Summary of the cross case analysis

In general the successful cases performed well in every dimension. The entrepreneurial and change management dimensions had slightly higher quality ratings than the project preparation and project management dimensions. The project success was not a consequence of one dimension. Figure 7.31 offers a general view of the successful cases.

The unsuccessful cases performed well concerning the entrepreneurial dimension, but the rest of the dimensions had lower quality ratings (Figure 7.32). Similar to the successful cases, also in the unsuccessful cases the entrepreneurial and change management dimensions had slightly higher quality ratings than the project preparation and project management dimensions. Both the successful and unsuccessful cases were led by strong visions. Further, both the successful and unsuccessful cases were unwilling or incapable to concentrate on the task-oriented functions, such as planning, scheduling the work and supervising the employees in setting and achieving the performance goals.

The entrepreneurial dimension had high quality ratings in both the successful and unsuccessful cases. It seems to be a necessary condition for the project success, but not a sufficient condition to prevent project failure.

Excellent Neutral Very poor Project

performance

Entrepreneurial dimension

Project preparation dimension

Project management dimension

Change management dimension

Case A Case B

Figure 7.31 A general view of the successful cases

Excellent Neutral Very poor Project

performance

Entrepreneurial dimension

Project preparation dimension

Project management dimension

Change management dimension

Case C Case D

Figure 7.32 A general view of the unsuccessful cases

The general views indicate that the successful cases perform well in all the success dimensions, and the unsuccessful cases under-perform in all the success dimensions. This evidence supports the proposition introduced in the theoretical framework (Chapter 5.3). The framework suggests that success in a business development project depends on a mix of success dimensions. Good performance in one success dimension affects the others. This case evidence suggests that successful business development projects have well-balanced good performance concerning all the dimensions. Good performance in one dimension is not enough to guarantee project success, but it gives a good base for the other dimensions. The other way round, poor performance in one success dimension affects the others, leading to poor performance of the project. This is in line with Pasanen (2003, 202) who has discovered that the SME success is dependent on several interrelated factors, and success in one area leads to success in the other areas and so creates an upward success spiral. In this case study, failure in one area seemed to lead to failure in other areas, creating a downward failure spiral.

What are the factors perceived to affect the project success or project failure? The case companies with successfully implemented projects introduced the following as important factors: strength of intention, business ability, a high level of participation, and training. In addition to this, case B assessed prior knowledge in the project area as a key to the success, and case A the high level of motivation of the employees. With the unsuccessful cases the failure factor mentioned by both companies was the inadequate business ability. In addition to this, missing strength of intention, lack of prior knowledge, unclear business impact and low level of the motivation were mentioned as factors for the failure. Table 7.31 indicates the key factors of the success and failure. The criterion for being a key factor is that the factor’s importance was recognised in the case company and the quality rating supports this view.

Table 7.31 Summary of the key factors

Key success factors Key failure factors Entrepreneurial dimension Strong intention

Business ability Unstable intention Business inability Project preparation dimension Prior knowledge or creation of

required knowledge Lack of the prior knowledge Change management dimension Participation

Motivation Missing motivation

Project management dimension Training

How to measure or assess the project success and the changes of performance affected by the business development project? With both the successful and unsuccessful cases the four categories of project success: the project efficiency, the impact on the customer, the business success and the future potentiality, gave an appropriate framework for this. There were some common indicators, applicable to assessing or measuring the performance in most of the cases. The project efficiency was measured or assessed by using three traditional indicators: time, cost and quality. The customer satisfaction and the business image were used for measuring or assessing the impact on customer. The operating profit ratio and the sales growth were used to measure the business success. Learning over time was used in every case as an indicator of the future potentiality –category. Table 7.32 summarises the common indicators for each project success category for measuring or assessing the project success.

Table 7.32 Common indicators for measuring or assessing project success

Project success category Common indicators

Project efficiency Time

Cost Quality

Impact on customer Customer satisfaction Business image

Business success Operating profit ratio

Sales growth

Future potentiality Learning over time

The rest of the indicators vary depending on the case. Thus the list of indicators is a basis that should be complemented, depending on the features of the individual project and the individual company.

How did the development projects affect the company’s performance? The internal business development projects, both successful and unsuccessful affected the performing company widely also in areas and functions not initially targeted. With the successful cases the success spread out to areas and functions not mentioned as project goals, and also with the unsuccessful cases the failure seemed to spread out to other areas and functions. As a result of learning, both the successful and unsuccessful projects affected the company’s performance positively by generating new knowledge, skills and practices that can be utilised in the future.