A literature review on construction project success evaluation criteria and methods

Abstract

This literature review emphasizes the importance of stakeholder-responsive success criteria and appropriate evaluation techniques for the construction industry. Traditional evaluation methods can lead to subjective and biased results. Disagreements between industry professionals and researchers on criteria and assessment techniques contribute to ineffective project evaluation. The review aims to identify the most important holistic and stakeholder-responsive success criteria and methods from the literature. The review utilized a systematic approach, downloading 102 references from various databases, including published journal articles, conference proceedings, books, and book sections, using search engines and keywords. The review process involved refining and limiting the number of references using eligibility criteria, with 55 references from 2001 to 2024 being used for review. The review flow chart outlines each step. The findings indicate five main evaluation criteria, such as efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability, environmental impact, and satisfaction. The five evaluation criteria include quality, cost, time, health and safety, environmental impact, stakeholder satisfaction, and lesson learning and development. Furthermore, the quantitative success evaluation method is the best technique due to its reduced subjectivity. The review provides valuable knowledge among industry stakeholders, professionals, academics, and policymakers on the most suitable project success evaluation criteria and methods to evaluate future construction projects.

Keywords:

• Construction project success
• literature review
• project success
• quantitative evaluation method
• stakeholders’ responsive success criteria

REVIEWING EDITOR:

• Montemurro Marco, Arts et Métiers Sciences et Technologies, France

SUBJECTS:

• Civil, Environmental, and Geotechnical Engineering
• Engineering Economics
• Engineering Education
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Reliability and Risk Analysis
• Engineering Management

Introduction

The success of a construction project is an important issue for most governments, users, and communities (Noor et al., 2017). Previous project success studies can be divided into three groups: project success criteria, which measure success; project success factors, which identify conditions contributing to success (Alashwal et al., 2017); and the deference and relation of success criteria and factors (Shokri-Ghasabeh & Kavousi-Chabok, 2016). There have been several studies in the project success area, but a small number of articles cover project success criteria (indicators), and even smaller studies concentrate on construction (Vukomanovic et al., 2010). Moreover, a variety of authors have provided different categorizations of project success criteria, but there have been few attempts to collect together and unify the major criteria in a comprehensive manner (Alshami, 2018).

Project success evaluation are crucial aspects of project management, with a top priority in research (Sastoque-Pinilla et al., 2022). Frequent assessment and evaluation are essential for identifying areas for improvement and streamlining procedures for future initiatives (Altuwaim et al., 2023). Measuring project success is a fundamental concern for managers (Sastoque-Pinilla et al., 2022). Successful project management is linked to performance measures used by the company to assess management performance and monitor strategic plans (Homthong et al., 2024). Therefore, to effectively gauge success, it is crucial to establish clear success criteria (Sastoque-Pinilla et al., 2022). Over time, the criteria for assessing project success have gained significant attention from researchers, professionals, and construction practitioners (Homthong et al., 2024). The identification of project success criteria is a critical aspect of achieving project success (Sastoque-Pinilla et al., 2022).

Controlling the project outcome is challenging without setting clear success parameters (Alshami, 2018). In recent years, scholars have become increasingly interested in searching for project success criteria (Aa et al., 2018). Research has stressed the importance of having a clear set of success parameters (Alshami, 2018). Defining the success parameters at the beginning of the project is a good project management practice. On the contrary, narrow criteria, unclear success criteria, multiplicity, variety, inadequacy, alterations, and choosing unrealistic criteria are risks determining the criteria for success (Noor et al., 2017). Moreover, some criteria are vaguely used and some are broader terms; some criteria are overlapping, and some criteria are factors rather than measurement criteria (Kumara et al., 2015). Things that cannot be measured cannot be improved (Wubishet, 2004). Similarly, performance evaluation is at the heart of continuous improvement (Ali et al., 2013). As indicated in previous studies, most project success evaluation is practiced in a qualitative way; this method is exposed to unexpectedly biased results. Moreover, the qualitative project success evaluation method gives various results because of the subjective nature of the method. Hence, developing a quantitative project success evaluation method before the commencement of projects will ensure project stakeholders’ satisfaction. This review identified the most important stakeholders’ responsive success criteria and methods used to evaluate project success in the construction industry. Gudienė et al. (2013) and Kissi et al. (2019) emphasize the need for clearer evaluation criteria and effective project monitoring for successful construction projects. Therefore, this review aims to identify the most important holistic and stakeholder-responsive success criteria and methods to evaluate project success.

Project success evaluation criteria have significantly gone beyond traditional criteria, only focusing on quality, cost, time, and safety separately without giving much attention to stakeholders’ overall project success criteria. The success criteria have expanded to delivering desired outcomes that align with the parent organization’s strategic objectives (Ika, 2009; Zolin, 2012). Success is now evaluated based on achieving strategic organizational objectives, user satisfaction, and meeting the needs of key stakeholders related to the project’s final product (Moe & Khang, 2008). It includes customer satisfaction, social and environmental criteria (Al-Kindy & Hassan, 2023; Silva et al., 2019). Moreover, the lack of an agreed definition for construction project success criteria is one reason for failing to evaluate success (Kumara et al., 2015). Furthermore, success evaluation criteria often focus on short-term aspects, overlooking long-term factors like employee satisfaction and learning and development (Kumara et al., 2015). Researchers have investigated project success, focusing on the dimensions of criteria and project-specific factors that influence success (Noor et al., 2017). These all confirm the biased criteria and evaluation methods used to evaluate project success. A holistic evaluation criteria considers efficiency, effectiveness, impact, relevance, sustainability (Wubishet, 2004), and benefits to the organization and stakeholder community (Zheng et al., 2019). All these problems initiate this review to organize stakeholder-responsive success evaluation criteria with appropriate evaluation methods for future projects. The construction industry recognizes the significance of evaluating project success as a crucial tool for managing, controlling, and improving policies (Chovichien, 2013). Therefore, this review result includes inclusive and stakeholder-responsive success criteria and methods that are important to evaluate project success and useful for managing and controlling projects.

