Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan
 -- 1805 2023-11-30 09:41:59 |
2 format correct
Catherine Yang
 Meta information modification 1805 2023-12-01 02:22:26 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Khalifeh, A.; Al-Adwan, A.S.; Alrousan, M.K.; Yaseen, H.; Mathani, B.; Wahsheh, F.R. The Nexus of Sustainability and Project Success. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/52219 (accessed on 01 July 2024).
Khalifeh A, Al-Adwan AS, Alrousan MK, Yaseen H, Mathani B, Wahsheh FR. The Nexus of Sustainability and Project Success. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/52219. Accessed July 01, 2024.
Khalifeh, Amin, Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan, Mohammed Kasem Alrousan, Husam Yaseen, Belal Mathani, Firas Rashed Wahsheh. "The Nexus of Sustainability and Project Success" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/52219 (accessed July 01, 2024).
Khalifeh, A., Al-Adwan, A.S., Alrousan, M.K., Yaseen, H., Mathani, B., & Wahsheh, F.R. (2023, November 30). The Nexus of Sustainability and Project Success. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/52219
Khalifeh, Amin, et al. "The Nexus of Sustainability and Project Success." Encyclopedia. Web. 30 November, 2023.
The Nexus of Sustainability and Project Success
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su152215957

Project sustainability and project success are among the most prominent subjects in relevant literature nowadays. Project product sustainability pertains to the sustainability of projects’ outcomes or deliverables, whereas project process sustainability concerns the sustainability of project-interrelated activities and management processes.

sustainability triple bottom line (TBL) project sustainability software project sustainability

1. Introduction

Sustainability represents one of the most notable challenges in our current era. There are many definitions of sustainability, some of which focus on the environmental dimension, others on the social or economic dimension [1]. However, this research agrees with the triple-bottom-line (TBL) view of Elkington [2]. In short, there is a need to care for and balance the three dimensions simultaneously. This means protecting the environment and financial resources and respecting present and future human/social needs as a base to attain short- and long-term success.
Many companies are now looking seriously at integrating sustainability into their business as a new innovative methodology and tool for reducing costs and having a competitive advantage [3][4]. In this context, it should be noted that projects form around 30% of global economic activities [5]. Therefore, the potential effect of integrating sustainability into projects (or what is called project sustainability) is inconceivable, and it is a must for a more sustainable future. Likewise, various authors agree with the pressing need for project sustainability because projects are an effective tool for managing change and they have a lot of resources and intense interaction with their surroundings. In the last two decades, the literature has witnessed considerable attention being paid to project sustainability, and several contributions have created a solid foundation for supporting this intellectual orientation in managing projects [6][7].
However, some researchers debate that the long-term endeavour of sustainability may contradict the short-term endeavour or temporary nature of projects, and perhaps they are not naturally compatible. Sustainability may stretch the cost and time constraints, negatively affecting projects’ success [8][9][10]. Others argue that integrating sustainability into projects means greater overheads [11][12][13], extra specifications and additional variations in design [14][15][16], and increased tension between stakeholders and expectations [17][18]. Such authors, as a result, deduce that project sustainability could negatively influence project success.
Conversely, authors, including Almahmoud et al. [19] and Kometa et al. [20], argue that factors related to sustainability, such as environmental performance, health, safety, and other corporate social responsibility practices, are crucial for project success. Michaelides et al. [21] maintain that sustainability is a key success factor, with major corporations like Nike, Zara, and Toyota integrating sustainability into projects to boost their reputation in the markets, leading to successful projects and increased market share. Furthermore, empirical studies [22][23][24] found significant positive correlations between sustainability and the success of projects. Others discovered that adopting sustainability does not inevitably result in higher budgets; and by employing optimal methods and cutting-edge technology to use resources effectively, it is possible to reduce costs and increase profitability [25][26][27][28][29][30].
Nonetheless, there are conflicting views about project sustainability, especially concerning its influence on project success. It is vital to carefully integrate sustainability into projects, as project success is vital and significantly impacts the overall success of organisations [31][32][33]. Project success ranks among the highest priorities, drawing significant attention in the literature on project management [34][35][36][37]. The 2016 and 2017 International Project Management Association (IPMA) conferences recently highlighted sustainability and project success as key research subjects [38]. Nevertheless, the relationship between these two subjects remains insufficiently investigated, with the sparse existing research mainly concentrating on construction and manufacturing projects [1][39].

