Research paper on project performance evaluatio the case study of fixed line next generation...

September, 2013 Page i

Project Performance Evaluation: The case study of Fixed Line –Next

Generation Network project of Ethio Telecom.

By Derese Gemeda Melssie

ID 541111605

Advisor Dr.B.Dayal

A Project Submitted To School Of Graduate Studies of Sikkim Manipal University, Sri Sai College Learning Center, In Partial Fulfillment O f the

Requirement

For The Award of the Degree

Of MBA

IN

[Project Management]

September, 2013

Addis Ababa

September, 2013 Page ii

School of Graduate Studies of Sikkim Manipal University, Sri Sai College Learning Center

“Project Performance Evaluation: The case study of FL-NGN project

of Ethio Telecom.”

By: Derese Gemeda Approved by Board Examiners ________________________ ________ Chairman, Graduate Studies Signature __________________ _________ Research Advisor Signature __________________ _________ Examiner Signature

September, 2013 Page iii

Declaration

I, Derese Gemeda, declare that this work entitled “Project Performance

Evaluation: The case study of FL-NGN project of Ethio Telecom.”, is outcome of

my own effort and study and that all sources of materials used for the study have

been duly acknowledged. I have produced it independently except for the guidance

and suggestion of my Research Advisor.

This study has not been submitted for any degree in this University or any other

University. It is offered for the partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of

Business Administration [MBA] Specialization in Project Management.

Name: Derese Gemeda

Signature____________________________

Date_______________________________

If you have any comment, you can reach the researcher of this paper.

Email- [email protected]

Phone-+251 911 50 97 44

September, 2013 Page iv

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that this project work, “Project Performance Evaluation: The

case Study of FL-NGN project of Ethio Telecom” , undertaken by Derese Gemeda

for the partial fulfillment of Master of Business Administration [MBA]

Specialization in Project Management at Sikkim Manipal University, is an original

work and not submitted earlier for any degree either at this University or any other

University.

Signature _________________________

Date _____________________________

Research Advisor

September, 2013 Page v

Acknowledgment

First of all I would like to forward special thanks to my Almighty God. He gives me courage and

patience while I was faced difficult situation studying this course. I passed every obstacle with

my God support and now I can say loudly Victory is with me at the last moment.

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr.B .Dayal, for his constructive comments and guidance to

successfully complete this project. I would also like to express my appreciation for those staffs of

Ethio Telecom who Support me in providing the relevant data required.

Finally, I am also thankful for all my family and friends who were around me and supported me

in any way during my studies. Special thank to Dagmawit Tilahun, She supports me in different

way for my successful accomplishment of my studies.

September, 2013 Page vi

Abstract

Project performance evaluation is systematic way of gathering necessary data

about project to evaluate project deliverable whether it meets its objective

according to pre-planned standards or not and based on the result of evaluation to

identify factors which affect project in positive and negative ways with this

connection helps to suggest ways in which project deliverable meet as it pre-

planned objective.

This Research paper is project evaluation nature of research both quantitative

and qualitative approach methods applied. The relevant data was collected

through both secondary and primary sources. Primary data designed to collect

data through close ended questionnaires from respondents of questionnaires in

random probability from sample taken 60 ethio telecom employees (20 employees

who participated in project activity and 40 employees who are using project

deliverables) but out these respondents only 50 employees replied the

questionnaires( 15 employees that have been participated in FL-NGN project and

35 employees of ethio telecom who are using or implementing project deliverables

to operation for end user).Secondary data collected from framework agreement of

project and from project closure report. The collected data analyzed using SPSS

and the result is presented in percentage, in frequency tables and the KPI and

Critical Success/ Failure factor of project analyzed by SPSS and shown their

relation with project performance or achieving project objective in correlation and

regression matrix respectively. From data analyzed, the researcher infer that

project deliverables were not satisfactory for customers , project quality is not as

expected, Budget of project specially onshore part not transparent, There is gap in

knowledge transfer from contractor to client’s employees, Project stakeholders not

September, 2013 Page vii

worked in integrated way to achieve project goal and there is also problem

observed in effective planning ,coordinating and monitoring and controlling of

project activities and From project management knowledge area perspective,

project performance of FL-NGN was not satisfactory enough. So Ethio Telecom in

general and project management office of Ethio Telecom in particular has to

increase its capacity to manage the program and projects by giving special

attention to the project management knowledge areas.

September, 2013 Page viii

TABLE OF CONTENT

ACKNOWLEDGMENT ....................................................................................................................................... V

ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................................... VI

TABLE OF CONTENT ...................................................................................................................................... VIII

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................... XI

LIST OF FIGURE .............................................................................................................................................. XII

ACRONYMS .................................................................................................................................................. XIII

CHAPTER ONE .......................................................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY ................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ............................................................................................................... 3

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY ....................................................................................................................... 3

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS .............................................................................................................................. 4

1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF STUDY ....................................................................................................... 4

1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY .......................................................................................................................... 4

1.7 ORGANIZATION OF PAPER ........................................................................................................................ 4

CHAPTER TWO .......................................................................................................................................... 6

LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 COMPANY BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 WHAT IS NEXT GENERATION NETWORK ............................................................................................. 7

2.3 NEXT GENERATION ACCESS NETWORKS (FL-NGN) .......................................................................... 8

2.4 PROJECT DEFINITION AND CONCEPT ................................................................................................... 9

2.5 PROJECT PERFORMANCE ........................................................................................................................ 11

2.5.1 Project Performance Indicator............................................................................................................. 12

2.5.2 Project Performance Measurement ..................................................................................................... 14

2.5.3 The importance of performance measurement: ................................................................................ 14

2.6 USES OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES ................................................................................................... 14

2.7 PROJECT SUCCESS ..................................................................................................................................... 16

2.8 PROJECT SUCCESS CRITERIA ................................................................................................................ 22

2.9 PROJECT SUCCESS FACTORS ................................................................................................................. 23

2.9.1The Project Manager as a Success Factor ............................................................................................ 25

2.10 PROJECT SUCCESS AND PROJECT PERFORMANCE ...................................................................... 26

2.11 FACTORS AFFECTING PROJECT PERFORMANCE ......................................................................... 27

2.11.1Project Failure ....................................................................................................................................... 27

2.12 HOW OFTEN DO PROJECTS FAIL AND HOW CAN THIS BE MEASURED? ................................ 28

2.13 CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING PROJECT PERFORMANCE ................................................................. 31

2.14 THE PROBLEMS WITH THE SUCCESS/FAILURE DEFINITION ..................................................... 31

September, 2013 Page ix

2.15 PROJECT EVALUATION .......................................................................................................................... 32

2.15.1 Types of evaluation .............................................................................................................................. 32

CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................................................... 34

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 34

3.1 RESEARCH APPROACH ............................................................................................................................. 34

3.2 RESEARCH TYPE ......................................................................................................................................... 34

3.2.1 Research Techniques ............................................................................................................................. 34

3.3 SAMPLE DESIGN .......................................................................................................................................... 34

3.3.1 Population or Universe .......................................................................................................................... 34

3.3.2 Sampling Frame ..................................................................................................................................... 34

3.3.3 Sampling Unit ......................................................................................................................................... 35

3.3.4 Sampling Technique .............................................................................................................................. 35

3.3.5 Sample Size .............................................................................................................................................. 35

3.4 SOURCES OF DATA ..................................................................................................................................... 35

3.4.1 Primary data ........................................................................................................................................... 35

3.4.2 Secondary Data ....................................................................................................................................... 35

3.5 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION .......................................................................................... 35

CHAPTER FOUR ...................................................................................................................................... 36

DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION ............................................................................................. 36

4.1 INITIATIVE AND VISION OF ETC NOW CALLED AS ETHIO TELECOM NATIONAL NETWORK BUILDING ...................................................................................................................................... 36

4.1.1 Initiative .................................................................................................................................................. 36

4.1.2 Vision ........................................................................................................................................................ 36

4.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES .............................................................................................................................. 37

4.3 PROJECT SCOPE .......................................................................................................................................... 37

4.5 PROJECT DELIVERABLES ........................................................................................................................ 38

4.6 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX ........................................................... 38

4.6.1 Project Management .............................................................................................................................. 38

4.6.2 Responsibility matrix issues ................................................................................................................. 38

4.6.3 Resource management .......................................................................................................................... 39

4.6.4 Human resource management ............................................................................................................. 39

4.6.5 Risk management ................................................................................................................................... 39

4.6.6 Change management ............................................................................................................................. 40

4.7 STRUCTURE OF FL-NGN PROJECT MANAGEMENT OFFICE ......................................................... 40

4.8 STAFFS IN THE PROJECT AND PLACEMENT ...................................................................................... 41

4.9 COST OF PROJECT ...................................................................................................................................... 42

4.10 SCHEDULE ................................................................................................................................................... 43

4.10.1 PHASE I Part A ...................................................................................................................................... 43

4.10.2 Phase I Part B ....................................................................................................................................... 44

4.10.3 Phase II Project ..................................................................................................................................... 44

4.11 CAPACITY FOR FL-NGN PROJECT ....................................................................................................... 45

4.11.1 Core Network ........................................................................................................................................ 45

September, 2013 Page x

Table 4.7 project Capacity core network ........................................................................................................... 45

(Source: From FL-NGN project management office) ...................................................................................... 45

4.11.2 Access Network ..................................................................................................................................... 46

Table 4.8 project Capacity of access network .................................................................................................... 46

(Source: From FL-NGN project management office) ...................................................................................... 46

4.12 KEY PROJECT CONTRIBUTORS AND STAKE HOLDERS ............................................................... 46

4.13 DATA ANALYSIS FROM QUESTIONNAIRES ...................................................................................... 46

4.13.1 General back ground of Respondents ............................................................................................... 46

4.13.2 Summative evaluation of FL-NGN Project......................................................................................... 47

4.13.3 Analysis Using Key project performance Indicators (KPI) ............................................................ 50

4.13.3.1 Correlation between Objective and KPI ............................................................................................................ 51

4.13.4 Critical Success /Failure Factor ......................................................................................................... 53

4.13.4.1 Statistical significance .......................................................................................................................................... 54

4.13.4.2 Estimated model coefficients ............................................................................................................................... 54

4.13.4.3 Statistical significance of the independent variables .................................................................................... 56

Putting it all together ......................................................................................................................................... 56

CHAPTER FIVE ....................................................................................................................................... 57

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................................................... 57

5.1 CONCLUSIONS.............................................................................................................................................. 57

5.2 RECOMMENDATION .................................................................................................................................. 58

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 60

ANNEXES ..................................................................................................................................................... I

September, 2013 Page xi

List of Tables Table 4.1 project deliverable

Table4.2 FL-NGN project man power

Table 4.3 cost of project in ETHIOPIAN BIRR

Table 4.4 project schedule of phase I A

Table 4.5 project schedule of phase I B

Table 4.6 project schedule of phase II

Table 4.7 project Capacity core network Table 4.8 project Capacity of access network

Output table 4.1 Descriptive statistics of general information of respondents result from SPSS

Output table 4.2 Descriptive statistics of Summative evaluation result from SPSS

Output table 4.3 Descriptive statistics of KPI result from SPSS

Output table 4.4 A correlation matrix that results from using SPSS Correlation

Output table 4.5 A regression matrix that results from using SPSS regression


Output table4.7 A regression matrix that results from using SPSS regression

September, 2013 Page xii

List of Figure Figure 4.1 Project Management structure

September, 2013 Page xiii

Acronyms ADSL Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line ANOVA Analysis of variance CDMA Code Division Multiple Access CM Cable Modem CO Central Office DETM Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions ETC Ethiopian Telecommunication Corporation EPON Ethernet Passive Optical Network FL Fixed Line GSM Global Service for Mobile GPON Gigabit Passive Optical Network FTT Failure to thrive ICT Information Communication Technology IMS Information Management System IP Internet Protocol ITU International Telecom Union PMBOK Project Management Body Of Knowledge KPI Key Performance Indicator KSI Key Success Indicator MSAG Multi System Access Gateway NGN Next Generation Network NGPO Next Generation Program Office PON Passive Optical Network PTO Public Telecom Operator PSTN Public Switch Telecom Network SHDSL Symmetric High-Speed Digital Subscriber Line SPSS Statistical Package for Social Science QOS Quality of Service VDSL Very Digital Subscriber Line WOBAN Wireless Optical Broadband Access Network ZTE Zhongxing Telecom Enterprise

September, 2013 Page 1

Chapter One

Introduction

1.1 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY

Project valuation involves the systematic collection of information about the activities,

characteristic and outcomes of an activity or action, in order to determine its worth or merit (Dart

et al, 1998). It is a major part of learning, and can provide a wealth of useful information on the

outcomes of a project or action, and the dynamics of those who undertook the work .In other

way, evaluation is a systematic way of reflecting on and assessing the value of what is being

done (i.e. a project, a programme, an event). Evaluation is commonly interpreted as an end

product or an activity taking place at the end of a project. However evaluation should be

considered as a process, taking place across all phases of a project, used to determine what has

happened and whether the initial aims of the project have been carried out and achieved.

Evaluation is more than assessing and measuring; it helps set the stage for a culture of learning,

change and improvement.