Methods

The review process followed the PRISMA protocol procedure (Liberati et al., 2009). PRISMA stands for preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This aims to develop reliable knowledge of studies (Silva, 2016) that prevents arbitrary decision-making and duplication. The review selection process, as described in Figure 1, ensures careful planning, explicit documentation, and accurate data extraction (Liberati et al., 2009; Pahlevan-Sharif et al., 2019a). The review selection process involves identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion steps.

Figure 1. The review PRISMA flow chart.

Figure 1 demonstrates the review design methods for scanning and sorting relevant references, along with inclusion and exclusion criteria for selection. This literature review implemented three distinct, consecutive steps.

Step 1: Formulating the review objectives

The focus of the review was established by preparing review objectives, which determine the highlight of the review’s basic area, content, and topics. The study utilizes a systematic review approach, which enhances methodological knowledge and reliability of studies, consisting of four steps: selecting, evaluating, synthesizing, and reporting evidence (Silva, 2016). A procedure was developed in advance to outline the analysis method and inclusion criteria for creating the main dataset. Therefore, the review’s basic planning includes determining reference material types, selecting scientific websites and databases, selecting keywords for downloading references, defining inclusion and exclusion criteria, and outlining review methods.

Step 2: Collecting and identification of references

The research stage involves identifying, selecting, and evaluating potential literature through a systematic search of academic databases and search engines connected to scientific references, ensuring a comprehensive collection of relevant papers for review. The papers were sourced from various scientific websites and databases, using keywords like ‘project success’, ‘success criteria’, ‘success factors’, ‘success evaluation or measurement’, and ‘evaluation methods’ to select relevant references for download, ensuring a comprehensive and comprehensive review of the research. It used Google Scholar, Research Gate, Mendeley, Scopus, Web of Science, Taylor and Francis, Springer Link, Emerald Insight, Elsevier, Science Direct, Springer, and Science Direct websites and databases. The search was conducted on 1–5 February 2023, using search strings to limit the search to related papers. No date or language restrictions were imposed, and country restrictions were not imposed. The review references encompassed a global area including the USA, Europe, Australia, Asia, Latin America, and Africa. Additional time has been added to collect additional important references. The search focused on papers published between 2001 and 2024, including references from authors worldwide and published in English. The paper data was organized in an Excel sheet to assess their relevance to the review, including title, abstract, keywords, authors’ names, journal name, and year of publication, and sorted and analyzed using summary tables.

Step 3: Selecting the references to be reviewed

Step 2 resulted in 92 papers, which were filtered through a process to identify the relevant review objective domains. The inclusion and exclusion criteria contained the availability of necessary information and the relevance of the study’s research objectives; not within the review’s scope; relevant studies identified through relevant references and cited studies; references published between 2001 and 2024; written in English; and of higher quality. The review process involves evaluating reference titles and abstracts to eliminate those that don’t meet the eligibility criteria (Liberati et al., 2009; Pahlevan-Sharif et al., 2019b; Shamseer et al., 2015). The review involved friends independently assessing literature, screening titles and abstracts, discarding non-systematic papers, assessing eligibility by screening full texts, and discussing and resolving disagreements by consensus. Out of 102 references, 23 duplicate papers were removed, nine papers were excluded from screening after reviewing their abstracts, and 15 papers did not meet the eligibility criteria and review objective. The abstracts of all the papers were read, and papers that were reporting other than success criteria, success factors, and success evaluation methods were removed. The review process involves 55 final and relevant references. Figure 2 displays the number and publication year range of these references.

Figure 2. Number of reference with publication year.

As indicated in Figure 2, the review comprises more recent and relevant research papers than outdated ones. It includes 15 papers from 2019 to 2024, 30 papers from 2013 to 2018, eight papers from 2007 to 2012, and two papers from 2001 to 2006. It aims to review the current state of the project success evaluation in the most recent year. The review utilized various sources, including journal papers, books, book sections, conference proceedings, project management bodies of knowledge guides, and university-published papers for review. The review primarily utilized journal articles. The review focuses on quality literature papers published in the construction industry, mainly in indexed journals, and considers citations, methodology, authors’ backgrounds, journal recognition, and eligibility criteria. The selected journals are good-quality standard journals; most of the journals fulfill quality standards, such as Scopus, Web of Science, etc.