2. Project Sustainability

Two views can be identified in project sustainability literature, namely project product sustainability and project process sustainability. Project product sustainability means the sustainability of deliverables/outcome of projects, whereas project process sustainability is defined as the sustainability of project interrelated activities and management processes [7][40][41].
However, integrating sustainability into projects is a complicated process because decisions have to be taken cautiously from both views above, based on various stakeholders, and with consideration of economic, environmental, and social interests. Decision-makers face high pressures with different needs from different parties (e.g., environmental agencies, governments, workers, communities, and consumers). These pressures should be beside the need for an acceptable return on investment with long-term viability [10][42][43][44]. Therefore, tools for supporting project management practitioners and other decision-makers are essential for integrating sustainability into projects [22].
In this regard, some well-known frameworks, for instance, the Indicators of Sustainable Development and the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (SRG), are available. Companies can use these frameworks as tools to select TBL-related aspects (e.g., energy efficiency, financial benefits, green outsourcing, human rights, resource utilisation, waste, and ethical behaviour) for more sustainable business practices [41][45]. Similarly, many authors have developed TBL-related aspects as an approach for integrating sustainability into projects [43][44][46][47][48][49].

3. Software Project Sustainability

The origin of most of the existing works on project sustainability is the construction and manufacturing sectors. In the software sector, contributions are far fewer and need more effort. However, like the construction and manufacturing fields, two views can be noticed in the literature on the sustainability of software projects, which are: software sustainability and software process sustainability. The first view means the sustainability of software project outcomes (the sustainability of the software itself as a product), whereas the second view is the sustainability of project processes and interrelated activities when creating or developing a software product. The following two sections will discuss these two perspectives in detail.

3.1. Software “Product” Sustainability

Relevant software literature links sustainability to the quality characteristics of software products, considering it as a non-functional [4][50][51][52][53][54][55]. The IEEE-610 standard defines non-functional requirements as the level to which software fulfils the expectations or needs; they can be seen as the “How” of software products, such as security, maintainability, performance efficiency, and reliability, whereas functional requirements represent the software’s fundamental operations to process inputs and produce outputs; they essentially address the “What of a software product” [4][52].
However, the findings show that most software sustainability research has focused on only one or two pillars rather than all three pillars of the TBL framework. For example, Jansen et al. [56] and Koziolek [57] focused on the economic pillar through non-functional quality characteristics such as compatibility, modifiability, portability, maintainability, functional suitability, evolvability, and interoperability as necessary requirements for long-living software products.
On the other hand, Koçak et al. [58] and Cabot et al. [59] concentrated on the environmental pillar—or in some cases, they call it green performance—and linked it to several non-functional quality characteristics (e.g., reliability, resource and capacity optimisation, performance efficiency, and usability). A similar concern is in the works of García-Mireles et al. [60], Roher and Richardson [61], and Taina [62].
A step further was taken by Beghoura et al. [63], Venters et al. [52], and Amsel et al. [50] by focusing on the economic and environmental pillars together. At the same time, the social pillar was the main concern of Ahmad et al. [64], Al Hinai and Chitchyan [65], Duffy [66], and Johann and Maalej [67]. Several quality characteristics are proposed for software social sustainability in their works, such as availability, security, safety, privacy, compatibility, resilience, acceptability, reliability, and accessibility. However, only a few contributions focused on the three pillars of TBL (e.g., [49][68][69][70][71][72]), but there is a lack, or absence of empirical evidence in considering the sustainability of software process and product at the same time.
Most non-functional requirements used for software sustainability, for instance, “Boehm’s quality model”, “Systemic Quality Model”, “The UcSoftC Model”, “Dromey’s Quality Model”, “ISO 9126 and 25010”, “Pragmatic Quality Factor (PQF)”, and “McCall’s Quality Model”, came from well-known quality standards and models. However, it is detected that none of these standards or models addressed or considered the sustainability of software products [7].