Undesirable project performance results across several countries have been well documented in

the literature review. Identified in various forms as low productivity, delays, cost overrun, poor

quality and so on, poor project performance has been noted in several countries, particularly,

developing countries (Makulwasawatudom et al., 2003; Mutijwaa and Rwelamila, 2700; Le-Hoai

et al., 2008).In .addressing the problem Comparing with developing countries, most developed

countries have resorted to the use of measures to assess project performance. This has led to the

modeling of indicators and criteria in which performance could be measured as well as the

factors that influence performance (Shenhar et al., 1997, 2002; Atkinson, 1999, 2000; Belasi and

Tukel, 1996 and so on). This development is seen as positive because performance assessment in

the form of monitoring and controlling is central to effective project management (PMI, 2004).

Studies on these models show that each of them are designed to address different aspects of

project performance; for example, strategy, people, design, process, project, project manager,

organizational culture and so on ( Beatham et al, 2004; Shenhar et al, 1997; Ankrah, 2007;

Ahadzie, 2007).


In the developing countries, however, little evidence exists to show that concerted efforts are

being made by governments in this regard despite acknowledgement by several countries of the

existence of project performance inefficiencies. Therefore, the World Bank (1994) advises that it

is time developing countries did things differently, to reverse the inefficiencies within their

different projects. In the developed countries where these various models are developed, there

are growing fears that the various models designed to assess the performance of projects cannot

help to accomplish the performance improvements for which they were intended (Shenhar et al.,

2002; Atkinson, 1999; Beatham et al., 2004). This is proven by the fact that undesirable project

performance results continue to plague even the projects of countries where project performance

assessment has received prominent attention since the past two decades; for example, in UK,

(Benchmarking the Government Client stage 2study, 1999). In addition, a key feature of the

models is that they attempt to measure the success or failure of project and hence most of their

assessment measures are 3“lagging” indicators, reporting performance after they have occurred.

Yet, there is still a disagreement between project management researchers as to what constitute

project success and how it is to be measured (Murray et al., 2002; Kakegg et al., 2005). Still, it

has been acknowledged that most of the existing models are not usually made to be part of a

complete assessment system (Dvir et al., 1998; Beatham et al., 2004; Takim and Akintoye,

2002).

Despite the significant development of project management principles in recent years, there are

still a large proportion of projects that fail, or stated differently, projects that are not classed as

being a success. It makes sense then, unless some form of intervention occurs, that a large

number of future projects could still be unsuccessful (R.G.koelmans,2004 ).Hence making

project performance evaluation enable project managers and to those whom work related with

project activities to indentify the problems which affect their project performance . By

performing project performance evaluation project managers enable to know ways in which their

project deliverable meet predetermined objectives of projects.


The subject matter of this research is to evaluate project performance of ethio telecom Fixed

Line –Next Generation Network (FL-NGN). Through the identification of the highlights and

lowlights of the project, evaluation draws conclusions which can inform future decision making,

and assist to define future projects and policies

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

An undesirable project performance result is one of the main problems affecting Projects

deliverables everywhere and mostly developing countries. In developed Countries efforts are

being made to use project performance assessment to monitor and Control projects to ensure

constructive outcomes but in developing countries specially in Ethiopian in particular in different

projects of ETC the now ethio telecom, project performance evaluation was not carried out to

identify the factors affecting the project deliverables .

In considering the above statement, the research wants to address project performance

evaluation of ethio telecom NGN projects with case study of FL-NGN project. Therefore, this

research will evaluate the factors affecting the performance of Ethio telecom FL-NGN project in

order to assist owners, consultants and contractors to overcome performance problem and to

improve performance of their Projects. Hence, performance of FL-NGN projects can be

evaluated according to key performance indicators.

1.3 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY

The general objective of this research is , to evaluate project performance of ethio telecom FL-

NGN through the identification of the highlights and lowlights of the project, evaluation draws

conclusions which can inform future decision making, and assist to define future projects and

policies .Under this general objective the following specific objectives were pursued:

� To review existing literature on project performance problems and the existing

performance measurement frameworks being used to address them.

� Explain the factors which have significant impact on ethio telecom projects.

� To propose suggestion solution and recommendation for the problems which affect

project performance of ethio Telecom.


1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

The mains research questions in this thesis that the researcher wants to answer are:

� What are the major factors or causes for undesirable project performance?

� What are the relationships between project objective and project summative evaluation

questions, KPI and factor related with project manager, project team and project

management office?

� How can project managers make project deliverables as pre-planned objective?

1.5 SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF STUDY

Although ethio telecom company done nine different NGN projects through out of the countries ,

the scope of this study is confined to Fixed Line –Next Generation Network(FL-NGN) project

performance evaluation only.

Limitation of this research paper is unavailability of documented data directly related which help

for the project performance evaluation in any aspects of Ethiopian telecom projects

1.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF STUDY

1) The finding of this research study will help for ethio Telecom Company’s as

benchmarking for the future project execution to improve project deliverables.

2) Help for program managers, project managers, project coordinators and others whom

activities related with projects to evaluate their projects performance and hence pave the

way for identifying the ways to improve project performance and achievements.

3) Help to those who want further research on project performance evaluation, particularly

on ethio telecom project performance evaluation.

1.7 ORGANIZATION OF PAPER

This research consists of five main chapters as followings:

• Chapter one: Introduction: this chapter shows statement of the problem, the main

objectives of research, significant of the study, research questions and scope and

limitation of the study and justification of research


• Chapter two: Literature review: Historical background of the company, about NGN

project ,performance measurement and its importance and shows a historical review from

previous studied to identify the main factors affecting the performance of projects

• Chapter three: Methodology: this chapter shows the main methodologies used in previous

studies and the methodology used in this research in order to achieve required objectives

• Chapter four: Results analysis: this chapter shows analysis, description and discussion of

research results

• Chapter five: Conclusions and recommendations

• References

• Appendix


Chapter Two

Literature Review

In this chapter deal more about Historical background of the company, about NGN, project

performance measurement and its importance and shows a historical review from previous

studied to identify the main factors affecting the performance of projects

2.1 COMPANY BACKGROUND

The introduction of telecommunication services in Ethiopia dates back to 1884 G.C, seventeen

years after the invention of telephone technology in the world. It was Minilik II, the King of

Ethiopia, who introduced telephone technology to the country around 1884, with the installation

of 477km. long telephone and telegram lines from Harar to Addis Ababa. Ethiopian

Telecommunications Corporation (ETC) is the oldest public telecommunications operator (PTO)

in Africa. It is a state owned enterprise and the sole telecom service provider in the country. The

telecommunication services in Ethiopia have made rapid stride both in quality and quantity.

However, the user at large are found dissatisfied with quality and quantity of the services made

available to them. The process of technological sophistication has gained the momentum but the

users are yet to get the quality and quantity of service (Tele Negarit, 2007).

There is an upcoming revolution in the telecom industry. After 100 years of a stable

technological framework based on copper networks, we are in front of a drastic innovation in the

industry,to grant consumers with the advantages of the optical fiber. The deployment of fiber

based Next Generation Networks (NGNs) will increase drastically the speed of broadband

services (up to more than 100 MB) Juan Jos´e Ganuza and Mar´ıa Fernanda Viecens 2011)

The former ETC , the now ethio telecom, signed project contract agreement worth of US1.5

Billion Dollar of vendor financing in 2006 with Chinese Zhongxing Telecom Enterprise (ZTE)

to come up with dynamic technological revolution in the telecom industry and with great vision

to see the entire country connected with state of the art of Information Communication

Technology (ITC) infrastructure that provide highly qualitative, reliable and secure

communication service at affordable price which support data, voice and multi media .


This project contract agreement covers projects like, Mobile, LF-NGN Core network, Access

network to all services( Wire and Wireless ),CDMA, urban and rural ,Transport network(optical

and Microwave),Network Operational Center (NOC), Call center and IP Bearer Network( From

work agreement,2006)

2.2 WHAT IS NEXT GENERATION NETWORK

From a technological perspective, NGN is based on a new architecture that modifies both the

core and access portions of a telecommunication network and changes the way it delivers

services to end-users. The telecommunication industry is evolving towards NGN as it adopts the

convergence of different network architectures into an all-IP (Internet Protocol) network that

guarantees seamless connectivity to all services over any access network and any device.

In its Recommendation Year in 2001, International Telecommunication Union (ITU) has

defining NGN (ITU-T, 2004).

The next-generation network (NGN) is body of key architectural changes in

telecommunication core and access networks. The general idea behind the NGN is that one

network transports all information and services (voice, data, and all sorts of media such as video)

by encapsulating these into packets, similar to those used on the Internet. NGNs are commonly

built around the Internet Protocol, and therefore the term all IP is also sometimes used to

describe the transformation toward NGN.

As stated by Ministerial Background Report although there is a significant amount of work

underway in standardization forums on NGN, at the policy level, there is a still not complete

agreement on a specific definition of “NGNs”. The term is generally used to depict the shift to

higher network speeds using broadband, the migration from the PSTN to an IP-network, and a

greater integration of services on a single network, and often is representative of a vision and a

market concept. From a more technical point of view, NGN is defined by the International

Telecommunication Union (ITU) as a “packet based network able to provide services including

telecommunication services and able to make use of multiple broadband, QoS-enabled transport

technologies and in which service related functions are independent from underlying transport-


related technologies.” NGN offers access by users to different service providers and supports

“generalized mobility which will allow consistent and ubiquitous provision of services to users

(ministerial background report, 2007)”

2.3 NEXT GENERATION ACCESS NETWORKS (FL-NGN)

The definition of next generation access networks is usually specific to investment in fiber in the

local loop, i.e. fiber replacing copper local loops, able to deliver next generation access services

– i.e. an array of innovative services, including those requiring high bandwidth (voice, high-

speed data, TV and video). In general, this is the definition used in a number of national

initiatives by OECD countries in examining NGN. However, while next generation access

networks tend to refer to a specific technological deployment, there are other technologies which

can compete in providing some of the services which it is envisaged will be provided by NGNs.

There are also other technologies which may not be able to fully compete with NGN access

networks in terms of capacity and the plethora of bundled offers which NGNs can provide, but

may be perfectly suitable for users who do not have the need for high capacity access.

The different technologies available include existing copper networks upgraded to DSL, coaxial

cable networks, power line communications, high speed wireless networks, or hybrid

deployments of these technologies.

Although fiber, in particular point-to-point fiber development, is often described as the most

“future proof” of network technologies to deliver next generation access,6 there are likely to be a

number of alternative and complementary options for deployment of access infrastructures by

incumbent telecommunications operators, and new entrants(ministerial background report,2007)

The access network is the “last mile” of a telecom network connecting the telecom CO (Central

Office) with end users. Access network comprises the larger part of the telecom network. It is

also a major consumer of energy due to the presence of a huge number of active elements .There

are several access technologies proposed and deployed in the market such as xDSL (Digital

Subscriber Line), CM (Cable Modem), Wireless and Cellular networks, FTTx, WOBAN

(Wireless-Optical Broadband Access Network), etc. These technologies can be broadly classified

into two categories – (a) wired (such as xDSL, CM, FTTx, etc.) and (b) wireless.


The enhanced copper or xDSL systems cover various technologies such as ADSL (asymmetric

DSL), VDSL (very-high-speed DSL), and HDSL (high-bit-rate DSL). xDSL technologies use

existing PSTN (Public-Switched Telephone Network) infrastructure to provide Internet service.

Cable modem technology uses co-axial cable to provide Internet service along with digital

Television. FTTx has different underlying technologies, such as direct fiber, shared fiber, and the

most dominant one - PON (Passive Optical Network).PON is the leading choice for fiber access

network deployment because it has only passive elements in the fiber plant (Pulak

Chowdhury,2005).

2.4 PROJECT DEFINITION AND CONCEPT

Money writer on project defined it in different way, Turner (1993 p.9) defines a project as “an

endeavor in which human, material and financial resources are organized in a novel, to undertake

a unique scope of work, of given specification, within constraints of cost and time, so as to

achieve beneficial change defined by quantitative and qualitative objectives”. His definition

emphasizes “organization of resources” and “uniqueness” of the scope of work”. The PMBOK

(2004 p.5) defines a project as “temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique product,

service, or result”. It highlights the word ‘temporary’ in three aspects:

1. Every project has a definite beginning and a definite end;

2, the opportunity or market window is usually temporary; and

3, the project team, a working unit, seldom outlive the project –usually disbanded after the

project. Another key word from this is that a project creates a unique product, service or results.

In addition, it acknowledges that a project is characterized by “progressive elaboration”, that is,

it develops in steps.

Referring to Cleland and Kerzner’s (1985) definition of a project as “a combination of human

and non-human resources pulled together into a temporary organization to achieve a specified

purpose”, Turner and Müller (2003) realize that this definition addresses the project both as a

temporary organization, and a production function and an agency of assigning resources.

Reviewing Turner’s (1999) definition, they observe that a project has three essential features: it

is unique, it is a novel process and it is transient.


These features, they note, create three pressures: (i) they are subject to uncertainty: there is no

guarantee that plans will deliver the required project outcomes or desired beneficial change; (ii)

they create a need for integration of the resources to do the project, between different parts of the

project, and of the project into the business; (iii) they are undertaken subject to urgency of

delivery within the desired timescales. Quoting from Turner’s (1999), they suggest that “it is

these three pressures that are special to project management, not the management of time, cost

and quality, which is shared with routine operations management”. They note the need to

consider other relevant dimension to the project, that is, as agency of change, agency of resource

utilization and agency for uncertainty management as contained in the definitions of other

authors (for example: citing, Barnes, 1989; Anderson et al., 1987; Turner, 1993). Consequently,

they define a project as: “a temporary organization to which resources are assigned to undertake

a unique, transient endeavor managing the inherent uncertainty and need for integration in order

to deliver beneficial objectives of change”. In a related development, Shenhar and Wideman

(1996) conclude that there is lack of consensus among practitioners on terms “Project” and

“Project Management”.