Step 4: Review done using selected references

The whole review process was conducted between January 2023 and November 2017. In this step, the most useful references are reviewed and studied in detail. This detailed review was conducted between 10 February 2023 and 5 November 2023, using selected references. The review focuses on key topics, such as project success, the distinction between success criteria and factors, project success evaluation, the evaluation method, success evaluation criteria dimensions, and comparison of success evaluation criteria. The review discusses various scholars’ opinions on project success definition, distinguishing success criteria and factors, explaining evaluation difficulties, and elaborating on the method. It also details the dimensions of success evaluation criteria and compares researchers’ proposed criteria. The review categorizes scholars’ criteria into four groups: traditional basic 'iron triangle’ criteria, two basic categories, moderate criteria, and major inclusive criteria, each with multiple subdivisions, considering the similarity in criteria. The review compares 19 authors’ evaluation criteria, identifying the strengths and weaknesses of six scholars, and proposes review criteria. To sum up, this review discusses various aspects of project success, including the distinction between success criteria and factors, evaluation difficulties, evaluation methods, criteria dimensions, comparison, the researcher’s findings, knowledge gaps, implication, conclusion and limitation, and recommendation for future research.

Results and discussion

Project success

Success is exposed to subjective definitions; meaning has undergone many changes due to the involvement of so many stakeholders in a complex project environment (Noor et al., 2017). Researchers define success as the degree to which project goals and expectations are met (Chan et al., 2002; Enshassi et al., 2014). Project success can be defined as having achieved the project objectives, such as the accomplishment of the project on time, within budget, and of accepted quality, and promoting the customer’s satisfaction (Neyestani, 2017). There is no united definition of project success among the project stakeholders (Alashwal et al., 2017; Shokri-Ghasabeh & Kavousi-Chabok, 2016). Researchers have a specific definition of construction project success that has some similarities and differences from each other. Some of the scholars’ basic definitions of construction project success are described in Table 1.

Table 1. Project success definitions.

Project success definition	Sources
Meeting the required expectations of the stakeholders and achieving its purpose	Ingle et al., 2020
If the project stakeholders are generally successful and the technical specification achieved. The iron triangle objectives achievement (time, quality, and cost)	Emes, 2019
Meeting project goals and objectives that were determined in planning stage. Completed on time, within budget, and according to specifications.	Enshassi et al., 2014
The achievement of project objectives, aligned with the project outcome, fostering a dependent relationship on the project’s completion.	Sastoque-Pinilla et al., 2022
The accomplishment of predetermined aims of the project with the actual project outcome (all the planned and expected results are achieved). The final outcome is operating correctly.	Alshami, 2018
Satisfy all expectations set by the stakeholders.	Budayan & Dergisi, 2020
Much better results than expected or normally obtained in terms of cost, schedule, quality, and safety. Completed on time, quality within budget, achieving the performance goals and finally satisfied by all.	Noor et al., 2017
Achieve triple constraints with its traditional connotation; furthermore, customer and stakeholder satisfaction are part of the performance criteria.	Wubishet, 2004
It achieves technical specifications, performance, and missions. The outcome was high satisfaction among the organization, project team and users.	Noor et al., 2017

Project success has been discussed for a long period of time, but an agreement can hardly be reached (Chan et al., 2002). The definition of project success varies depending on the nature and scope of the project (Sastoque-Pinilla et al., 2022). The conventional project performance definition, which emphasizes the 'iron triangle’, is deemed insufficient. Moreover, the interpretation of the concept varies among professionals and construction practitioners (Homthong et al., 2024). In general, a project is usually considered successful if it achieves acceptance criteria within an agreed schedule and budget (Saiful, 2018); previously agreed quality standards; effectively managed risks (Badiru, 2021); can meet scope requirements; and is at an acceptable level of risk (Robert et al., 2017; Shadan, 2012). From this, we can conclude that project success definitions and criteria can be modified over time due to the complexity of today’s construction projects.

Difference of success criteria and success factors

According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, a criterion means ‘a standard or principle used for judgement of something, or it helps to make a decision’, whereas a factor is ‘one or several things that cause or influence something’. Thus, the ideas of ‘project success criteria’ and ‘project success factor’ are entirely different, although occasionally people misunderstand the difference (Chovichien, 2013). Some scholars use the names criteria and factors synonymously; others use them in different ways. There is a closer relationship between the terms ‘success criteria’ and ‘success factors’. Success factors and criteria can be linked through direct cause-and-effect relationships (Albert et al., 2017). Even if these two terms have similar and closer relationships and the influence of one term can easily be observed in another, there should be a clear difference between these two terms. Success criteria are the basis for judging a project’s success (a set of standards or principles to judge the project), while project success factors are a set of numerous tools that influence project outcomes (they contribute to project success or failure) (Chovichien, 2013). Kumara lists nine success evaluation criteria that include cash flow management. However, cash-flow management is not the criterion, but it is a success factor. Table 2 tries to summarize the features to distinguish the two terms.

Table 2. Success criteria and success factors.