3.2. Software “Process” Sustainability

Many authors assert that project sustainability should include specific aspects related to project process sustainability besides the sustainability aspects of project products to deliver projects in a more economical, environmental, and social way [1][10][40][41][73]. Relevant software literature shares a similar perspective, endorsing an environmentally friendly process that leads to an eco-friendly product [4]. Naumann et al. [74] stressed the necessity of a software-engineering procedure that aligns with sustainability goals to produce sustainable software. Similarly, Mahmoud and Ahmad [75] posit that all the processes within a software product’s life cycle must themselves embody sustainability to yield a sustainable software product. Therefore, there is a demand for frameworks and models encompassing pertinent aspects of software process sustainability [7][55][63][76].
However, few contributions are available, and unfortunately, the focus primarily was on the environmental pillar aspects (e.g., pollution, waste, and carbon footprints), not on the TBL (e.g., [62][75][77][78][79]).
Social and economic aspects, for instance, working conditions, health, social insurance, education, satisfaction, trust, access to services, payments, economic risks, financial performance, and asset management, should also be included for software process sustainability. Such aspects can be observed in Kern et al. [80], Dick et al. [81], and Naumann et al. [68], where the TBL was considered.
Furthermore, several related aspects (e.g., fairness, respect, honesty, human rights, compliance with the law, social welfare, ethical behaviour, accountability, transparency, and integrity) can be found in the Sustainability Checklist of the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (SRG), the IPMA and PMI Codes of Ethics and Professional Conduct, and the ISO 26,000 standard [10][82][83]. However, software process sustainability is still in its early phases and needs more effort.

4. Project Success

The traditional criteria for measuring project success are cost, time, and requirements (also called specifications, scope, or quality). These criteria are called triple constraints or the “iron triangle” [84][85][86]. However, these criteria are subject to massive criticism when considered alone, as they only measure project management success (the success of how a project was managed, so-called project efficiency), not the project outcomes, so-called project effectiveness [1][32][36][87][88][89].
Nonetheless, the evolution of the literature reveals additional success criteria for evaluating project outcomes, such as aligning with business strategic goals and objectives; fostering new technology, markets, or opportunities; satisfying stakeholders; and generating positive environmental and social impacts. These criteria place greater importance on the judgments of multiple stakeholders (e.g., owners, clients or users, senior management, sponsors, project managers, and project teams) and emphasise the assessment of project outcome success or its effectiveness over time [34][90][91][92].
Hence, project success ought to be evaluated based on its efficiency and effectiveness, and the measurement of project success should include both project management success and project outcome success [1][93][94].
Numerous theories, models, and techniques exist for assessing project success, including Pinto and Slevin’s [89] systematic method, Wateridge’s [85] set of criteria, Lim and Mohamed’s [95] macro and micro perspectives, Baccarini’s [93] logical framework method (LFM), Atkinson’s [86] square route framework, Shenhar et al.’s [96][97] multi-dimensional framework, Collins and Baccarini’s [98] dual perspectives, Nelson’s [99] retrospective technique, Müller and Turner’s [100] success criteria, Thomas and Fernandez’s [3] model, Shenhar’s [92] strategic approach, and Dalcher’s [84] four-tier model. In addition, widely employed tools such as the ’balanced scorecard’ and ’key performance indicators’ (KPIs) play a crucial role in determining project success [36][101][102][103]. Nevertheless, as highlighted by Silvius and Schipper [39] and Davis [104], the most frequently referenced of the 199 contributions for assessing project success are those by Shenhar and Dvir [105], Shenhar et al. [96][97], and Pinto and Slevin [89].