However, Anagnostopoulos (2004), reviewing works by several authors in this regard conclude

that it is fruitful to consider projects as “temporary organizations” (referring to Packendorff,

1995 and Lundin Söderholm, 1995; Turner and Müller, 2003 and Söderlud, 2004). The research

agrees with Turner and Muller (2003) and considers the project as a temporary organization.

This allows the project to be analyzed from the perspective of organizational theory. It also calls

for a focus on the ‘organizing’ aspect of the project as it relates to human Endeavour. The focus

is mainly on ensuring good performance throughout the process. This thesis cosits that managing

the project successfully depends largely on actions and inactions of the key stakeholders within

this temporary organization.

Project Management has evolved in the past fifty old years. Many people spent their life-times,

spent several trillions of dollars in ensuring project success. The use of project management

methodologies and techniques will be able to help organizations to face with the challenges. The

rapid growth of global markets, introduction of Total Quality Management, Continuous


Improvement, redesign of business processes all require skills of project management, of which

have increasingly recognized as highly desirable for managers at all levels in an organization.

Unfortunately, project management has been considered as too complicated which resulted

frequent misunderstood and poorly practiced in other parts of the business (Nader Sh.

Kandelousi, Ooi. J., Abdollahi. A, 2011)

2.5 PROJECT PERFORMANCE

Traditionally, the definition of good project performance was defined by the project

team’s meeting cost, time and product quality related criteria, in which researchers like

Atkinson [Atkinson, R. 1999] described as Iron Triangle of project management. Until now,

this Iron Triangle still regarded as the measurement for team performance on all types of

projects. Various researchers and industrial practitioners have developed other measures of

project performance beyond the Iron Triangle. Researchers and practitioners also suggest

that in order to accurately measure project performance, the measurement must incorporate

criteria may include meeting the long term financial objectives of clients, customer or

clients .Objectives such as their requirements for functionality and operability [Jaafari,A.2000].

Other measurements include project’s satisfying psychosocial criteria, like gauging the

client’s satisfaction with the way the project was managed [Pinto, M. B., & Pinto, J. K. 1991].

Project performance can be measured and evaluated using a large number of performance

indicators that could be related to various dimensions (groups) such as time cost, quality, client

satisfaction, client changes, business performance, health and safety (Cheung et al.2004; DETR

2000). Time, cost and quality are, however, the 3 predominant performance evaluation

dimensions. Another interesting way of evaluating project performance is through 2 common

sets of indicators (Pheng and Chuan 2006).

• The first set is related to the owner, users, stake-holders, and the general public; the

groups of people, who will look at project performance from the macro viewpoint.

• The second set comprises the developer and the contractor; the groups of people who will

look at project performance from the micro viewpoint.,


Generally, performance dimensions may have one or more indicators, and could be influenced

by various project characteristics. For example, Dissanayaka and Kumaraswamy (1999) found

that project time and cost performances get influenced by project characteristics, procurement

system, project team performance, client representation's characteristics, contractor

characteristics, design team characteristics, and external conditions. Similarly, Iyer and

Jha(2005) identified many factors as having influence on project cost performance, these

include: project manager's competence, top management support, project manager's coordinating

and leadership skills, monitoring and feedback by the participants, decision-making,

coordination among project participants, owners' competence, social condition, economic

condition, and climatic condition. Coordination among project participants, however, was

identified as the most significant of all the factors, having maximum influence on cost

performance. Interestingly, Love et al.(2005) examined project time-cost performance

relationship and their results indicate that cost is a poor predictor of time performance. Elyamany

et al. (2007) introduced a performance, these include: project manager's competence, top

management support, project manager's coordinating and leadership skills, monitoring and

feedback by the participants, decision-making, coordination among project participants, owners'

competence, social condition, economic condition, and climatic condition. Coordination among

project participants, however, was identified as the most significant of all the factors, having

maximum influence on cost performance. Interestingly, Love et al. (2005) examined project

time-cost performance relationship, and their results indicate that cost is a poor predictor of time

performance

2.5.1 Project Performance Indicator

The purpose of the Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) is to enable measurement of project and

organizational performance throughout the construction industry. This information can then be

used for benchmarking purposes, and will be a key component of any organization’s move

towards achieving best practice.


Clients, for instance, assess the suitability of potential suppliers for a project, by asking them to

provide information about how they perform against a range of indicators. Some information will

also be available through the industry’s benchmarking initiatives, so clients can see how

potential suppliers compare with the rest of the industry in a number of different areas (The KPI

Working Group, 2011).

Key performance indicators (KPIs) include factors such as time, cost, quality, client

satisfaction; client changes, business performance and safety in order to enable

measurement of project and organizational performance throughout the construction

industry. This information can then be used for benchmarking purposes, and will be a key

component of any organization move towards achieving best practice (DETR, 2000).

Lehtonen (2001) stated that performance measurement is a current issue in academia, as

well as in business community. Samson and Lema (2002) stated that KPIs are very important

in order to deliver value to stakeholders. So, companies must be sure they have right processes

and capabilities in place. The KPIs also allow to trace which processes and capabilities

must be competitively and distinctive, and which merely need to be improved or maintained.

According to previous studies, it can be said that the performance measurement is a

process include factors as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) such as time, cost, quality,

client satisfaction; productivity and safety in order to enable measurement of current

organizational project performance and to achieve significant performance improvements of

future projects. It was obtained that there were many fields and topics which are related

to performance such as, construction management, information technology, factors affecting

performance of managers, measurement of project performance, key performance indicator

and benchmarking.

The key performance indicators are used to evaluate performance of projects. These

indicators can then be used for benchmarking purposes, and will be as a key component of any

organization to move towards achieving best practice and to overcome performance

problem. .


2.5.2 Project Performance Measurement

Performance measures or indicators are measurable characteristics of products, services,

processes and operations the company uses to track and improve performance. The goal of

making measurement is to permit managers to see their company more clearly- from many

perspectives- and hence to make wiser long-term decisions.( Arveson, 1998)

2.5.3 The importance of performance measurement:

Since it is not possible to improve what is not measured, metrics must be developed based on the

priorities of the strategic plan, which provides the key business drivers and criteria for metrics

that managers most desire to watch. ( Arveson, 1998) Performance metrics play crucial roles in

four of the most significant leadership activities:

A-Reporting: Reports are prepared for different work areas to show consumed resources and the

value created and ensure that people in the Companies get full credit for what they have

accomplished.

B-Making decision: It enables the manager to practice fact-based management

C-Implementing strategy: The performance metrics must be directly based on the

organization's strategic direction

D-Improving performance: It is one of the most important components of the leader's job, so it

is necessary to exploit metrics to specify the right tasks and align efforts behind them. (Frost,

2000: pp.14-16)

Since a project is an investment activity where we expend capital resources to create a producing

asset from which we can expect to realize benefits over an extended period of time. Or a project

is an activity on which we will spend money in expectation of returns and which logically seems

to lend itself to planning, financing and implementation as a unit, so the researcher argue that

performing project performance evaluation uses as a critical tools to deliver project deliverable

as pre-planned .

2.6 USES OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Performance measures can be used for a number of different purposes. Such Purposes can range

from determining current performance levels to predicting future ones to carefully controlling an


existing process. In some instances, a single performance metric, such as cycle time, can serve

multiple purposes. In other instances, a particular performance metric, such as queue time for

a single operation, may have only a very limited, but still important use. As noted, performance

measures can be used for multiple purposes. Some general types of performance measures are

discussed in the following sections:

a- Baseline Performance Measures

Baseline Performance Measures are some of the most important measures that can ever be

gathered. They answer the question" Where am I starting from?" That is, they establish a

baseline for current performance, forming the basis for all subsequent measures. So always start

with collecting baseline measures, establishing a starting point to compare subsequent changes or

improvements against.

b- Trending Performance Measures

Trending Performance Measure shows how something is doing over time by comparing

something- usually an activity, output, or accomplishment- with a predetermined baseline

measure.

c- Control Performance Measures

Control Performance Measure (often in the form of control chart) answers the question, "Am I

staying within some predetermined boundary or tolerance?" Usually used as rapid feedback

measures, control measures provide early warnings that something is starting to stray from a

Predetermined or required performance level. If it is important to keep a process within

predetermined levels, then you need control performance measures… control performance

measures must often be collected in almost real time. This information in turn must be provided

immediately to the people directly performing a specific task.

d- Diagnostic Performance Measures

Frequently, performance problems are identified through performance measurement." Although

you cannot improve what you can't measure, sometimes you also can not even identify what is

wrong unless you measure". A diagnostic measure attempts to orient the company to a specific

problem area. In some instances, trending or control performance measures can also serve as

diagnostic measures.


e- Planning Performance Measures

All organizations must plan, both on a micro and macro level. Having "hard" data to assist them

in their planning efforts is invaluable. Planning performance measurements are predictive

measures. They answer the question, "Given certain information and past performance levels,

what can I plan for in the future?" Such measurement-or fact-based information also allows a

company to more intelligently develops various what-if scenarios.

Performance measures take much of the guesswork out of the planning function because the best

indicator of future performance levels is often a measured record of past performance levels and

associated trends. (Jerry, 1997, pp. 10-19).

2.7 PROJECT SUCCESS

Project success is a topic that is frequently discussed by various researchers and yet rarely agreed

upon [Baccarini, D. 1999]. Different individual has different definition and no mutual agreement

can be obtained for the meaning of success. It is hard and difficult to define. Success is a word

that so general and wide in nature. In one of the article, written by Judgev and Muller

[Jugdev, K. & Muller, R. 2005], they mentioned that in order to define the meaning of

success in a project context is like gaining agreement from a group of people on the

definition of “good art”. In general, the view and definition of project success have

evolved over the years, from the simple definitions, which were limited to implementation

phase of the project life cycle, to the definitions that reflect an appreciation of success

over the project and product life cycle [Jugdev, K. & Muller, R. 2005].

There is wide divergence of opinions in this field; the only agreement seems to be the

disagreement on what constitutes ‘project successes. (Murphy,Baker & Fisher, 1974; Pinto &

Slevin 1988; Gemuenden & Lechler, 1997 and Shenhar, Levy, and Dvir 1997).

De Wit (1988) and other writers distinguish between project success (measured against the

overall objectives of the project) and project management success (measured against the

widespread and traditional measures of performance against cost, time and quality).


The second distinction is also important – it is the difference between success criteria (the

measures by which success or failure of a project or business will be judged) and success factors

(those inputs to the management system that lead directly or indirectly to the success of the

project or business).

Rockart (1979) developed a three step procedure for determining which factors contribute to

meeting organizational goals. His study reveals that many executives tend to link in terms of

“what does it take to be successful” in their business rather than in terms of purposes, objectives,

and goals. Consequently the key question in this method is, “what does it take to be successful in

the business?” The three main steps in the process are:

Generate critical success factors (CSFs): The key question in this step is, “what does it take to be

successful in the business?”

Refine (CSFs) into objectives: The key question in this step is, “What should the organization’s

objectives and goals be with respect to the critical success factors?”. Identify measures of

performance: The key question in this step is, “How will we know whether the organization has

been successful on this factor?” Rockart (1979) and his associates applied the CSF method at

several different organizations.

Rowe, Mason and Dickel (1982) say that “Key result areas (KRAs) and critical success factors

(CSFs) provide clues that help to answer the question of whether the organization is able to

effectively mobilize its resources where there are conflicting sub goals, environmental

uncertainty, and internal politics and constraints”.

Verma (1995, 1996) writes that communication, teamwork, and leadership are vital components

of effective management of project human resources and are necessary to accomplish project

objectives successfully. Crawford (2002) describes success in the following way:


“A perception… “And; “The project meets the technical performance specifications and/or

mission to be performed, and if there is a high level of satisfaction concerning the project

outcomes….”

Cleland (1986) suggested that "project success is meaningful only if considered from two

vantage points: the degree to which the project's technical performance objective was attained on

time and within budget; the contribution that the project made to the strategic mission of the

enterprise." Freeman and Beale (1992) provided an interesting example of the different points of

view of people: “An architect may consider success in terms of aesthetic appearance, an engineer

in terms of technical competence, an accountant in terms of dollars spent under budget, a human

resources manager in terms of employee satisfaction, and chief executive officers rate their

success in the stock market."

Freeman and Beale (1992) reviewed the project management literature, identified seven main

criteria for measuring the success of projects; five of them are more frequently used than others:

Technical performance Efficiency of execution Managerial and organizational implications

(mainly customer satisfaction) Personal growth, and Manufacturability and business performance

Project success may be assessed by different interest groups, stockholders, managers, customers,

employees, and so on. Criteria for measuring project success must therefore reflect different

views (Stucken bruck, 1986).