No	Success criteria	Success factors	Authors
1	Principles or standards used for judgment, providing a framework for defining and evaluating anything.	Things that cause or influence something. The set of circumstances, facts, or influences that contribute to outcome or success.	Alashwal et al., 2017; Chovichien, 2013; Maghsoodi & Khalilzadeh, 2017; Sastoque-Pinilla et al., 2022
2	Standards used to evaluate or assess project success.	Reasons significantly impact project success, but they do not serve as a tool for evaluating its success.	Albert et al., 2017; Nemathullah & Naik, 2016
3	Dependent variables that help to measure success. Variables that predict project performance.	Independent variables that create success, consisting of circumstances, facts, and influences.	Albert et al., 2017; Homthong et al., 2024; Sastoque-Pinilla et al., 2022
4	The evaluation dimension of project success; Parameters used to measure success.	Inputs to project that lead directly or indirectly to project success; circumstances and events that contribute to a project’s success; facilitate the achievement of success.	Kothandath, 2015; Sastoque-Pinilla et al., 2022; Shokri-Ghasabeh & Kavousi-Chabok, 2016

Project success evaluation

Success evaluation is used for quantifying the efficiency and effectiveness of construction projects (Ofori-Kuragu et al., 2016; Zheng et al., 2019). It is a method of collecting and reporting input information about the efficiency and effectiveness of a construction project (Leong et al., 2014). Project success is evaluated by considering the overall objectives of the project (Shokri-Ghasabeh & Kavousi-Chabok, 2016). Project success evaluations are quantitative indicators of results, expressing measurable evidence to prove the achievement of planned results, as they can be expressed in numbers (Takim & Akintoye, 2016). The success of the project is measured against the project objectives and success criteria (PMI, 2017). Project success may be judged according to the ensuing product results (Haron et al., 2018). Success is evaluated by project product quality, timeliness, budget compliance, and degree of customer satisfaction; it is also evaluated in terms of constraints of quality, cost, time, scope, resources, and risk (PMI, 2013).

Managers prioritize measuring project success, which can be achieved through a holistic understanding of success through evaluation (Sastoque-Pinilla et al., 2022). Moreover, successful project management relies on the company’s performance measures as tools to evaluate management performance and monitor strategic plans (Homthong et al., 2024). Regular assessments can help identify areas for improvement and streamline procedures for future initiatives (Altuwaim et al., 2023). To effectively gauge success, it is crucial to establish clear success criteria (Sastoque-Pinilla et al., 2022).

Project success evaluation difficulties

There are many difficulties in evaluating the success of projects. Measuring project success is a problematic and complex task because stakeholders can interpret success differently (Alashwal et al., 2017; Alshami, 2018). Success is intangible and can hardly be agreed on its meaning (Chan et al., 2002); the criteria of evaluation are mainly the contractor’s focus, but it might be the project’s owner’s focus (Alshami, 2018). Thus, project success should be evaluated based on the consensus of various stakeholders (Alashwal et al., 2017). Project success evaluation criteria, as a dynamic concept that evolves over time, have been overlooked in studies necessitating continuous revision (Homthong et al., 2024). The individual conducting the evaluation has an influence on the assessment (Sastoque-Pinilla et al., 2022). In addition, project success cannot be accurately monitored and evaluated, usually serving the downside syndrome targeted at punishment (Wubishet, 2004). Construction project performance evaluation is a significant source of corruption, as contractors are forced to pay evaluators to achieve good results. Poor performance is prevalent in developing countries, and the process generates wealth for corrupt individuals. It also destroys ethical professionals like contractors and consultants and contributes to the production of unethical professionals in the industry.

Project success evaluation method

Countries have unique project success evaluation criteria and methods, with most using common criteria. Examples include the UK project success evaluation system, Australia’s system, the USA's construction industry KPIs, British National Quality KPIs, UK Working Group KPIs, UK Construction Industry (Overall) KPIs, Scottish Construction Industry KPIs, Danish Construction KPIs, and Rethinking Construction KPIs (Alsulamy et al., 2012). Performance measurement methods like the Balanced Scorecard, European Foundation for Quality Management, Malcolm Baldridge Criteria for Performance Excellence, KPI, performance prism, and performance pyramid are used. Key performance indicator methods are supported by researchers like Kumara. The construction industry employs various methods for success evaluation, including ten criteria, such as time, cost, quality, safety, client satisfaction, employee satisfaction, profitability, learning and development, environmental performance, and cash flow management (Kumara, 2015). Researchers utilized a six-criterion system, the Construction Project Success Survey (CPSS) tool (Chovichien, 2013), a project success evaluation model (Alshami, 2018), a quantitative success evaluation procedure, and project evaluation approaches based on efficiency and effectiveness (Haass & Guzman, 2020).

Success evaluation criteria dimensions

Most of the researchers have clustered success criteria into different components, which they frequently express as dimensions. Numerous project success criteria exist, but none are universally suitable for all stakeholders in the construction industry (Kumara, 2015). Project success criteria, such as efficiency (in terms of cost, time, and quality as per specification); effectiveness (achievement of the common goal); impact (various effects of the project); relevance (response to needs and priorities); sustainability (continuation of its relevance) (Wubishet, 2004). Various authors adopt (categorize) their own project success criteria dimensions for success evaluation, as shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Project success criteria dimensions.