References

  1. Khalifeh, A.; Farrell, P.; Al-Edenat, M. The impact of project sustainability management (PSM) on project success: A systematic literature review. J. Manag. Dev. 2019, 39, 453–474.
  2. Elkington, J. Partnerships from cannibals with forks: The triple bottom line of 21st-century business. Environ. Qual. Manag. 1998, 8, 37–51.
  3. Thomas, G.; Fernández, W. Success in IT projects: A matter of definition? Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2008, 26, 733–742.
  4. Calero, C.; Moraga, M.A.; Bertoa, M.F.; Duboc, L. Green software and software quality. In Green in Software Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 231–260.
  5. Turner, J.R.; Anbari, F.; Bredillet, C. Perspectives on research in project management: The nine schools. Glob. Bus. Perspect. 2013, 1, 3–28.
  6. Huemann, M.; Silvius, G. Projects to create the future: Managing projects meets sustainable development. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1066–1070.
  7. Khalifeh, A. Advances in Business Management: The Incorporation of Sustainability in Software Engineering Projects and the Potential Impact on Project Success in the Context of Jordanian Public Universities. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bolton, Bolton, UK, 2020.
  8. Pearce, A.R. Sustainable capital projects: Leapfrogging the first cost barrier. Civ. Eng. Environ. Syst. 2008, 25, 291–300.
  9. Tharp, J. Project Management and Global Sustainability; Project Management Institute: Marsailles, France, 2012.
  10. Silvius, G.; Schipper, R.; Den, V.; Brink, J.; Planko, J. Sustainability in Project Management; Gower Publishing, Ltd.: Surrey, UK, 2012.
  11. Plouffe, S.; Lanoie, P.; Berneman, C.; Vernier, M.F. Economic benefits tied to ecodesign. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 573–579.
  12. Knight, P.; Jenkins, J.O. Adopting and applying eco-design techniques: A practitioners perspective. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 549–558.
  13. Pujari, D. Eco-innovation and new product development: Understanding the influences on market performance. Technovation 2006, 26, 76–85.
  14. Taylor, T. Sustainability Interventions—for Managers of Projects and Programmes; Centre for Education in the Built Environment, Dashdot Enterprises Ltd.: London, UK, 2010.
  15. Maltzman, R.; Shirley, D. Green Project Management; Taylor & Francis Ltd.: London, UK, 2010.
  16. Hwang, B.G.; Ng, W.J. Project management knowledge and skills for green construction: Overcoming challenges. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2013, 31, 272–284.
  17. Brucker, K.D.; Macharis, C.; Verbeke, A. Multi-criteria analysis and the resolution of sustainable development dilemmas: A stakeholder management approach. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2013, 224, 122–131.
  18. Brandoni, C.; Polonara, F. The role of municipal energy planning in the regional energy-planning process. Energy 2012, 48, 323–338.
  19. Almahmoud, E.S.; Doloi, H.K.; Panuwatwanich, K. Linking project health to project performance indicators: Multiple case studies of construction projects in Saudi Arabia. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2012, 30, 296–307.
  20. Kometa, S.T.; Olomolaiye, P.O.; Harris, F.C. An Evaluation of Clients’ Needs and Responsibilities in the Construction Process. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 1995, 2, 57–76.
  21. Michaelides, R.; Bryde, D.; Ohaeri, U. Sustainability From a Project Management Perspective: Are Oil and Gas Supply Chains Ready to Embed Sustainability in Their Projects. In Proceedings of the Project Management Institute Research and Education Conference, Portland, OR, USA, 27–29 July 2014; pp. 1–28.
  22. Carvalho, M.M.; Rabechini, R. Can project sustainability management impact project success? An empirical study applying a contingent approach. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1120–1132.