Baccarini (1999) identified two distinct components of project success: Project management

success.This focuses upon the project process and, in particular, the successful accomplishment

of cost, time, and quality objectives. It also considers the manner in which the project

management process was conducted. Product success--This deals with the effects of the project's

final product. It is common for project management literature to confusingly intertwine these two

separate components of project success and present them as a single homogenous group. In order

to properly define and assess project success, a distinction should be made between product


success and project management success, as they are not the same. Pinto & Slevin (1988) after

sampling over 650 project managers, the researchers concluded that “project success” is

something much more complex than simply meeting cost, schedule, and performance

specifications. In fact client satisfaction with the final result has a great deal to do with the

perceived success or failure of projects. Further, Baker, Murphy and Fisher (1983, 1988)

conclude: “In the long run, what really matters is whether the parties associated with, and

affected by, a project are satisfied. Good schedule and cost performance means very little in the

face of a poor performing end product.”

In the words of Baker et al. (1983): “instead of using time, cost and performance as measures for

project success, perceived performance should be the measure.”

Clarke (1999) also states that by targeting the main problems and issues using the key success

factors as a focus could make a significant difference to the effectiveness of project management.

In order to ensure that a project is completed successfully, project plans need to be updated

regularly. He continues to profess that success will be measured more easily when the objectives

are clearly stated at the outset of the project.

Ward (1995) opines that: “scope and objectives are the guiding principles that direct the efforts

of the project team and they will determine a project’s success or failure”.

According to Radolph & Posner (1994), having a few key objectives focuses the team on the

target and creates commitment and agreement about the project goals. Richardson (1995) & King

(1996) think that none of the key success factors described in the literature are responsible, on

their own, for ensuring a project’s success- they are allinter-dependent and require a holistic

approach to be taken. Groups of success factors and their interactions are of prime importance in

determining a project’s success or failure.


Belassi and Tukel (1996) grouped the success factors listed in the literature and described the

impact of these factors on project performance. They grouped the factors into four areas:

Factors related to the project

Factors related to the project managers and the team members

Factors related to the organization

Factors related to the external environment.

“In previous studies it was assumed that if a project’s completion time exceeds its due date, or

expenses overran the budget, or outcomes did not satisfy a company’s predetermined

performance criteria, the project was assumed to be a failure. Today we know that determining

whether a project is a success or failure is far more complex.”

To come up with all possible critical factors that might affect outcome is impossible because of

the diversity of projects. But to identify the groups to which the critical factors belong would be

sufficient for better evaluation of projects.

One of the biggest ways to motivate people and make them more confident of what can be

achieved is through more effective communication. (Toney & Powers, 1997 and Larkin &

Larkin, 1996) As per Jiang & Klien et al. (2002), there are ten ways to improve project

performance if enterprises in general and project teams in particular implement them:

(1) Bypass an obstacle

(2) Cause people to stretch, not break

(3) Focus on the goal

(4) Follow a standardized process

(5) Learn from the past

(6) Maintaining ongoing communications

(7) Record the work being done

(8) Reuse previous work

(9) Seek buy-in from all involved


(10) Seek simplicity, not complexity, in goal and path

Murray, J.P. (2001) describes the nine factors for IT project success that he thinks can make or

break IT projects:

� appropriate senior management levels of commitment to the project

� adequate project funding

� a well-done set of project requirements and specifications

� careful development of a comprehensive project planthat incorporates sufficient time and

flexibility to anticipate and deal with unforeseen difficulties as they arise

� an appropriate commitment of time and attention on the part of those outside the IT

department who have requested the project, combined with a willingness to see it through

to the end

� can did, accurate reporting of the status of the project and of potential difficulties as they

arise

� a critical assessment of the risks inherent in the project, and potential harm associated

with those risks, and the ability of the project team to manage those risks

� the development of appropriate contingency plans that can be employed should the

project run into problems

� an objective assessment of the ability and willingness of the organization to stay the

project course

A study by Dong et al.(2004) cover most of the concerns of Chinese information systems’

project managers, for which they reviewed extensive literature. The most commonly cited set of

CSFs are:

(a) Effective communication

(b) Top management support

(c) User involvement

(d) Project manager and team members

(e) Project definition

(f) Project planning


(g) Project control and change management

(h) Technology support

Therefore a major concern of the field of project management and a recurring theme in the

literature is that of project success. The factors that contribute to the success of projects are

known as success factors and the success on projects is judged by success criteria. On one hand,

the competence of the project manager is in itself a factor in successful delivery of projects and

on the other hand, the project manager needs to have competence in those areas that have the

most impact on successful outcomes.

2.8 PROJECT SUCCESS CRITERIA

According to Crawford (2002) project success is an important project management issue, it is

one of the most frequently discussed topics and there is a lack of agreement concerning the

criteria by which success is judged (Pinto and Slevin 1988; Freeman and Beale 1992; Shenhar,

Levy, and Dvir 1997; Baccarini 1999).

A review of the literature further reveals that there is, in fact, a high level of agreement with the

definition provided by Baker, Murphy, and Fisher (1988),that project success is a matter of

perception and that a project will be most likely to be perceived to be an “overall success” if .the

project meets the technical performance specifications and/or mission to be performed, and if

there is a high level of satisfaction concerning the project outcome among key people on the

project team, and key users or clientele of the project effort.

There is also a general agreement that although schedule and budget performance alone are

considered inadequate as measures of project success, they are still important components of the

overall construct. Quality is intertwined with issues of technical performance, specifications, and

achievement of functional objectives and it is achievement against these criteria that will be most

subject to variation in perception by multiple project stakeholders.


2.9 PROJECT SUCCESS FACTORS

Murphy, Baker and Fisher (1974) used a sample of 650 completed aerospace, constructions, and

other projects with data provided primarily by project managers on the factors contributing to

project success. Theirs have been the most cited, used; extensive and authoritative research in the

area of project success factors. They found ten factors that were found to be strongly linearly

related to perceived success and perceived failure of projects, while twenty-three project

management characteristics were identified as being necessary but not sufficient conditions for

perceived success Baker, Murphy, and Fisher (1988).

Pinto and Slevin (1987, 1988) and Morris and Hough (1986, 1987) also did an important work

on project success factors in the 1980s. While Morris and Hough (1986, 1987) drew primarily on

literature and case study analysis of major projects, Pinto and Slevin (1987, 1988) based their

findings on the opinions of a usable sample of 418 PMI members responding to questions asking

them to rate the relevance to project implementation success of ten critical success factors and

four additional external factors (Slevin & Pinto 1986).

Therefore, one can conclude that there are numbers of factors that may have a bearing on project

success. They may differ from one project to another. Following section describes the role of a

project manager in achieving project success.

The top 5 factors found in successful projects are:

1. User Involvement

2. Executive Management Support

3. Clear Statement of Requirements

4. Proper Planning

5. Realistic Expectations

JIANG’S LIST

One concise literature study by Jiang, et al(19) produced a list of 13 success factors. Jiang’s

conclusion at the end of this study was that the literature suggests that IS users and IS

professionals are remarkably identical in their importance rankings of success factors. The


similarity extends to comparisons across experience level and gender. The similarity across

these demographic considerations allows a confidence in the rankings obtained.

These rankings can thus be used as guidance in establishing policies and procedures. Here is the

list that I will call

Jiang’s 13.

1. Clearly defined goals (including the general project philosophy or general mission of the

project, as well as commitment to those goals on the part of the team members).

2. Competent project managers. The importance of initial selection of skilled (interpersonally,

technically and administratively) project leader

3. Top Management Support. Top or divisional management support for the project that has

been conveyed to all concerned parties.

4. Competent project team members. The importance of selecting and, if necessary, triaging

project team members.

5. Sufficient resource allocation. These are Resources in the form of money, personnel,

logistics, etc.

6. Adequate communication channels. Sufficient information is available on the project

objectives, status, changes, organizational coordination client’s needs, etc.

7. Control Mechanisms. (Including planning, schedules etc.). Programs are in place to deal

with initial plans and schedules.

8. Feedback capabilities. All parties concerned with the project area able to review project

status, make suggestions, and corrections through forma feedback channels or review meetings.

9. Responsiveness to client. All potential users of the project are consulted with and kept up

to date on project status. Further, clients receive assistance after the project has been

successfully implemented.

10. Client consultation. The project team members share solicited input from all potential

clients of the project. The project team members understand the needs of those who will use the

systems.


11. Technical tasks. The technology that is being implemented works well Experts,

consultants, or other experienced project managers outside the project team have reviewed and

critiqued the basic approach

12. Client Acceptance. Potential clients have been contacted about the usefulness of the

project. Adequate advanced preparation has been done to best determine how to sell the project

to the clients.

13. Trouble-shooting. Project team members spend a part of each day looking for problems

that have surfaced or are about to surface. Project team members are encouraged to take quick

action on problems on their own initiative.

2.9.1The Project Manager as a Success Factor

Research has identified that people management drives project success more than technical

issues do (Scott-Young & Samson, 2004). Despite this finding, there exists only a small body of

research that examines the so-called soft project management, the people side of project

management (Kloppenborg & Opfer, 2002).

The successful project manager should have the following skills and competencies: flexibility

and adaptability, preference for significant initiative and leadership, aggressiveness, confidence,

persuasiveness, verbal fluency, ambition, activity, forcefulness, effectiveness as a communicator

and integrator, broad scope of personal interests, poise, enthusiasm, imagination, spontaneity,

able to balance technical solutions with time, cost, and human factors, well organized and

disciplined, a generalist rather than a specialist, able and willing to devote most of his or her time

to planning and controlling, able to identify problems, willing to make decisions, able to

maintain a proper balance in use of time (Archibald1976).

Turner & Müller (2004, 2005) have been studying the impact of project leader and his/her

leadership style on project success. The research is still in progress. In the words of Turner &

Müller (2005), “the literature on project success factors has largely ignored the impact of the

project manager, and his or her leadership style and competence, on project success. This may be

because most of the studies asked project managers their opinion and the respondents have not

given due consideration to their own impact on project success.


Or, it may be because the studies have not measured the impact of the project managerand, thus,

not recorded it. Or, it may be because the project manager has no impact. However, that last

conclusion is in direct contrast to the general management literature, which postulates that the

leadership style and competence of the manager has a direct and measurable impact on the

performance of the organization or business. Thus, the authors have been commissioned by the

Project Management Institute to study whether the leadership style and competence of the

project manager is a success factor on projects and whether different styles are appropriate on

different types of projects.”

Almost everyone is familiar with projects perceived as successful by those involved in their

implementation, while the very same projects have been poorly received by customers (Pinto &

Slevin 1988). There are other projects that consumed excessive resources and were considered

internal failures, but were later hailed as successful by their customers and become a source of

revenue for the company for many years (De Wit, 1986). The combination of a changing

organizational environment and changing project characteristics make the role of the project

leader difficult (Krahn & Hartman, 2004. Within this environment, a competent project manager

is frequently regarded as having a significant impact on overall project success (Ammeter &

Dukerich, 2002; Smith,1999; Sutcliffe, 1999) as well as being critical to other project elements,

such as the success of the project team, including team members’ motivation and creativity

(Rickards, 2001). This strong link with success ensures that project manager competencies are of

particular interest.

2.10 PROJECT SUCCESS AND PROJECT PERFORMANCE

Al-Momani (2000) stated that the success of any project is related to two important

features, which are service quality in construction delivered by contractors and the project

owner's expectations. Managing the construction so that all the participants perceive equity

of benefits can be crucial to project success. It is obtained that the complete lack of

attention devoted to owner's satisfaction contributes to poor performance. Declining market

shares, low efficiency and productivity, and the rapid construction cost escalation also lead to

poor performance. Nitithamyong et al (2004) remarked that the success of construction projects


depends up on technology, process, people, procurement, legal issues, and knowledge

management which must be considered equally.

Pheng and Chuan (2006) defined project success as the completion of a project within

acceptable time, cost and quality and achieving client's satisfaction. Project success can be

achieved through the good performance of indicators of the project. So, success refers to

project success and performance refers to performance of indicators such as project

managers. Wang and Huang (2006) stated that Project success has been widely discussed

in the project management (PM) literature. The focus of most studies of project success is

on dimensions of project success (how to measure it) and factors influencing project

success. Wang and Huang (2006) studied that how the engineers evaluate project success

and to what extent key project stakeholders' performance correlates with project success.

It is obtained that project owners play the most important role in determining project

success, and project management organizations' performance as the single point of project

responsibility has significant correlations with project success criteria. Lam et al (2007)

stated that the allocation of risk among the contracting parties in a construction contract

is an important decision leading to the project success.

2.11 FACTORS AFFECTING PROJECT PERFORMANCE

A number of studies have been conducted to examine factors impacting on project performance

in developing countries. Faridi and El-Sayegh (2006) reported that shortage of skills of

manpower, poor supervision and poor site management, unsuitable leadership; shortage and

breakdown of equipment among others contribute to construction delays, Han-son et al. (2003) ..

2.11.1Project Failure

We know why projects fail; we know how to prevent their failure so why do they still fail?

(Martin Cobb, 1996).This statement could be applied to the recent Space Shuttle disaster, or the

2003 collapse of a large portion of the U.S. electrical grid.

There are many writers who tell us why projects fail. For instance, Field (Field, Tom, 1997) tells

us that projects fail too often because the project scope was not fully appreciated and/or user


needs not fully understood. Hulme(Hulme, Martyn R,1997) tells us that MIS projects and

associated procurements take place in an environment characterized by the following: Lack of

management continuity and an incentive system that encourages overly optimistic estimates of

the benefits that can be attained from doing the project. And Leicht(Leicht, Michael,1999) tells

us that high user expectations can actually be the cause of project failure. Hoffman(Hoffman,

Thomas. 2003) tells that projects fail because of poor alignment between IT departments and

business users. And in another article Hoffman(Hoffman, Thomas,2003) tells us that project

managers too often act as process cops and report compilers and lose sight of what they are

supposed to be doing to make sure projects are running effectively. Hodgson(Hodgson,

Ian,2002 ) style='mso bidi-font-weight:normal' tells us that projects fail that ís the fact of life.