Project success criteria dimensions	Authors
Traditional basic ‘iron triangle’ criteria:
(1) Project evaluation benchmark (a) quality, (b) cost, and (c) time	Badiru, 2021; Homthong et al., 2024; Noor et al., 2017
(2) Three major criteria (a) cost, (b) time, (c) quality (or scope)	Sastoque-Pinilla et al., 2022
Two basic category of criteria:
(1) (a) Internal (primary) criteria: cost, time, and quality; (b) External (secondary) criteria: customer satisfaction	Neyestani, 2017; Sastoque-Pinilla et al., 2022
(2) (a) Project outcome; (b) participant satisfaction	Sastoque-Pinilla et al., 2022; Zayyanu, 2017
(3) (a) Result orientated: cost, time, client satisfaction, profitability productivity and defects; (b) process orientated: design cost and safety	Takim & Akintoye, 2016
(4) (a) Objective criteria: cost, time, safety, quality, specification fulfillment, efficiency and yields; (b) subjective criteria: stakeholders’ satisfaction	Nguyen Thu, 2013 cited in Alshami, 2018
(5) (a) Issues dealing with the project itself; (b) issues dealing with the client	Kumara et al., 2015
(6) (a) satisfaction of users’ needs; (b) satisfaction of stakeholders’ needs relates to the product	Shokri-Ghasabeh & Kavousi-Chabok, 2016
(7) (a) micro perspective, assess cost, time, quality, safety, and performance; (b) macro perspective, assess satisfaction, utility, and operation	Noor et al., 2017
(8) (a) Time, budget, and specifications are all evaluated for efficiency; (b) Effectiveness: assesses achievement of project objectives, user satisfaction, and project use	Kumara, 2015
(9) (a) Leading indicators; (b) lagging indicators	Zheng et al., 2019
Moderate criteria:
(1) Moderate basic criteria (a) time, (b) cost, (c) quality, (d) safety, (e) client’s satisfaction	Alshami, 2018
(2) (a) Management success, (b) operational success, (c) organizational achievement	Alashwal et al., 2017; Leong et al., 2014
(3) (a) Efficiency, (b) project customer impact, (c) commercial success, (d) future planning	Kumara, 2015
Major inclusive criteria:
(1) (a) Efficiency, (b) effectiveness, (c) impact, (d) relevance, (e) sustainability	Wubishet, 2004
(2) (a) Relevance, (b) coherence, (c) effectiveness, (d) efficiency, (e) impact, (f) sustainability	Sastoque-Pinilla et al., 2022
(3) (a) Effectiveness: doing the correct things; (b) efficiency: doing things correct; (c) quality; (d) timeliness; (e) productivity; (f) safety	PMBOK Guide cited in Najmi, 2011
(4) (a) Safety, (b) cost, (c) quality performance, (d) client’s satisfaction, (e) effectiveness of communication, (f) end user’s satisfaction, (g) effectiveness of planning, (h) functionality, (i) environmental performance	Ayele, 2019
(5) Subjective and objective success (a) time, (b) cost, (c) quality, (d) safety, (e) client’s satisfaction, (f) employees’ satisfaction, (g) cash-flow management, (h) profitability, (i) environment performance, (j) learning development	Kumara, 2015
(6) Project performance measurement criteria (1) Micro view (a) schedule, (b) budget, (c) functionality and quality, (d) client satisfaction, (e) project team satisfaction, (f) contractor satisfaction (2) Macro view (a) time, (b) utility, and (c) operation	Homthong et al., 2024

As described in Table 3, success evaluation criteria have evolved over time from ‘time, cost, and quality’ to other indicators (Alshami, 2018). This confirms that project success criteria change with time (Chan et al., 2002; Homthong et al., 2024). Thus, it is somehow difficult to introduce a limited number of project success evaluation criteria (Shokri-Ghasabeh & Kavousi-Chabok, 2016). Moreover, there is no clear agreement on the critical success criteria. Project success evaluation criteria require a comprehensive investigation from various perspectives (Noor et al., 2017) to include multidimensional criteria that need a more comprehensive approach (Homthong et al., 2024). During the project selection phase, it is crucial to establish performance indicators as criteria to assess the success of the project (Takim & Akintoye, 2016).

Success evaluation criteria comparison

Success criteria are a set of standards or principles used to evaluate a project’s success. Choosing the right evaluation criteria (key performance indicators) can be challenging for those with limited experience (Ofori-Kuragu et al., 2016). Table 4 shows a comparison of researchers and proposed criteria.

Table 4. Comparisons of researchers’ success criteria.

No	Authors	Proposed project success evaluation criteria					Other described criteria (**)
		1	2	3	4	5
1	Badiru, 2021; Noor et al., 2017	✓	×	×	×	×	Traditional criteria
2	Neyestani, 2017	✓	×	×	*	×	Customer satisfaction
3	Kumara, 2015	✓	×	×	*	×	Efficiency and effectiveness (user satisfaction, and project objective and use)
4	Kumara, 2015	✓	**	**	*	**	Issues of project itself and client
5	Zheng et al., 2019	✓	**	**	**	**	Leading and lagging indicators
6	Shokri-Ghasabeh & Kavousi-Chabok, 2016	✓	×	×	✓	×	Satisfaction of users’ and stakeholders’ needs
7	Leong et al., 2014; Nguyen Thu, 2013 Alshami, 2018	✓	✓	×	*	×	Used client’s satisfaction
8	Takim & Akintoye, 2016	✓	✓	×	*	×	Client satisfaction, profitability productivity and defects, design
9	Noor et al., 2017	✓	✓	×	*	×	Performance, satisfaction, utility, and operation
10	Alashwal et al., 2017	✓	×	×	*	✓	Management and operational success; and organizational achievement
11	Kumara, 2015	✓	×	*	*	✓	Efficiency, project customer impact, commercial success, future planning
12	Ayele, 2019	*	✓	×	*	✓	Not include time; client’s and end user’s satisfaction; communication, planning, functionality
13	PMBOK Guide cited in Najmi, 2011	✓	✓	*	*	×	Effectiveness and efficiency, productivity
14	Zayyanu, 2017	✓	**	**	✓	**	Project outcome and participant satisfaction
15	Nguyen Thu, 2013 cited in Alshami, 2018	✓	✓	×	✓	×	Specification, efficiency and yields
16	Haass & Guzman, 2020	✓	×	✓	*	✓	Efficiency, effectiveness, commercial success, influence and sustainability
17	Kumara, 2015	✓	✓	✓	*	✓	Client’s satisfaction, employees’ satisfaction, profitability
18	Nemathullah & Naik, 2016		✓	✓	✓	*	Owner’s, designer’s, contractor’s, common, unique criteria
19	Wubishet, 2004	✓	✓	✓	✓	✓	Efficiency, effectiveness, impact, relevance (objective, needs and priorities) and sustainability

