documentation had the lowest quality rating. The projects were guided by a strong vision, which was translated into action plans only in the owner-managers’ heads. The training provided to the employees was perceived as critical to project success.
On average, in the unsuccessful cases almost all the factors of the project management dimension had lower quality ratings than in the successful cases.
Similar to the successful cases, also the unsuccessful cases had the lowest quality ratings in the planning and documentation. Also the unsuccessful projects were directed on the basis of a strong vision. Both the successful and unsuccessful cases lacked sophisticated planning practices. This evidence did not support that it was critical to the success or the failure. Table 7.30 gives a summary of the project management dimension.
Table 7.30 Summary of the project management dimension
Case A
Successful Case B
Successful Case C
Unsuccessful Case D Unsuccessful Planning and
documentation Satisfactory Neutral Fair Poor
Project organisation Very good Satisfactory Good Satisfactory Risk analysis and problem
solving Good Good Fair Fair
Control and feedback Good Good Neutral Satisfactory
Training Good
Success factor Good
Success factor Fair Neutral
The cases suggest that training is a key success factor of the project management dimension. It ensures that by providing appropriate and well-timed training to the employees, the knowledge for the project implementation and deployment is adequate.
7.6.6 PIP-profile
The general view of the PIP-profile of the successful cases illustrates that both projects had factors indicating high performance and low performance (Figure 7.29). Half of the strategic factors have scores above the critical 50 %. In both successful cases the top management support –factor has high scores and the project planning and schedule -factor has low scores. Two thirds of the tactical factors have scores above the critical 50 % -level. The problem solving and the personnel –factors indicate high performance in both cases. Low performance can be found in communication, technical tasks and control and feedback –factors. The strategic factors indicate a slightly lower performance than the tactical factors, but both categories have factors indicating high performance. In both successful cases the project performance is above the critical 50 %.
PIP-Profile -Successful cases
0 20 40 60 80 100
Project succes Personnel Technical tasks Control and feedback Communication Problem solving Project planning and schedule Top management support Project mission
Case A Case B
Strategic factors
Tactical factors
Figure 7.29 PIP-profile of the successful projects
In the unsuccessful cases, both the strategic and tactical factors were skipped.
Table 7.30 summarises the PIP-profile of the unsuccessful cases.
PIP-Profile - Unsuccessful cases
0 20 40 60 80 100
Project succes Personnel Technical tasks C ontrol and feedback C ommunication Problem solving Project planning and
schedule Top management support
Project mission
C ase C C ase D
Strategic factors
Tactical factors
Figure 7.30 PIP-profile of the unsuccessful projects
In case D the top management support indicates high performance. The rest of the factors are below the critical 50 %. In case C all the factors are below the critical 50
%. The project performance is low in both unsuccessful cases, indicating 10 % level. Only 10 % of the companies in the reference database give lower scores.
The cases suggest that both the strategic and tactical factors perform quite well in the successful cases. Further, the cases suggest that both of them under-perform in the unsuccessful cases.