Too many fail because the average project is like an iceberg 9/10ths of it lay hidden from view.

All of these writers are correct. But none of these authors are reporting systematic research of

the mechanisms that cause project success or failure. And none of them provide insight into the

rate of project failures.

2.12 HOW OFTEN DO PROJECTS FAIL AND HOW CAN THIS BE MEASURED?

In a 2003 article Julia King(King, Julia,2003) reports, At companies that are not among the top

25% of technology users, three out of 10 IT projects fail on average. Translation: for these

companies an amazing 30% of IT projects fail. Now if you are an extremely optimistic person

you might conclude the good news is that 70% of these projects succeed. But note that King

does not tell us how many of the 70% of the successful projects were over budget, over time, or

defective in function upon completion. There are many ways to measure success and failure, but

there is no strict dividing line between the two. Baker (Baker, Bud, 1997) concludes, like

everything else, the definition of project failure is in a state of fluctuation. And

O’Brochta(O’Brochta, Michael,2002 ) tells us that the big problem with assessing project

success is that it is not precise. O’Brochta continues, this dynamic can often be the Achilles

heal for a project. Without a dependable understanding of what constitutes success, the project is

placed in the untenable position of being judged against differing criteria, and invariably

becomes one more failure statistic reported by research firms such as Standish, Gartner,

Forrester, and others.


And so, Lewis (Lewis, Bob, 2003) tells us that on average, about 70% of all IT-related projects

fail to meet their objectives. In this case Lewis includes not only projects that were abandoned

(failed), but also those that were defectively completed due to cost overruns, time overruns, or

did not provide all of the functionality that was originally promised. Amazingly, Lewis does not

consider this 70% failure to meet objectives a serious issue, and compares it to the batting

average of a major league player. Lewis contends major league coaches are happy with a 30%

at-bat success rate for a player and Lewis thinks the same standard should apply to IT projects.

There seems to be only one problem with Lewis outlook, and that is that the customer, the bill

payer, may not share this sentiment.

And finally a list of all the top factors found in failed projects

1. Incomplete Requirements

2. Lack of user involvement

3. Lack of Resources

4. Unrealistic Expectations

5. Lace of Executive Support

6. Changing Requirements & Specifications

7. Lack of Planning

8. Didn’t need it Any Longer

9. Lack of IT management

10. Technical Illiteracy.

The Use of Performance Assessment in Ensuring Favorable outcomes. The PMI (2004)

recommends five distinct but interrelated project management process groups: initiation,

planning, execution, monitoring and closing process groups. Significantly, the body of

knowledge acknowledges that “the integrative nature of the project management requires the

monitoring and controlling process group interaction with every other process group. In other

words, monitoring and controlling is central to project management processes. Monitoring and

controlling is “the process necessary for collecting, measuring, and disseminating performance

information, and assessing measurements and trends to effect process improvement.


When this is done continuously, the body of knowledge suggests, it will provide the project team

insight into the health of the project and highlights any areas that require additional attention.

The main activities in monitoring and control, according to the guide, include:

� Monitoring the ongoing project activities against the project management plan and the

project performance baseline

� Influencing the factors that could circumvent integrated change control so that only

approved changes are implemented. In particular, the measurement and evaluation of

performance are central to control posing four basic questions (Shaw, 1999):

� What has happened?

� Why has it happened?

� Is it going to continue?

� What are we going to do about it?

The first question can be answered by performance measurement. The remaining ones will

depend on the information from assessing the performance of the project for management to take

decisions and actions. The information about what is really happening is vital for the project

management team and other stakeholders to determine with considerable certainty what to do.

Thus, assessing the performance of project throughout its lifecycle is one of the major ways of

achieving the objectives of the project and to ensure better performance. In addition, it is a means

of ensuring improvements in executions. Improvements in project execution within a

construction industry will them be one of the key indicators of a construction industry of a

country.

Within the construction sector, mostly in the developed countries, various frameworks exist for

the measurement of project success or failure. This also includes which factors are influencing

the performance of the projects. The next sections outline some of the common frameworks in

literature.


2.13 CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING PROJECT PERFORMANCE

The criteria in which project success/failure has often been assessed have also been called key

performance indicators and even dimensions (e.g. Betham et al., 2004; Atkinson, 1999, Chan and

Chan, 2004; Shenhar et al, 2002). These are used interchangeably at this stage of reviewing

literature based on how the authors referred to them.

2.14 THE PROBLEMS WITH THE SUCCESS/FAILURE DEFINITION

A major problem found with the present paradigms of project performance measurement is the

lack of consensus on what constitutes success or failure of the project. Various authors have

expressed concern about the definition of success and failure. Quoting from Morris and Hough

(1996), Murrayet al, (2002) indicate that the definition of a success or failure of a project is not

always an easy one. Project management theories have not always agreed on a universal

definition of what is meant by a project success (Pinto and Slevin, 1988; Shenhar et al, 2002).

Consequently, the factors causing success (or failure) have been similarly defined in restricted

dimensions by various authors. Murray et al (2002) notes from literature that projects are often

termed a technical success despite being behind schedule and over budget. Conversely, projects

may be ahead of schedule and within budget but still be a technical failure. This position is

corroborated by Willard (2005) who provided the following examples showing the various

means by which success have been declared. Within a certain context, Ludin and Söderholm

(1995) comment that a project could be considered a success in the sense that it has successfully

passed through all the sequences of the standard stage: concepts, development, implementation

and termination. Notably, Murray et al (2002) reiterated Morris and Hough’s (1987) discussion

as to whether one should study project successes and failure. “To some extent”, they conclude,

“it would seem that Murphy’s Law is at work: ‘what can go wrong will go wrong’”. In their

contribution, Klakegg et al (2005) acknowledge this lack of consensus on what success is and

how to measure it as a fundamental but often unresolved issue in investment projects. They

opined that “success is to apply the right amount of result amount of resources to do the right

things at the right time”. Significantly, they admit that what the right thing may be, for

government projects, is for the decision makers to agree, and should reflect relevant needs in

society as expressed for instance in public international agreements.


2.15 PROJECT EVALUATION

Evaluation involves the systematic collection of information about the activities, characteristic

and outcomes of an activity or action, in order to determine its worth or merit (Dart et al, 1998).

It is a major part of learning, and can provide a wealth of useful information on the outcomes of

a project or action, and the dynamics of those who undertook the work.

In other way Evaluation can be defined as a systematic way of reflecting on and assessing the

value of what is being done (i.e. a project, a programme, an event). Evaluation is commonly

interpreted as an end product or an activity taking place at the end of a project. However

evaluation should be considered as a process, taking place across all phases of a project, used to

determine what has happened and whether the initial aims of the project have been carried out

and achieved. Evaluation is more than assessing and measuring; it helps set the stage for a

culture of learning, change and improvement.

2.15.1 Types of evaluation

There are different approaches to and types of evaluation. One way to define these might be:

formative, process and impact/outcome, (Roberts, Cavill and Rutter 2009).

Evaluations are distinguished by the nature of the questions they attempt to answer. Many

evaluation projects will involve more than one of these types.

Needs Assessments. These evaluations verify and map the extent of a problem. They answer

questions about the number and characteristics of the individuals or institutions who would

constitute the targets of a program to address the problem. Needs assessments can help design a

new program or justify continuation of an existing program.

Monitoring. Monitoring activities produce regular, ongoing information that answers questions

about whether a program or project is being implemented as planned, and identifies problems

and facilitates their resolution in a timely way.

Formative Evaluations. These evaluations answer questions about how to improve and refine a

developing or ongoing program. Formative evaluation usually is undertaken during the initial, or

design, phase of a project.


However, it also can be helpful for assessing the ongoing activities of an established program.

Formative evaluation may include process and impact studies. Typically, the findings from

formative evaluations are provided as feedback to the programs evaluated.

Process Evaluations. Studies of this kind are directed toward understanding and documenting

program implementation. They answer questions about the types and quantities of services

delivered, the beneficiaries of those services, the resources used to deliver the services, the

practical problems encountered, and the ways such problems were resolved. An information

form process evaluation is useful for understanding how program impact and outcome were

achieved and for program replication. Process evaluations are usually undertaken for projects

that are innovative service delivery models, where the technology and the feasibility of

implementation are not well known in advance.

Impact or Outcome Evaluations. These evaluations assess the effectiveness of a program in

producing change. They focus on the difficult questions of what happened to program

participants and how much of a difference the program made. Impact or outcome evaluations are

undertaken when it is important to know how well a grantee's or foundation's objectives for a

program were met, or when a program is an innovative model whose effectiveness has not yet

been demonstrated.

Summative Evaluations. Summative evaluations answer questions about program quality and

impact for the purposes of accountability and decision making. They are conducted at a project’s

or program's end and usually include a synthesis of process and impact or outcome evaluation

components.

Needs assessment, Monitoring, Formative, process and impact/outcome evaluations seek to

answer different types of question about the project. None is superior to the others. Rather, they

complement each other and, in practice, service evaluation often covers aspects of each. In

deciding what type of evaluation to do, the definition of your evaluation questions and aims are

important.


Chapter Three

Research Methodology

3.1 RESEARCH APPROACH

The Researcher use both Quantitative and qualitative Research approach. The Researcher apply

Quantitative approach for the data analysis part of from data collected from respondents through

closed ended questionnaire .The Researcher uses Qualitative approach for secondary data

analysis part.

3.2 RESEARCH TYPE

I will use Evaluation type of research because the main focus of this research is assessing the

performance of project.

3.2.1 Research Techniques

For my data collection I will use questioner, interview and focus group discussion.

3.3 SAMPLE DESIGN

The researcher sample will be taken from employees and managers who participated in FL-

NGN project and those employees who are currently using FL-NGN project deliverable .The

sample of research drown from those who participated in FL-NGN project 20 employees

randomly selected and 40 employees also selected random probability method from those who

are using project deliverables for operational purpose.

3.3.1 Population or Universe

The researcher population will be the staffs and managers who were participated in NGN project

and the end user of project or those employees who commercialize the project deliverable to end

user.

3.3.2 Sampling Frame

The sample frame for this research paper divided into two

1) From sample drown from staffs and managers who participated in NGN project


2) From those employees who use the project deliverable or those who commercialize the

project deliverable to end user in six zones of Addis Ababa.

3.3.3 Sampling Unit

The sampling unit which the researcher uses for this research purpose is the employees of ethio

Telecom Company at different level.

3.3.4 Sampling Technique

For this research paper the researcher use stratified random probability sampling technique.

3.3.5 Sample Size

The sample size for this research paper divided into two

3) From sample drown from staffs and managers who participated in NGN project will be

20

4) From those employees who use the project deliverable in six zones will be 40

3.4 SOURCES OF DATA

Researcher use mainly primary source of data which obtain from questionnaire distributed to

employee and some part of data collected from secondary sourced.

3.4.1 Primary data

The primary data collected through closed ended structured questioner, which distributed to

employees who participated in NGN project as staff members and those employees who use

project deliverable.

3.4.2 Secondary Data

Secondary data will be collected from project from work agreement, work report and reviewing

different NGN documents specially FL-NGN.

3.5 DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

Both primary and secondary data are analyzed and presented using SPSS and statistical tools like

tables, and others to facilitate the interpretation of the result of the data analyzed.


CHAPTER FOUR

DATA ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION

The main objective of this research, to evaluate project performance of ethio telecom FL-NGN

Through the identification of the highlights and lowlights of the project, evaluation draws

conclusions which can inform future decision making, and assist to define future projects and

policies. To attain this objective, both primary and secondary data were used. The primary data

mainly obtained from research questionnaire that were distributed to randomly selected

employees who were participated in FL-NGN project and those who use the project deliverable

or commercialize the project deliverable to the end user. The secondary data source was from

framework agreement and different work report of the project.

4.1 INITIATIVE AND VISION OF ETC NOW CALLED AS ETHIO TELECOM NATIONAL NETWORK BUILDING

4.1.1 Initiative

A, ETC has the mission to introduce ITC infrastructure across the nation to support

voice, data and video(multi media) service ,reliable and secure communication services

at affordable price

B, Be a supplier of advanced voice and data video communication services

4.1.2 Vision

A, ETC’s vision is to see the entire country connected with state-of –the art ICT

infrastructure that provide highly quality, reliable and secure communication services at

affordable prices

B, Become a leading regional operator.


4.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

� General objective of FL-NGN project is capacity expansion to reach 2 million subscribers

with additional 20% capacity margin and total expanded capacity to reach 2.4 million.

The main objective of this project is to build an NGN based core and access network for

the fixed network and interoperability with CDMA and GSM mobile as part of ETC’s

evolution to the Next Generation Network as well as IMS network.

Regarding the access network, MSAG 5200 are deployed to provide multiple services to

end user. The services include anywhere from low ends access solution like POTS,

xDSL (SHDSL, ADSL, VDSL) to high end access solutions like xPON (EPON up to

1.25Gb/s, GPON up to 2.5 Gb/s) all the way to the user premises. New subscriber will be

added in the MSAG 5200, and existing subscriber will be migrated to MSAG 5200

gradually.