1 represent basic criteria (quality, cost, time); 2 health and safety; 3 environment impact (relevance, sustainability); 4 stakeholder satisfaction (satisfaction of client, consultant, contractor, end user); 5 lesson learning and development.

✓Represent used criteria; × not used criteria; * partially used criteria; ** used other criteria.

Nearly all authors used traditional basic ‘iron triangle’ criteria, such as quality, cost, and time. The most basic criteria, which all researchers agree on, are outdated, narrow, and not inclusive. Several authors used quality, cost, time, health, safety, and environmental impact criteria. The criteria are moderate, but still narrow and not inclusive. Homthong et al. (2024) proposed time, cost, quality, environment, health and safety, productivity, human resources, risk, client satisfaction, profitability, and contract and administration success criteria. The criteria are improved but lack comprehensiveness in addressing all stakeholders’ satisfaction, and human resources, risk, contracts, and administration are factors requiring more inclusive criteria. Kumara (2015) suggested time, cost, quality, safety, client’s satisfaction, employees’ satisfaction, cash flow management, profitability, environmental performance, learning development, and success criteria. The criteria are improved, but lack of comprehensiveness in addressing all stakeholders’ satisfaction and cash flow management are factors requiring more inclusive and detailed criteria. Wubishet (2004) recommended efficiency, effectiveness, impact, relevance (needs and priority responses), and sustainability criteria. The text provides a comprehensive and inclusive overview of five broad evaluation criteria but does not provide details on the subcriteria. The author’s focus is on project performance rather than detailed evaluation criteria. This review proposes time, cost, quality, safety, environmental impact (relevance, sustainability), stakeholder satisfaction (satisfaction of client, consultant, contractor, end user), and learning and development success evaluation criteria. The study provides comprehensive, inclusive, and suitable evaluation criteria.

The review knowledge gap

Project success is a subjective and complex concept with no industry consensus on its definition, criteria, or evaluation method. The success of project management and the performance of stakeholders significantly influence it. The definition of project success is ongoing, with project goals being the most suitable for assessment. The concept of project success varies among participants but is based on the overall achievement of goals and expectations. There is no consensus on how to define and evaluate success due to its time-dependent nature. Project success is a subjective and complex concept that depends on an organization’s effectiveness, skills, ability, knowledge, and experience. It varies based on project type, size, sophistication, participants, and owners. Performance, a simple notion, cannot be universally applied and is evaluated in terms of processes and products. Project success has been defined differently over time, making it difficult to establish a unique set of criteria.

The construction industry grapples with defining project success, resulting in a multifaceted approach influenced by various stakeholders’ viewpoints. The industry uses unclear criteria, particularly in developing countries, and biased criteria. The literature on project success criteria is limited, focusing on specific target criteria. Risks include narrow criteria, unclear criteria, multiplicity, inadequacy, alterations, and unrealistic criteria. There is no standard criteria that will be responsive to all stakeholders, and conventional methods in developing countries often result in inconsistent results. Previous studies have primarily focused on qualitative evaluation, potentially leading to biased results. Limited research exists on quantitative project success evaluation methods.

The review findings

Identifying effective and efficient evaluation criteria and evaluation techniques are the main themes or primary subjects of this review. The literature review highlights the significance of stakeholder-responsive success criteria and appropriate evaluation techniques in the construction industry, examining the perceptions of industry professionals and researchers. This text provides a comprehensive overview of project success evaluation methods, focusing on scholars’ success definitions, relationships between success criteria and factors, and the reasons for difficulties in evaluation. It outlines different countries’ evaluation methods and compares and contrasts various evaluation criteria, including traditional, moderate, and modern. The review also discusses the dimensions of success evaluation criteria, including traditional 'iron triangle’ criteria, moderate criteria, and major inclusive criteria. Finally, the authors propose inclusive and stakeholder-responsive criteria, which aim to achieve strategic organizational objectives, meet stakeholder needs, and consider end-user satisfaction, social, and environmental aspects.

The main findings of this review identify five key pillars of evaluation criteria: efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability, environmental impact, and satisfaction. The evaluation criteria include quality, cost, time, health and safety, environmental impact, stakeholder satisfaction, and lesson learning and development. The study also highlights the effectiveness of quantitative success evaluations due to their reduced subjectivity. This review provides valuable insights for industry stakeholders, professionals, academics, and policymakers on suitable project success evaluation criteria and methods. The construction industry recognises the importance of evaluating project success for managing, controlling, and improving policies.