  23. Borchardt, M.; Wendt, M.H.; Pereira, G.M.; Sellitto, M.A. Redesign of a component based on ecodesign practices: Environmental impact and cost reduction achievements. J. Clean. Prod. 2011, 19, 49–57.
  24. Khalilzadeh, M.; Akbari, H.; Foroughi, A. Investigating the Relationship of Sustainability Factors with Project Management Success. Ind. Eng. Manag. Syst. 2016, 15, 345–353.
  25. Watson, R.T.; Boudreau, M.C.; Chen, A.J. Information systems and environmentally sustainable development: Energy informatics and new directions for the IS community. MIS Q. 2010, 34, 23–38.
  26. Murugesan, S. Harnessing Green IT: Principles and Practices. IT Prof. 2008, 10, 24–33.
  27. Porter, M.; Van der Linde, C. Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate. In the Dynamics of the Eco-efficient Economy: Environmental Regulation and Competitive Advantage. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1995, 33, 120–134.
  28. Sánchez, M.A. Integrating sustainability issues into project management. J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 96, 319–330.
  29. Al-Qudah, A.A.; Al-Okaily, M.; Alqudah, H. The relationship between social entrepreneurship and sustainable development from economic growth perspective: 15 ‘RCEP’countries. J. Sustain. Financ. Invest. 2022, 12, 44–61.
  30. Dajani, D.; Yaseen, S.G.; El Qirem, I.; Sa’d, H. Predictors of Intention to Use a Sustainable Cloud-Based Quality Management System among Academics in Jordan. Sustainability 2022, 14, 14253.
  31. Kerzner Kerzner, H. Advanced Project Management: Best Practices on Implementation; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004.
  32. Wit, A.D. Measurement of project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1988, 6, 164–170.
  33. Aaltonen, K.; Kujala, J. A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder influence strategies in global projects. Scand. J. Manag. 2010, 26, 381–397.
  34. Müller, R.; Jugdev, K. Critical success factors in projects: Pinto, Slevin, and Prescott-the elucidation of project success. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2012, 5, 757–775.
  35. Ika, L.A. Project success as a topic in project management journals. Proj. Manag. J. 2009, 40, 6–19.
  36. Cooke-Davies, T. The “real” success factors on projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2002, 20, 185–190.
  37. Rolstadås, A.; Tommelein, I.; Schiefloe, P.M.; Ballard, G. Understanding project success through analysis of project management approach. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2014, 7, 638–660.
  38. Martínez-Perales, S.; Ortiz-Marcos, I.; Ruiz, J.J.; Lázaro, F. Using Certification as a Tool to Develop Sustainability in Project Management. Sustainability 2018, 10, 1408.
  39. Silvius, A.G.; Schipper, R. Exploring the Relationship between Sustainability and Project Success-Conceptual Model and Expected Relationships. SciKA-Association for Promotion and Dissemination of Scientific Knowledge. Int. J. Inf. Syst. Proj. Manag. 2016, 4, 5–22.
  40. Gareis, R.; Huemann, M.; Martinuzzi, A.; Weninger, C.; Sedlacko, M. Project Management and Sustainable Development Principles; Project Management Institute: Marsailles, France, 2013.
  41. Labuschagne, C.; Brent, A.C.; Erck, R.P.V. Assessing the sustainability performances of industries. J. Clean. Prod. 2005, 13, 373–385.
  42. Thabrew, L.; Wiek, A.; Ries, R. Environmental decision making in multi-stakeholder contexts: Applicability of life cycle thinking in development planning and implementation. J. Clean. Prod. 2009, 17, 67–76.
  43. Fiksel, J.; Mcdaniel, J.; Mendenhall, C. Measuring Progress Towards Sustainability Principles, Process, and Best Practices. In Proceedings of the Greening of Industry Network Conference Best Practice Proceedings, Washington DC, USA, 29 March 1999; pp. 1–25.
  44. Yuan, H. Achieving Sustainability in Railway Projects: Major Stakeholder Concerns. Proj. Manag. J. 2017, 48, 115–132.
  45. Singh, R.K.; Murty, H.R.; Gupta, S.K.; Dikshit, A.K. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecol. Indic. 2012, 15, 281–299.