4.3 PROJECT SCOPE

The FL-NGN project was designed to cover expansion of the existing PSTN network

based on NGN technology and adopt the existing network with NGN as well as migrating

to end-to-end IMS solution.

The scope of the project includes constructing an overlay NGN core network by

installing Soft switch and Media Gateways across zonal and regional offices, installation

of an international gateway switch which will replace the existing legacy international

gateways, installation of Multi Service Access Gateways (MSAGs) in Addis and 13 cities

out of Addis. The scope of the project also includes the migration of the FL-NGN core

network to IMS in order to provide single core and single media gateway solution for

CDMA, GSM, & FL-NGN combined, but through another negotiation with ZTE.


4.5 PROJECT DELIVERABLES

No. City Contract Amount

MSAG Softswitch Media Gateway GPON

1 Addis 573 4 4 6

2 Adama 62 1 1

3 Awassa 64 1

4 Bahirdar 51 1 1 1 5 Bishoftu 28 1

6 Dessie 47 1 1 7 Dire Dawa 39 1 1 1

8 Gonder 27 1 9 Harar 28 1

10 Jijiga 19 1

11 Jimma 42 1 1

12 Mekelle 77 1 1 1

13 Nekemte 32 1 1

14 Shashemene 27 1 1 1 Total 1116 8 12 19

Table 4.1 project deliverables

(Source: FL-NGN project closure report)

4.6 PROJECT MANAGEMENT AND RESPONSIBILITY MATRIX

4.6.1 Project Management

Both ETC & ZTE project offices have been holding joint meetings weekly since the project kick

off to evaluate the progress of the project. In addition to the weekly meeting, ZTE or ETC has

the right to call a meeting planned or not to discuss any issues relevant to the progress of the

project. This way many issues have been discussed on time and many problems have been

solved.

Both ETC & ZTE have clearly indicated the actual project management organization structure

for this project and are fully responsible to supply, manage and organize the work force for the

planned completion of their own work. Either party has the right to ask for progress report and

review the project progress whenever necessary.

4.6.2 Responsibility matrix issues

Throughout the progress of the project both ETC & ZTE acted as per the responsibility matrix in

the onshore portion of the contract.


4.6.3 Resource management

The project office has faced resource limitation like skilled human resource, light and heavy duty

vehicles. Even though these had an impact to some extent on the progress of the civil project, the

project office has done its best to effectively utilize the limited resource at hand.

4.6.4 Human resource management

Human resource management can be seen from the vendor and Project office sides. From the

project office side, members of the project office have performed their duties and responsibilities

satisfactorily. The required number of staff was properly outlined in the preparation phase even

if there was lack of experienced staff.

From the vendor side, it observed sufficient timely deployment of staff to all project areas. But

there was limitation in technical competency of some ZTE staff members. As a result there had

been repeated replacement of engineers that caused some delay in the project completion time

and as well on the knowledge transfer.

The interaction between the project staff and the vendor was smoothly conducted based on the

contract agreement.

4.6.5 Risk management

The project office has faced a lot of risks during the execution of the Project. The following are

the main mitigated risks.

• Damage on MSAG by car Accident - After the installation of most of the MSAGs were

completed, four MSAGs were damaged by car. Three of them were replaced by ZTE and

the fourth one was repaired by the project office.

In order to prevent similar accident in the future, the project office started to protect the

MSAGs with accident prevention concrete stone. So far the office was able to protect

352 MSAGs in Addis.

• MSAG Key – Because one key can open almost all the MSAG doors, 44 batteries were

stolen from 22 MSAGs in Nekempt. The project office negotiated with ZTE to replace

the stolen batteries.


To prevent such kind of problems in the future, the project office negotiated with ZTE to

change the key free of charge which is estimated 500,000 Birr. For each MSAG, ZTE

will supply a different key with locker. The key can only open the different doors on

one MSAG.

4.6.6 Change management

This is the process by which changes to the project scope, deliverables, timescales or resources

are formally defined evaluated and approved prior to implementation. The main thing done by

the project office is to manage changes in the project successfully by understanding the business

and system drivers requiring the change, documenting the benefits and cost of adopting and

formulating a structured plan for implementing the change. The main changes encountered in

FL-NGN project were resource change as a result of technological evolution.

During the execution of FL-NGN Phase I project there were five change management requests

which were submitted according to the signed ETC and ZTE change management procedure

manual. All of the changes are approved with a strong negotiation with ZTE team following the

procedure manual. The changes made resulted in contract amendment with a discount of 322,284

USD offshore and 1,808,870 Birr onshore prices.

4.7 STRUCTURE OF FL-NGN PROJECT MANAGEMENT OFFICE

FL-NGN project management structured as, at the top, the project manager acts as responsible

for managing the whole project, immediately below project manager there were project

coordinators with various section of project activities and play role in coordinating activities in

their respective section for smooth flow project .at bottom or under project coordinators , there

were different team of project staffs who perform supervision activities at the project site in

different parts of project areas . Below chart depict project management structure of FL-NGN

project of office of ethio telecom (ET).

September, 2013

Figure 4.1 Project Management structure

4.8 STAFFS IN THE PROJECT AND PLACEMENT

LF-NGN project organized with total staffs of 228 which consists of from differe

areas and placed in project management office (Addis Ababa) and In branch offices or regional

offices which represented by Coordinators whose main responsibility was to facilitate project

work which under goes in their respective region wit

management office for field work.

Project manager

Transmissio

n network

coordinator

Ass.

civil

engi

nee

r

Transm

ission

networ

k team

Access

networ

k

coordin

atorAcces

s

netw

ork

team

Line

man

Figure 4.1 Project Management structure

OJECT AND PLACEMENT

NGN project organized with total staffs of 228 which consists of from differe



work which under goes in their respective region with those project team came from project

management office for field work.

Project manager

Access

networ

coordin

Line

man

Fo

rm

an

Finance

&Contract

Admin

coordinator

Finace

team

Logistics&Fa

cility

coordinator

Driv

er

logistics

&

facility

team

Core

netwk

coordin

atorCore

netw

ork

team

Page 41

NGN project organized with total staffs of 228 which consists of from different disciplinary



h those project team came from project

Core

netwk

coordin

atorLea

d

Inst

tale

r

Sec.Cable

network

design and

construction

coordinato

Pla

nn

er

Constr

uction

team

Regio

nal

coordi

nators

Field

work

team


The Table below shows place of assignment and number of staffs in a variety of sections.

place of assignment Title No.

FL-NGPO office Project manager 1

FL-NGPO office Network Co-coordinator 1

FL-NGPO office Access Network Co-coordinator 1

FL-NGPO office Finance & Administration Co-coordinator 1

FL-NGPO office Logistic & Facility co-coordinator 1

FL-NGPO office Core Network Co-coordinator 1

FL-NGPO office Secondary Cable Network Design & Construction Co-coordinator 1

Regional coordinators (out side Addis Ababa regional co coordinator

13

FL-NGPO office Team under Network co coordinator 103

FL-NGPO office Team under access Network co coordinator 12

FL-NGPO office Team under core Network co coordinator 17

FL-NGPO office Team under facility and logistic co coordinator 3

FL-NGPO office Team under finance and contract administration co coordinator 2

FL-NGPO office Team under Secondary Cable Network Design & Construction Co-coordinator 3

FL-NGPO office Ass.Civil Engineer

5

FL-NGPO office C/G/Forman

6

FL-NGPO office Driver

10

FL-NGPO office Planner

19

FL-NGPO office Line man

26

FL-NGPO office Lead Installer

2

TOTAL 228

Table4.2 FL-NGN project man power

(Source: closure report of FL-NGN project)

4.9 COST OF PROJECT

As it shown from the table the offshore cost (cost material) is 20543220394 which has 61.1% of

total project cost of FL-NGN, the onshore cost is 1313052075 ET birr has the share of 38.9%

which intern consists of labor and transport cost and onshore, from 38.9% total onshore cost

labor and transport cost share 46.27% and the remain of 53.72% is onshore cost.


The cost of the project subdivide in to two distinctive parts, offshore cost transmission and core network share

ONSHORE COST

Core network

Labour and

Transport Onshore

Labour and

Transport Onshore

643335268 1410985126 592692737 513365161 14976416 192017761

2054320394

Total cost of onshore project

1313052075

Total cost of FL-NGN PROJECT

3367372469

TOTOAL OFF SHORE COST TOTAL METRO ONSHORE COST

1106057898

Core network

total onshore cost

206994177

OFFSHORE COST

Metro

Metro (Transmission Core Network

COST OF PROJECT

Table 4.3 cost of project in ETHIOPIAN BIRR

(Source: from closure report of FL-NGN project)

4.10 SCHEDULE

4.10.1 PHASE I Part A

FL-NGN Phase I Part A schedule is the time plan for realization of 2.4million core network

capacity and 250,000 Access network capacities in Addis Ababa.

Here below is compared the approved schedule baseline against the actual completion dates of

Part A (Addis Ababa FL-NGN Network Construction).

No. Project Schedule Accomplishment

1 Start: 28/04/2007 Start 11/06/2007

2 Finish: 25/05/08 Finished 18/07/2008

3 Duration =394 days Duration 394+53 = 447

4 Percentage Complete 100% Percentage Complete 99%

Table 4.4 project schedule of phase I A



Because of the following main reasons, the project delayed by 53 days.

� During test plan approval for accepting the network, ZTE proposed only one type

of test (Service test). But from ETC project office side additional 6 types of tests

were requested. So, additional time was required for executing the seven types of

tests. Therefore the delay is acceptable.

4.10.2 Phase I Part B

FL-NGN Phase I Part B schedule is the time plan for realizing 381,800 Access network capacity

No. Project Schedule Accomplishment

1 Start: 28/04/2007 Start 11/06/07

2 Finish: 15/07/08 Finished 11/10/07

3 Duration Schedule =445 duration 445+85 = 530

4 Percentage Complete 100% Completion 99 %

Table 4.5 project schedule of phase I B

(Source: Closure report of FL-NGN project)

Because of the following main reasons the project delayed by 85 days.

• During regional detail site survey approval, it required additional time. Because the

survey document had many problems, and it required the confirmation of the

project office to validate and resurvey.

4.10.3 Phase II Project

According to the contract implementation schedule, the project completion time is

September 8, 2010. Following higher management decision for the submission of project

completion report as of August 15, 2010, here with the general status of the FL-NGN Phase

II Project status is tabulated below.


No. Project Schedule Status of the project as of 15/08/2010

1 Start: 17/10/08 Start: 17/10/08

2 Finish: 08/09/2010 Project completion report submitted on 15/08/2010

3 Duration =692 days Duration on submission date = 668 days.

4 Percentage Complete 100% Percentage Complete on submission date 77%

Table 4.6 project schedule of phase II


4.11 CAPACITY FOR FL-NGN PROJECT

4.11.1 Core Network

Comparing to pre-planned capacity set to reach after project implementation or when a

project deliverable commercialized 2.4 million, after project delivered it has reached to

2400184,wich is a little bit greater than or can be said the project objective have been met

in terms of fulfilling or reaching the target set of required capacity expansion .From

project performance evaluation point of view ,when the researcher see the capacity

expansion of FL-NGN making other parameters being constant ,the project met its

objective in terms of capacity requirement. The table below depicts the capacity of core

network after project commercialized in major Ethiopian town with respective capacities.

No. Area Capacity

1 Addis 1346948

2 Dire Dawa 216911

3 Nazareth 141717

4 Shashemene 144196

5 Jimma 103044

6 Nekempt 86195

7 Bahir dar 190762

8 Mekele 102657

9 Dessie 67754

10 Total 2400184

Table 4.7 project Capacity core network

(Source: From FL-NGN project management office)


4.11.2 Access Network

No. POTS ADSL (24 Mb/s) Total EPON (1.2 Gb/s)

GPON (2.5 Gb/s)

1 117728 306912 424640 1116 19

Table 4.8 project Capacity of access network

(Source: From FL-NGN project management office)

4.12 KEY PROJECT CONTRIBUTORS AND STAKE HOLDERS

FL-NGN project has been realized with the contribution and support of its stake holders. The

main contributors were NGPO Steering Committee, ETC executive management, NGPO

management, ETC project team members, ZTE team members and management, consultants,

regional and federal governments, regional ETC offices and coordinators.

4.13 DATA ANALYSIS FROM QUESTIONNAIRES

To obtain the required primary data about FL-NGN project performance evaluation

questionnaires were distributed to those employees participated in project management office

and to those employees whose use the end project deliverable or who commercialize the project

deliverables to end user or customers. From total of 60 questionnaires distributed only 50

questionnaires or 83.33% were responded from respondents of questionnaires.

4.13.1 General back ground of Respondents From all respondents, 100% respondents were male, this happened due to the nature of the

project and work which traditionally considered as work of male and that why all most all this

types of work in case of Ethiopia is engaged my male.


Output table 4.1 Descriptive statistics of general information of respondents result from SPSS

4.13.2 Summative evaluation of FL-NGN Project

Summative evaluation will demonstrate whether the project achieved the aims and objectives,

there were benefits for community, was the project management approach effective, lesson

learned from project, and so on .To identify whether the project deliverable achieved its

objective or not, the researcher has developed some of summative evaluation questions in the

form of closed ended style and asked the respondents through research questionnaire.