The review implications

The literature review on project success evaluation criteria and methods has the following implications:

1. Practical implications: The study identifies stakeholder-responsive project success evaluation criteria for construction projects, addressing issues in evaluation and contributing to continuous improvement, management, and future planning. It encourages collaboration among project participants for successful evaluations and performance improvement. The review addresses limitations in previous studies by considering project efficiency, effectiveness, impact, relevance, sustainability, and benefits to the organization, stakeholders, and community. The study provides a precise evaluation of project success for public projects, fostering collaboration and achieving better outcomes. It emphasizes the practical implications of improving, controlling, and planning performance in the construction industry, particularly in developing countries, and emphasizes the application of performance evaluation systems.

2. Managerial and performance improvement implications: This study offers important intuitions for project leaders, managers, and teams in construction organizations. This reveals stakeholder-responsive success evaluation criteria that positively impact project performance. This research creates a conducive environment for client, consultant, and contractor involvement in project success evaluation. The study emphasizes the need to identify evaluation criteria to customize strategies, tackle success challenges, and improve overall performance. It also suggests using monitoring and evaluation tools to manage project outcomes, enhancing stakeholder involvement and activities. The identified criteria help stakeholders understand project strengths, weaknesses, and outcomes, enabling better management and planning for future projects. The study serves as a benchmarking tool for improving infrastructure construction project success, highlighting areas for improvement and suggesting lessons for future projects.

3. Economic and commercial impact: The study promotes improved project management strategies, resource allocation, and improved project outcomes. It encourages better project evaluation and development of better practices for controlling project performance. The review criteria are crucial for appropriate evaluation, which can significantly enhance ongoing projects and continuous performance. This has a profound economic impact, as it reduces the negative impact of high project failure rates. The rapid development of the industry boosts GDP, creates jobs, reduces unemployment, and stimulates economic growth, ultimately benefiting the country’s economy.

4. Decision making impact: The study offers valuable understandings for project executives to enhance their decision-making processes. By selecting significant criteria, leaders can make informed decisions to mitigate risks, optimize resources, and enhance project success. This may involve prioritizing specific aspects of project management based on inclusive evaluation criteria. The study affords empirical foundations for improving project impact.

5. Influence on society, public attitudes, and quality of life: The use of criteria in project evaluation can address various evaluation issues and improve communication among stakeholders. These criteria can change the evaluation of complex tasks and foster agreement among senior management, the project core team, and the project recipient. They also address the drawbacks of traditional evaluation, which often results in subjective results. Stakeholder-responsive criteria can accelerate production, improve quality, increase safety, and reduce costs. Successful evaluations lead to safer, more sustainable, durable, and comfortable infrastructures, supporting quality of life and ensuring a tenable life.

6. Bridges the gap of theory and practice: The paper discusses the global exchange of knowledge on construction project management, focusing on sharing findings with industry scholars and stakeholders for scientific research. This highlights the importance of evaluation criteria for policy control and continuous improvement, particularly in assessing project success. The criteria cover various features of project management, including activities, output, outcome, benefit, and business value. Workshops and symposiums promote the use of these findings as standard criteria for project evaluation.

7. Research and knowledge contributions: The study introduces stakeholder-responsive criteria for project success evaluation, focusing on five pillars of industry projects: efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, impact, and sustainability. This approach encourages collaboration among project participants and contributes to new ideas in project management. It benefits both industry professionals and academicians by considering stakeholder interests, client satisfaction, and contractor satisfaction. Realistic evaluation criteria minimize subjective results, improve project success evaluation management, and address the lack of uniformity in opinions among stakeholders, professionals, academics, and policymakers.

8. Input in formulating public policy: The study provides valuable insights into science and project management, enabling policymakers to improve and control future projects. It presents a method for evaluating construction project success, emphasizing the importance of evaluating both existing and future projects. The evaluation process aids in understanding project success and formulating realistic goals. The study offers practical applications for project evaluation, improving ongoing projects, and planning for future ones, impacting policymakers.

9. Consistent impact on industry: The paper introduces a comprehensive, inclusive success evaluation criteria that balance project evaluation with stakeholder interests, promoting continuous improvement. The evaluation criteria are crucial for evaluating all aspects of project success. This fosters a common industry perspective, improves communication among stakeholders, strengthens the industry-community bond, ensures project success, manages ongoing projects, and plans for future enhancements. The findings have consistently been used, indicating significant concern for governments, users, and communities.

Conclusion

Many researchers propose various criteria to evaluate project success. Measuring construction project success is a complex task due to its intangible nature and varying interpretations. Success criteria vary among stakeholders’ expectations and interests, and there is no single comprehensive list. Past success criteria findings may not reflect the current industry scenario, so it is necessary to review the literature on success criteria and methods to construct a suitable evaluation. Previous project success measurement criteria findings are unable to reflect the industry’s current development. Most researchers and construction professionals often focus on achieving the short-term efficiency criteria instead of the long-term effectiveness criteria. These traditional criteria falling under efficiency criteria are very important, but not enough to give the full picture of the project success measurement method. Concerning project success criteria, one has a narrow look at the project (budget, duration, quality, health, and safety at the end of the project), and the other has a broader view (meeting clients’ expectations, utilization of the project process). There is also a problem with measuring project success because there is no clear and suitable method of measuring project success. Construction stakeholders have less agreement with this usual project success measurement method. Scholars have different approaches to conducting project success measurements. Moreover, the construction industry mostly uses qualitative methods to measure the success of construction projects, which give biased, inconsistent results due to the subjective characteristics of the method. As a result, the lack of this agreement is the reason for failing to evaluate project success properly.