  46. Zhang, X.; Wu, Y.; Shen, L.; Skitmore, M. A prototype system dynamic model for assessing the sustainability of construction projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 66–76.
  47. Yao, H.; Shen, L.; Tan, Y.; Hao, J. Simulating the impacts of policy scenarios on the sustainability performance of infrastructure projects. Autom. Constr. 2011, 20, 1060–1069.
  48. Shen, L.Y.; Tam, V.W.; Tam, L.; Ji, Y.B. Project feasibility study: The key to successful implementation of sustainable and socially responsible construction management practice. J. Clean. Prod. 2010, 18, 254–259.
  49. Fernández-Sánchez, G.; Rodríguez-López, F. A methodology to identify sustainability indicators in construction project management-Application to infrastructure projects in Spain. Ecol. Indic. 2010, 10, 1193–1201.
  50. Amsel, N.; Ibrahim, Z.; Malik, A.; Tomlinson, B. Toward sustainable software engineering: NIER track. In Proceedings of the 33th International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), Honolulu, HI, USA, 21–28 May 2011; pp. 976–979.
  51. Albertao, F.; Xiao, J.; Tian, C.; Lu, Y.; Zhang, K.Q.; Liu, C. Measuring the sustainability performance of software projects. In Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE 7th International Conference on E-Business Engineering, shanghai, China, 10–12 November 2010; pp. 369–373.
  52. Venters, C.; Lau, L.; Griffiths, M.; Holmes, V.; Ward, R.; Jay, C.; Dibsdale, C.; Xu, J. The blind men and the elephant: Towards an empirical evaluation framework for software sustainability. J. Open Res. Softw. 2014, 2, 1–6.
  53. Lago, P.; Kocak, S.A.; Crnkovic, I.; Penzensradler, B. Framing Sustainability as a Property of Software Quality. Commun. ACM 2015, 58, 70–78.
  54. Penzenstadler, B.; Raturi, A.; Richardson, D.; Tomlinson, B. Safety, security, now sustainability: The nonfunctional requirement for the 21st century. IEEE Softw. 2014, 31, 40–47.
  55. Malik, M.N.; Khan, H.H. Investigating Software Standards: A Lens of Sustainability for Software Crowdsourcing. IEEE Access 2018, 6, 5139–5150.
  56. Jansen, A.; Wall, A.; Weiss, R. Techsure-a method for assessing technology sustainability in long lived software intensive systems. In Proceedings of the 37th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications, Oulu, Finland, 30 August–2 September 2011; pp. 426–434.
  57. Koziolek, H. Sustainability evaluation of software architectures: A systematic review. In Proceedings of the Joint ACM SIGSOFT Conference—QoSA and ACM SIGSOFT Symposium—ISARCS on Quality of Software Architectures—QoSA and Architecting Critical Systems—ISARCS 2011, Boulder, CO, USA, 20–24 June 2011; pp. 3–12.
  58. Koçak, S.A.; Alptekin, G.I.; Bener, A.B. Integrating Environmental Sustainability in Software Product Quality. In Proceedings of the RE4SuSy@ RE, Ottawa, ON, Canada, 24 August 2015; pp. 17–24.
  59. Cabot, J.; Easterbrook, S.; Horkoff, J.; Lessard, L.; Liaskos, S.; Mazón, J.N. Integrating sustainability in decision-making processes: A modelling strategy. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Software Engineering-Companion Volume, Vancouver, BC, Canada, 16–24 May 2009; pp. 207–210.
  60. García-Mireles, G.A.; Moraga, M.A.; García, F.; Calero, C.; Piattini, M. Interactions between environmental sustainability goals and software product quality: A mapping study. Inf. Softw. Technol. 2018, 95, 108–129.
  61. Roher, K.; Richardson, D. A proposed recommender system for eliciting software sustainability requirements. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on User Evaluations for Software Engineering Researchers (USER), San Francisco, CA, USA, 26 May 2013; pp. 16–19.
  62. Taina, J. Good, bad, and beautiful software-In search of green software quality factors. Cepis Upgrad. 2011, 12, 22–27.
  63. Beghoura, M.A.; Boubetra, A.; Boukerram, A. Green software requirements and measurement: Random decision forests-based software energy consumption profiling. Requir. Eng. 2017, 22, 27–40.