Based on the respondents answer, that was collected from them, the summative performance

evaluation of FL-NGN project deliverable of ethio telecom being performed as follow.

Concerning to question that address about the project objective, from total 50 respondents, 30 respondents or 57.7% were agreed that FL-NGN project objective have been met. Around 13 or 25% respondents were uncertain whether FL-NGN project has been met its objective or not as planned .Even if, more than half of respondents were agreed on, project objective has been met, non negligible respondents uncertain on it. Depending on the above analysis, the research faced difficulty to reach in one solid conclusion. However, the researcher infer from analysis that even if more than half of respondents of questionnaire agreed on, FL –NGN project has met its objective, but it is not enough to state with great confidence that the project objective has been met as planned when its seen from different project deliverable measurements criteria or parameter.

General Information Of Respondents

Frequency %

Gender Male 100 100

Age

20-25 1 2

25-30 19 38

30-35 20 40

35-40 5 10

40-45 3 6

45-50 2 4

Education

Certificate 1 2

Diploma 20 40

Degree 28 56

Master & above 1 2

Participation in project Participated 15 30

Not participated 35 70


About the finding project made, from 50 respondents, 16 respondents or 32% Disagreed, 14 or

28% of respondents uncertain about the key finding that project made.17 or 34% respondents

only believed that project made key finding. So, based the analysis obtained from respondents

and practically seen, the researcher understood that the key finding that was project made is

negligible. Out of 50 respondents, 30 or 60% respondents agreed on the impact (positive) did the

project have made on the end user of project deliverable.8 or 16% respondents strongly agreed

on the positive impact have been created on customers from the project. By assuming the

analysis, 76% of respondents considered that FL-NGN project did have impact on the end user.

The benefit for the stakeholders from project deliverable is ambiguous this is due to around 24%

of respondents uncertain and 20% respondents disagree about the benefit has been gained from

project deliverable to the project stakeholders. About 42% and 14% respondents respectively

agreed and strongly agreed the benefit gain from the project deliverable to stakeholders.

For the question raised for respondents through the questionnaire concerning to project

management approach effectiveness, 12% respondents were answered back that they strongly

disagreed about the project management approach effectiveness and 24% of respondents reacted

that they were disagreed about effectiveness of project management approach followed by ethio

telecom FL-NGN project office .Approximately 40% of respondents were uncertain about

project management approach effectiveness and 20% and 4% of respondents respectively agreed

and strongly agreed up on the project management approach effectiveness.

As one of best criteria as a source of our capacity development, each course of the project had

positive impact on our capability to deal with such modern technology. From capacity building

point of view the lesson learned from the project, the respondents were asked and about 16% of

respondents were disagreed lesson learned from the project and 26% was uncertain.56% and 2%

of respondents were agreed and strongly agreed up on the lesson have been learned project

respectively.

When we come to about continues improvement, 18% and 26% of respondents respectively

disagreed and uncertain for the question asked about continues improvement was part of project

.Around 50% have been stressed or agreed that continues improvement was part of the project.


The table below summarize summative project evaluation question that were answered by

questionnaire respondents and analyzed using SPSS software.

Output table 4.2 Descriptive statistics of Summative evaluation result from SPSS

FL-NGN Project objective has been met

Frequency Percent Valid Percent

Strongly disagree 1 1.923077 2

Disagree 3 5.769231 6

Uncertain 13 25 26

Agree 30 57.69231 60 Strongly agree 3 5.769231 6 Total 50 96.15385 100

There was key finding the project made

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Strongly disagree 2 3.846154 4 Disagree 16 30.76923 32 Uncertain 14 26.92308 28 Agree 17 32.69231 34 Strongly agree 1 1.923077 2 Total 50 96.15385 100

FL-NGN project did have positive impact

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Disagree 3 5.769231 6 Uncertain 9 17.30769 18 Agree 30 57.69231 60 Strongly agree 8 15.38462 16 Total 50 96.15385 100

The project deliverable have give benefit for stakeholders

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Disagree 10 19.23077 20 Uncertain 12 23.07692 24 Agree 21 40.38462 42 Strongly agree 7 13.46154 14 Total 50 96.15385 100

Project management approach was effective

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Strongly disagree 6 11.53846 12 Disagree 12 23.07692 24 Uncertain 20 38.46154 40 Agree 10 19.23077 20 Strongly disagree 2 3.846154 4 Total 50 96.15385 100

Lesson have been learned from project

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Disagree 8 15.38462 16 Uncertain 13 25 26 Agree 28 53.84615 56 Strongly agree 1 1.923077 2 Total 50 96.15385 100

Continuous improvement was part of the project

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Disagree 9 17.30769 18 Uncertain 13 25 26 Agree 25 48.07692 50 Strongly agree 3 5.769231 6 Total 50 96.15385 100


4.13.3 Analysis Using Key project performance Indicators (KPI)

Key performance indicators (KPI) sometimes also referred to as key success indicators (KSI) are

a series of defined measures that are commonly used by an organization to measure progress

towards goals. In project performance evaluation, the key performance indicators use as

parameters to measure project performance. So keeping this in mind, the researcher developed

questionnaire using KPI to address whether project achieved its objective in conditions of KPI

and tried to show the relationship of KPI towards meeting project objective.

The table below depicts descriptive statistics obtained from questionnaire respondents about KPI

of FL-NGN project through SPSS.

Cost of project was fair


Very dissatisfied 4 7.692307692 8 Dissatisfied 8 15.38461538 16 Uncertain 18 34.61538462 36 Satisfied 17 32.69230769 34 Very Satisfied 3 5.769230769 6

Total 50 96.15384615 100

project executed with in preplanned time schedule


Dissatisfied 6 11.53846154 12 Uncertain 13 25 26 Satisfied 26 50 52 Very satisfied 5 9.615384615 10 Total 50 96.15384615 100

Project's deliverable quality was as per preplanned project specifications

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Very dissatisfied 5 9.615384615 10 Dissatisfied 16 30.76923077 32 Uncertain 9 17.30769231 18 Satisfied 16 30.76923077 32 Very satisfied 4 7.692307692 8 Total 50 96.15384615 100

client have been satisfied with project's deliverables


Community were satisfied with project's deliverables


Output table 4.3 Descriptive statistics of KPI result from SPSS


4.13.3.1 Correlation between Objective and KPI

Here the researcher wants to demonstrate the relationship between project performances

(dependent variable) with the KPI (independent variable). Main objective of this part is to

explain how the project performance is related with KPI .This inters useful to understand

causality or how project performance goes together with KPI variables being other things

constant.

The “R” Column rep resents the value of value of R, the multiple Correlation coefficients. R can

be considered to be one measure of the quality of relation of dependent variable; in this case

achieving project objective of FL-NGN project .A value of 0.628, indicates a good level of

relation. The “R SQUERE” column represents the R square value (also called the coefficient of

determination), which is the portion of variance in the independent variable that can be explained

by the dependent variables. You can see from Model summary 0.326 that independent variables

explain 39.4% of variability depended variable, achieving project objective of FL-NGN project.

From this output you can read Pearson’s other things being constant the correlation between

project objective &the cost of the project r = .277. The correlation is positive; meaning that high

project performance or achieving the project objective is likely to be paired with relatively using

project budget or cost in effective way, and vice versa.

For the correlation between achieving project objective with executing project within its

schedule is 0.194 by making all other things being constant and vice versa. Correlation between

achieving project objective and project quality or working the project according to pre planned

specification r=0.517. The correlation is positive; meaning that high project performance or

achieving the project objective tends to paired with quality of project deliverable, and vice versa.

For the remaining variables we can refer from the correlation matrix.


Output table 4.4 A correlation matrix that results from using SPSS Correlation


4.13.4 Critical Success /Failure Factor

The critical success /Failure factors are the main catalyst in project management for the project

success or failure of project. Based on this, the researcher wants to show how the project success

or failure depend these factors. To make the required data analysis; the main critical success

/failure factors have been asked the respondents through the questionnaire to show their attitude

towards the critical success/ failure factor how these factors have been affect the project

performance of FL-NGN project of ethio telecom. The critical success/ failure factors which was

developed by the researcher for this paper are , Factor related to the project manager, Factor

related to project team members, Factor related to project management support and Factor

related to project management performance on the project.


The "R" column represents the value of R, the multiple correlation coefficients. R can be

considered to be one measure of the quality of the prediction of the dependent variable; in this

case, Achieving project objective A value of 0.539, in this example, indicates a good level of

prediction. The "R Square" column represents the R2 value (also called the coefficient of

determination), which is the proportion of variance in the dependent variable that can be

explained by the independent variables (technically, it is the proportion of variation accounted

for by the regression model above and beyond the mean model).


It can see from the value of 0.290 that the independent variables explain 29% of the variability

of the dependent variable, Achieving project objective. However, we also need to be able to

interpret "Adjusted R Square" (adj. R2) to accurately report our data. We explain the reasons for

this, as well as the output, in our enhanced multiple regression guide.

4.13.4.1 Statistical significance

The F-ratio in the ANOVA table (see below) tests whether the overall regression model is a good fit for the data. The table shows that the independent variables statistically significantly predict the dependent variable, F(4, 95) = 4.600, p < .0005 (i.e., the regression model is a good fit of the data).


4.13.4.2 Estimated model coefficients

The general form of the equation to predict Project objective from Factor related to project

manager, Factor related to project team members, Factor related project management support,

Factor related project management performance, is:

Predicted Project objective or performance = 1.667 +(0.344 x Factor related to project manager)

+ (0.430 x Factor related to project team members) - (0.129 x Factor related project management

support ) - (0.043 x Factor related project management performance


This is obtained from the Coefficients table, as shown below:

Output table4.7 A regression matrix that results from using SPSS regression

Unstandardized coefficients indicate how much the dependent variable varies with an

independent variable, when all other independent variables are held constant. Consider the effect

of Factor related to project manager in this example. The unstandardized coefficient, B1, for

Factor related to project manager is equal to 0.344 (see Coefficients table). This means that for

each1% increase in project manager performance, there is increase in achieving project objective

by 34.4%.


From the Coefficient table in the above , the independent variables that is; Factor related project

management support and Factor related project management performance is negatively related

.However , anybody by default understand the positive relationship between these variables. But

the question rise why the negative relation shown between them?.The researcher have been infer

that this happen due not the reason due to these variables negativity relation but the fact that

project management support and project management performance were below the requirement

to project performance or for achieving project objective.

4.13.4.3 Statistical significance of the independent variables

You can test for the statistical significance of each of the independent variables. This tests

whether the unstandardized (or standardized) coefficients are equal to 0 (zero) in the population.

If p < .05, you can conclude that the coefficients are statistically significantly different to 0

(zero). The t-value and corresponding p-value are located in the "t" and "Sig." columns,

respectively, as highlighted below:

You can see from the "Sig." column that all independent variable coefficients are statistically

significantly different from 0 (zero). Although the intercept, B0, is tested for statistical

significance, this is rarely an important or interesting finding.

Putting it all together

A multiple regression was run to predict achieving project objective from Factor related to

project manager, Factor related to project team members, Factor related project management

support, Factor related project management performance. These variables statistically

significantly predicted achieving project objective F(4, 95) = 4.600, p < .0005, R2 = .290. All

four variables added statistically significantly to the prediction, p < .05.


CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on data analysis and presentation made in the chapter four which was collected from

document review and through questionnaire respondents of ET employees on project

performance of FL-NGN project; the following conclusions and recommendations are presented

5.1 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the data analysis and presentation carried out the previous chapter the following conclusions are drawn.

� From project management point of view, the FL-NGN project performance is not as expected due to project deliverables not satisfied the end user of the project.

� Project had not created as much golden opportunities in the areas of knowledge transfer from project contractor to client in using the technology ;this reflected in the areas when the employees facing problem how to use the project deliverables.

� There were great knowledge gaps project management in the of NGN project management office specially, effective planning and scheduling, effective coordinating and communication, effective project management and effective project monitoring and controlling.

� Project management approach that had been followed by project management office was not effective especially in the area of managing human resource in project.

� Project management office and its stakeholders did not work as a team while project carried out

� There were a hope from the Company & customers point of view when project launch that these new services have upgraded the level of telecom usage and coverage a step forward to cope up with the high customer demands but what is see in the ground is very different from this .Even if the capacity of coverage increased the service quality the project deliverables not satisfied the end user demand and interest.

� When the FL-NGN project evaluated from key performance indicators (KPI) of project that are commonly used by project management office to measure progress towards goals; so the KPI used for this paper purpose show that FL-NGN project performance is not satisfactory.

� From the data analysis part the researched deduced that there were correlation between project performance or achieving project objective and KPI.


5.2 RECOMMENDATION

Based on the conclusion made, the following recommendation forwarded in order to increase the

project performance.

� Performing project performance evaluation is very essential to know whether the project

meet its objective or not and to identify factors which affect the project both positively

and negatively then depending on the finding of the evaluation to set the best possible

solution which can use for project performance deliverable improvement

� For the problem seen in managing project in effective way; the company has to organize

project management office by those who have project management know how (at least

those who manage the project from the top this help in effective planning , scheduling ,

budgeting ,effective coordinating of project work and effective utilization of project

human resources .

� As it observed in the area of how to use project deliverables or the state of the art of

technology, the project management office can alleviate this problem by transferring the

necessary capacity building to its employees while the project is carried out.