The construction industry employs biased criteria and methods for project success evaluation, which are not well organized and uniform. Improvements are needed in the evaluation criteria and method. Five main inclusive criteria include efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability, environmental impact, and satisfaction, with stakeholder satisfaction criteria including client, consultant, contractor, and end-user satisfaction. A quantitative evaluation method is recommended. This review identifies project success criteria for construction stakeholders and a suitable evaluation method for accurate project success measurement. The results will enable collaboration among project participants, leading to high-quality outcomes that meet stakeholder targets. The findings will benefit industry professionals, academicians, and policymakers and contribute to the project management knowledge body.

The review limitations and recommendations

The review explores inclusive and stakeholder-responsive project evaluation methods in the construction industry, benefiting professionals, academics, and policymakers but posing limitations due to eligibility criteria, the search process, the variety of sources, and missing data. Evaluation criteria may be limited to rapid construction industry changes. The review lacked comprehensive coverage of success criteria and evaluation methods for organizational success, project management success, and industry stakeholder success, indicating the need for further research.

Author contributions

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the conception and design, or analysis and interpretation of the data and writing of this article. Goshu G/Mikael: conceptualization and design; data curation, interpretation, analyzing and interpretation; investigation, methodology, supervision, validation, visualization, writing original draft, review, and editing. Wubishet Jakale: conceptualization and design; data curation, analyzing, and interpretation; investigation, methodology, supervision, validation, visualization, review, and editing. Belachew Astrey: conceptualization and design; data curation, analyzing, and interpretation; investigation, methodology, validation, visualization, review, and editing.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge Cogent Engineering for the publication of this manuscript.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

The study’s data is included in the submitted article, Supplementary Material, or referenced. The corresponding author can provide all data supporting the findings upon reasonable request, including all generated or used data.

Additional information

Funding

The researchers did not receive any specific grants from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Notes on contributors

Goshu Gebremikal Beshah

Goshu Gebremikael Beshah is a doctoral candidate in construction technology and management at Addis Ababa Science and Technology University and a holder of a Master of Construction Technology and Management and a Bachelor degree in the field of construction technology from Adama Science and Technology University. He also has a bachelor's degree in accounting. He is a member of the Ethiopian Construction Technology and Management Professionals Association. He has over 17 years of experience in academic and industry environments. He participated as a client representative for Lidia Manufacturing College, two huge workshop buildings, and road construction. He also participates in the preparation of the design, specification, and bill of quantity for some of the projects. He participated in the preparation of different short training reference manuals. Currently, he is a lecturer at Addis Ababa Science and Technology University. He participates as a committee member in preparing the bachelor and master student university curricula. I have an interest in studying a variety of topics in the field of engineering management.

Wubishet Jekale Mengesha

Wubishet Jekale Mengesha earned his Dr. Eng. in Construction Industry Management from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology., Trondheim, Norway; an MSc in structural engineering from Strathclyde University, U.K.; a BSc in civil engineering from Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia; an LLB in law from Bahir Dar University, Ethiopia; and a Higher Diploma in Learning and Teaching in Higher Education from Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. In addition, he is a certified practicing professional in structural engineering and construction management from the Ethiopian Construction Authority of Ethiopia and a project management professional (PMP) from the Project Management Institute of the USA. Dr. Wubishet has been the general manager and owner of Jekale CM Consultancy (JCMC) since 2005. He is an Associate Professor in Construction Management at Addis Ababa University. Moreover, he is a construction (project) management and structural engineering, construction contract, claim, and dispute review expert. He is a senior advisor for the construction industry in Ethiopia and is best known for his enormous professional contributions to public and private organizations and professional associations. Dr. Wubishet Jekale Mengesha is one of the founding members of Goh Betoch Bank who initiated the idea of establishing a private mortgage bank in Ethiopia, and he joined the bank’s board in October 2020 as a board member through an election.

Belachew Astrey Demiss

Belachew Asteray Demiss earned his Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Construction Management from Pan African University and Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology, his Master’s Degree (2009–2011), and his Bachelor’s Degree (2003–2006) from Adama Science & Technology University. Dr. Belachew Asteray is an Associate Professor in the Civil Engineering Department (Construction Management Stream), Addis Ababa Science and Technology University (AASTU). He served as an associate dean for research and technology transfer in the Construction Quality and Technology Center of Excellence at AASTU. He has been a lecturer, site inspector, and construction director at Mizan-Tepi University for more than 7 years. Moreover, he has participated in different professional services as a contract engineer, resident engineer, project manager, and construction director on different construction projects in Ethiopia. Dr. Belachew has extensive expertise and experience in construction project management, construction law, construction contract administration, construction economics, and advanced construction materials. He has more than 13 years of teaching, research, and construction consulting experience in Ethiopia and has published peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings. He is a member of the Ethiopian Construction Technology and Management Professionals Association and has been admitted as a professional engineer.