  64. Ahmad, R.; Hussain, A.; Baharom, F. Integrated-Software Sustainability Evaluation Model (i-SSEM) Development. J. Telecommun. Electron. Comput. Eng. (JTEC) 2018, 39–46.
  65. Al Hinai, M.; Chitchyan, R. Engineering Requirements for Social Sustainability. In ICT for Sustainability 2016; Atlantis Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 79–88.
  66. Duffy, V.G. Improving Sustainability through Usability. In Proceedings of the International Conference of Design, User Experience, and Usability, Heraklion, Greece, 22–27 June 2014; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 507–519.
  67. Johann, T.; Maalej, W. Position paper: The social dimension of sustainability in requirements engineering. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Requirements Engineering for Sustainable Systems, San Francisco, CA, USA, 26 May 2013.
  68. Naumann, S.; Dick, M.; Kern, E.; Johann, T. The greensoft model: A reference model for green and sustainable software and its engineering. Sustain. Comput. Inform. Syst. 2011, 1, 294–304.
  69. Saputri, T.R.D.; Lee, S.W. Incorporating sustainability design in requirements engineering process: A preliminary study. In Proceedings of the Asia Pacific Requirements Engineering Conference, Nagoya, Japan, 10–12 November 2016; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; pp. 53–67.
  70. Raturi, A.; Penzenstadler, B.; Tomlinson, B.; Richardson, D. Developing a sustainability non-functional requirements framework. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Green and Sustainable Software, Hyderabad, India, 1 June 2014; pp. 1–8.
  71. Penzenstadler, B.; Femmer, H. A generic model for sustainability with process- and product-specific instances. In Proceedings of the 2013 Workshop on Green In/By Software Engineering, Fukuoka, Japan, 24–29 March 2013; pp. 3–8.
  72. Kern, E.; Dick, M.; Naumann, S.; Guldner, A.; Johann, T. Green Software and Green Software Engineering—Definitions, Measurements, and Quality Aspects. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Information and Communication for Sustainability, Stockholm, Sweden, 25–27 June 2013; pp. 87–94.
  73. Khalfan, M.M. Managing sustainability within construction projects. J. Environ. Assess. Policy Manag. 2006, 8, 41–60.
  74. Naumann, S.; Kern, E.; Dick, M.; Johann, T. Sustainable software engineering: Process and quality models, life cycle, and social aspects. In Proceedings of the ICT Innovations for Sustainability; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 191–205.
  75. Mahmoud, S.S.; Ahmad, I. A green model for sustainable software engineering. Int. J. Softw. Eng. Its Appl. 2013, 7, 55–74.
  76. Oyedeji, S.; Seffah, A.; Penzenstadler, B. Sustainability quantification in requirements informing design. In Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Requirements Engineering for Sustainable Systems, Lisbon, Portugal, 4–8 September 2017; pp. 1–10.
  77. Shenoy, S.S.; Eeratta, R. Green software development model: An approach towards sustainable software development. In Proceedings of the 2011 Annual IEEE India Conference, Hyderabad, India, 16–18 December 2011; pp. 1–6.
  78. Agarwal, S.; Nath, A.; Chowdhury, D. Sustainable approaches and good practices in green software engineering. Int. J. Res. Rev. Comput. Sci. 2012, 3, 1425–1428.
  79. Lami, G.; Fabbrini, F.; Fusani, M. Software sustainability from a process-centric perspective. In Proceedings of the European Conference on Software Process Improvement, Vienna, Austria, 25–27 June 2012; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 97–108.
  80. Kern, E.; Naumann, S.; Dick, M. Processes for green and sustainable software engineering processes for green and sustainable software engineering. In The Green in Software Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2015; pp. 61–81.
  81. Dick, M.; Drangmeister, J.; Kern, E.; Naumann, S. Green software engineering with agile methods. In Proceedings of the 2013 2nd International Workshop on Green and Sustainable Software (GREENS), San Francisco, CA, USA, 20 May 2013; pp. 78–85.