� Since project performance strongly related positively with KPI, so in every aspect of

project execution the project management office, project manager, project coordinators

and project teams have to give special attention for project performance indicators and

project management office has to have strategic planning to minimize or reduce the risk

and uncertainty that affect KIP in pro-active way.

� Project management office or project manager has to have integrated plan with project

stakeholders in order to perform the project towards goal .Working with project

stakeholder keep the project from pending or extending the project schedule, from over

budgeting.

� Project management office or project manager has to work in the line towards the end

user or Project deliverable has to satisfy the end user the project. If the project

deliverable failed to meet the want and requirement of its end user, the project fail while

commercialized the market .So the researcher recommend the project manager to work

toward the need of customers.


� Project controlling and monitoring must be adapted as the culture for every project

manager, this in turn help the project manager whether the way he/she follow according

to the plan set before the project activities launched..

� Every project management office or project manager should keep in mind that the

success of project could be measured based on the attainment of the preset objectives not

simply completing and have to exert maximum potential for attainment of project

objective.

� To attain project quality within its specification the project management office must set

bench mark or standards to compare the project deliverables with standards

� Risk handling must be one part of project activities in order to reduce the risk that

project manager face while project plan executed or implemented.


References

1) Alinaitwe, H. M.; Mwakali, J. A.; Hansson, B. 2007. Factors affecting the productivity of building craftsmen

studies of Uganda, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management.

2) Ammeter, A. P., & Dukerich, J. M. (2002). Leadership, team building, and team member characteristics in high performance project teams. Engineering Management Journal, 14 (4), 3-10.

3) Anil, Iyer and Thomasson, David (1991). ìAn Empirical Investigation of the Use of Content Analysis to Define the Variables Most Prevalent in Project Successes and Failures, Proceedings of the 1991 PMI Annual Seminar/Symposium, Sept 27 October 2, 1991

4) Archibald, R. D. (1976).Managing High Technology Programs and Projects. New York: Wiley and Sons.

5) Atkinson, R. (1999), “Project management: Cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it's

time to accept other success criteria”, International Journal of Project Management,Vol. 17, No. 6, pp. 337-342.

6) Baccarini, D. (1999). The logical framework method for defining project success. Project Management Journal. 30 (4), 25-32.

7) Baker, B. N., Murphy, D. C., & Fisher, D. (1988). Factors affecting project success. In: Cleland, D. I. & King, W. R. (Eds.) Project Management Handbook, second edition pp. 902 – 909. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

8) Belassi, W., and Tukel, O.I. (1996). A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in projects.

International Journal of Project Management, 9) Brown, A.; Adams, J. 2000. Measuring the effect of project management on construction outputs: a new

approach, International Journal of Project Management18: 327–335.

10) Cavalieri, S.; Terzi, S.; Macchi, M. 2007. A benchmarking service For evaluation and comparison of scheduling techniques, Computers in Industry

11) Chan, A. P. C. 2001. Time-cost relationship of public sector projects in Malaysia, International Journal of Project

12) Chan, A. P. C.; Chan, D. W. M. 2004. Developing a benchmark model for project construction time performance

in Hong Kong, Building and Environment 13) Chan, D. W. M.; Kumaraswamy, M. M. 2002. Compressing construction durations: lessons learned from Hong

Kong building projects, International Journal of Project Management.

14) Cheung, S.-O.; Suen, H. C. H.; Cheung, K. K. W. 2004. PPMS: a Web-based construction project performance

monitoring system, Automation in Construction.


15) Clarke, A. (1999). A practical use of key success factors to improve the effectiveness of project management,

International Journal of Project Management. 16) Cleland, D.I. and King, W.R. (1983). Systems analysis and project management. Mc Graw Hill, New York. 17) Crawford, L. (2002). Project Performance Assessment. Masters in Project Management Course, 10th-15th June,

Paris, France. UTS/ESC-Lille. 18) Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR), (2000), KPI Report for the Minister for

Const-ruction by the KPI Working Group, January 2000.

19) De Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of project success. International Journal of Project ManagementVol. 6.

20) Dong, C., Chuah, K.B., & Zhai, L. (2004). A Study of Critical Success Factors of Information System Projects in

China. Proceedings of th PMI Research Conference, London.contributors to time and cost performance in building pro-jects, Building and Environment34: 31–42.

21) Elyamany, A.; Ismail, B.; Zayed, T. 2007. Performance evalua-ting model for construction companies: Egyptian

case study, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management133(8): 574–581 22) Faridi, A.; El-Sayegh, S. 2006. Significant factors causing delay in the UAE construction industry, Construction

Manage-ment and Economics

23) Freeman, M., & Beale, P. (1992). Measuring project Success. Project Management Journal, 23 (1), 8-17.

24) Frimpong Yaw; Oluwoye, J.; Crawford, L. 2003. Causes of delay and cost overruns in construction of

groundwater projects in a developing countries; Ghana as a case study, International Journal of Project Management

25) ITU,2009 report

26) Gemuenden, H. G. & Lechler, T. (1997). “Success Factors of Project Management: The Critical Few:An

Empirical Investigation”, Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology pp. 375 –377.

27) Hanson, D.; Mbachu, J.; Nkando, R. 2003. Causes of client dissatisfaction in the South African building industry and ways of improvement: the contractors' perspectives, in CIDB, South Africa.

28) Hodgson, Ian. (2002). Keeping Your Head Above Water,

http://www/conspectus.com/2002/november/article19.aspviewed 12/15/2003 29) Hoffman, Thomas Value of Project Management Offices Questioned,

Computerworld,July21,2003.http://www.computerworld.com/printthis/2003. 30) Iyer, K. C.; Jha, K. N. 2005. Factors affecting cost performance: evidence from Indian construction projects,

International Journal of Project Management23: 283–295 31) Larkin, T.J., & Larkin, S. (1996). Reaching and changing frontline employees, Harvard Business Review, 74(3).


32) Lock, D. (1984). Project Management. St Martins press, New York. 33) Lehtonen Tutu Wegelius. 2001. Performance measurement in construction logistics, International Journal of

Production Economics69: 107–116. 34) Leicht, Michael. (1999). ìManaging User Expectations.î University of

MissouriSt.Louisepublication.http://www.umsl.edu/~sauter/analysis/user_expectations.ml,viewed 11/12/2003 35) Lewis, Bob. (2003). The 70-percent failure, InfoWorld.

http://archive.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/01/10/29/011029/opsurvival.xmlViewed 12/12/2003

36) Jiang, James J. Gary Klein, and Joseph Balloun (1996). Ranking of System Implementation Success Factors,

Project Management Journal, December 1996, pp 49 ñ 53. 37) Jiang, J. J., & Klien, G. et al. (2002). "Pre-project partnering impact on an information system project, project

team and project manager."European Journal of Information Systems11: 86-97. 38) Karim, K.; Marosszeky, M. 1999. Process monitoring for pro-cess re-engineering using key performance

indicators, International Conference on Construction Process Reen-gineering, CPR 99, Sydney, 12–13 July. 39) Krahn, J., & Hartman, F. (2004). Important Leadership Competencies for Project Managers: The Fit Between

Competencies and Project Characteristics. Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference, London. 40) Kuprenas, J. A. 2003. Project management actions to improve design phase cost performance, Journal of

Management in Engineering19(1): 25–32. 41) Love, P. E. D.; Tse, R. Y. C.; Edwards, D. J. 2005. Time-cost relationships in australian building construction

projects, Journal of Construction Engineering and Managemen 42) Morris, P.W.G., & Hough, G.H. (1986). The preconditions of success and failure in major projects, Technical

Paper #3, Major Projects Association, Templeton College, Oxford.

43) Murphy, D., Baker, N. and Fisher, D. (1974). Determinants of Project Success, Boston College, National

Aeronautics and Space Administration, Boston. 44) Navon, R. 2005. Automated project performance control of construction projects, Automation in

Construction14:Project Failure Warning Signs. http://www.bluejeansplace.com/ProjectManagementFailureWarningSigns.htmlviewed 12/15/2003

45) O’Brochta, Michael. (2002). Project Success What Are the Criteria and Whose OpinionCounts?, Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Annual Seminars & Symposiums,October 3 ñ 10, 2002, San Antonio, TX.

46) Ofori, G.; Dulaimi, M. F.; Ling, F. Y. 2004. Improving performance of construction industry in Singapore:

motivators, enablers and lessons for developing countries, Journal of Construction Research5(2): 267–289 47) Ofer, Z. (2007), “Top Management Involvement in Project Management”, International Journal of Managing

Projects in Business, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 387- 403 48) Okuwoga, A. A. 1998. Cost-time performance of public sector housing projects in Nigeria, Habitat Intl.22(4):

389–395.


49) Pinto, M. B., & Pinto, J. K. (1991), “Determinants of cross-functional cooperation in the project implementation process”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 20, No. 4, pg13-20

50) Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). Project Success: Definitions and Measurement Techniques. Project Management Journal, 19(1), 67–72.

51) PMBOK® Guide (A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge), 2004 52) Reichelt, K.; Lyneis, J. 1999. The dynamic of project perfor-mance: Benchmarking the drivers of cost and

schedule overrun, European Management Journal17(2): 135–15 53) Samson ,M; Lema, M,N 2005 Construction Developmentcontractors performance measurement framework.

Department of Construction Technology and Management, University of Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 54) Scott-Young, C. & Samson, D. (2004). Project Success and Project Team Human Resource Management:

Evidence from Capital Projects in the Process Industries. Proceedings of th PMI Research Conference, London. 55) Shenhar, A.J., Levy, O., & Dvir, D. (1997). Mapping the dimensions of project success. Project Management

Journal. 28 (2): 5-13. 56) Slevin, D. P., & Pinto, J. K. (1986). The projectimplementation profile: New tool for project managers. Project

Management Journal, 17 (4): 57-70. 57) Smith, G. R. (1999). Project leadership: Why project management alone doesn't work. Hospital Material

Management Quarterly, 21(1), 88-92. 58) Stuckenbruck, L.C., (1986). Who determines project success? Proceedings of the 18th Annual

Seminar/Symposium (Montreal/Canada), 85-93. Upper Darby, PA: Project Management Institute

59) Tele Negarit,2007 60) The Eight Keys to Project Management Failure, (2003), http://workstar.net/library/pm1.htmviewed 12/15/2003 61) Toney, F. and Powers, R. (1997). Best practices of project management groups in large functional organizations.

Project Management Journal, 33. 62) Turner, J.R. & Müller, R. (2005). The project manager’s leadership style as a success factor on projects: a

literature review. Project management journal. 36 (1). pp. 49-61. 63) Ugwu, O. O.; Haupt, T. C. 2007. Key performance indicators and assessment methods for infrastructure

sustainability – a South African construction industry perspective, Buil-ding and Environment 64) Verma, V.K. (1995). Organizing projects for success. Project Management Institute. Newtown Square, PA.

65) Ward, J.A. (1995). Project pitfalls. Information Systems Management.


66) World Bank. 2004. Infrastructure Assessment, Finance, Private Sector and Infrastructure Group, Middle East & North Africa, December 2004.

September, 2013 Page i

Annexes

Questionnaire Section 1: General information. Fill in the box provided by a means of a cross(X) by indicating your correct choice for closed ended questions.

Gender: Male Female

Age: 20-25 30-35

35-40

25-30

54-50

40-45

What is your Level of education? 12 grades complete Certificate Diploma Degree Master and above Did you participate in NGN project? Yes No If you participated in NGN project, in what position did you participate? As staff As supervisor or coordinator As manager and above What is your current position in the organization? Staff Supervisor Manager and above

September, 2013 Page ii

Section 2: Question related to project Summative evaluation.

Indicate your responses to the following statements, and then indicate with X in the appropriate answer box, according to the following code definitions:

Strongly disagree=1, Disagree=2, Uncertain =3, Agree=4, strongly agree=5

1 2 3 4 5 n/a

1) FL-NGN project have objective been met

2 There was key finding the project made

3) FL-NGN project did have impact (positive)

4) The project deliverables have give benefits for stakeholder

5) project management approach was effective

6) Lessons have been learned from the project

7) Would you believe the project management did differently

8) Stakeholders were worked as a team

9) Continuous improvement was part of the project

Section: Key project performance Indicators (KPIS) Questions For the next question please indicates your level of satisfaction whether the project achieves the following KPI using the following scale: 1= very Dissatisfied, 2= Dissatisfied, 3=neither satisfied nor Dissatisfied, 4= satisfied, 5= very satisfied

1 2 3 4 5

1, Cost of project was faire

2 ,project executed as preplanned schedule 3, project deliverable quality is as preplanned project specification 4, Client have been satisfied with the project deliverables 5, Community have been satisfied with the project deliverables

September, 2013 Page iii

Critical success/Failure factors in project

1=Very poor, 2= poor, 3=Satisfactory or Good, 4= Very Good, 5=Excellent

1 2 3 4 5

1,Factor related to the project manager

Ability to delegate authority

Ability to tradeoff\exchange information

Perception of his role &responsibility

Competence

Commitment

Creativity

2,Project team member

Technical background

Communication skills

Commitment

Factor related to project management support

Top management support

Functional managers ‘support

Project management structure

Project management performance on the project

Effective of planning and scheduling

Effective coordination and communication

Effectiveness of managerial skills

Effective control and monitoring

Research paper on project performance evaluatio the case study of fixed line next generation...

Business

Transcript of Research paper on project performance evaluatio the case study of fixed line next generation...