  82. Pmi, P. Project Management. In A guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide); Project Management Institute: Marsailles, France, 2017.
  83. ISO 26000; Guidance on Social Responsibility. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010.
  84. Dalcher, D. Rethinking success in software projects: Looking beyond the failure factors. In Software Project Management in a Changing World; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 27–49.
  85. Wateridge, J. How can IS/IT projects be measured for success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1998, 16, 59–63.
  86. Atkinson, R. Project management: Cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1999, 17, 337–342.
  87. Bakker, K.D.; Boonstra, A.; Wortmann, H. Does risk management contribute to IT project success? A meta-analysis of empirical evidence. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 493–503.
  88. Saarinen, T. System development methodology and project success: An assessment of situational approaches. Inf. Manag. 1990, 19, 183–193.
  89. Pinto, J.K.; Slevin, D.P. Project success: Definitions and measurement techniques. Proj. Manag. J. 1988, 19, 67–72.
  90. Davis, K. An empirical investigation into different stakeholder groups perception of project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 604–617.
  91. Turner, R.; Zolin, R. Forecasting success on large projects: Developing reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time frames. Proj. Manag. J. 2012, 43, 87–99.
  92. Shenhar, A. Meeting Time, Cost, and Money-Making Goals with Strategic Project Leadership®; Project Management Institute: Marsailles, France, 2011.
  93. Baccarini, D. The Logical Framework Method for Defining Project Success. Proj. Manag. J. 1999, 30, 25–32.
  94. Belout, A. Effects of human resource management on project effectiveness and success: Toward a new conceptual framework. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1998, 16, 21–26.
  95. Lim, C.S.; Mohamed, M.Z. Criteria of project success: An exploratory re-examination. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1999, 17, 243–248.
  96. Shenhar, A.J.; Dvir, D.; Levy, O.; Maltz, A.C. Project success: A multi-dimensional strategic concept. Long Range Plan. 2001, 34, 699–725.
  97. Shenhar, A.J.; Levy, O.; Dvir, D. Mapping the dimensions of project success. Proj. Manag. J. 1997, 28, 5–13.
  98. Collins, A.; Baccarini, D. Project success-a survey. J. Constr. Res. 2004, 5, 211–231.
  99. Nelson, R.R. Project retrospectives: Evaluating project success, failure, and everything in between. MIS Q. Exec. 2008, 4, 361–372.
  100. Müller, R.; Turner, R. The influence of project managers on project success criteria and project success by type of project. Eur. Manag. J. 2007, 25, 298–309.
  101. Jugdev, K.; Müller, R. A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project success. Proj. Manag. J. 2005, 36, 19–31.
  102. Albert, M.; Balve, P.; Spang, K. Evaluation of project success: A structured literature review. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2017, 10, 796–821.
  103. Toor, S.; Ogunlana, S.O. Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Stakeholder perception of key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2010, 28, 228–236.
  104. Davis, K. Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project success. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2014, 32, 189–201.
  105. Shenhar, A.J.; Dvir, D. Reinventing Project Management: The Diamond Approach to Successful Growth and Innovation; Harvard Business Review Press: Brighton, MA, USA, 2007.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Management
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Amin Khalifeh
,
Ahmad Samed Al-Adwan
,
Mohammed Kasem Alrousan
,
Husam Yaseen
,
Belal Mathani
,
Firas Rashed Wahsheh
View Times: 126
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 01 Dec 2023
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Video Production Service
    Feedback