Lecture06 reading client_expectation_alignment

C
onfidential
Running head: EXPLAINING PROJECT SUCCESS WITH CLIENT EXPECTATION 1

Explaining Project Success with Client Expectation Alignment: An Empirical Study
Thomas G. Lechler1
Ting Gao2
1
Associate Professor, Stevens Institute of Technology
2
PhD Candidate, Stevens Institute of Technology

C
onfidential
EXPLAINING PROJECT SUCCESS WITH CLIENT EXPECTATION 2

Abstract
This study examines the management of client expectations during project implementation. The
problem is that expectations of clients may change over the course of a project and may lead to
disagreements and consequently to project failures. Based on stakeholder theory, we derive the
concept of client expectation alignment. It represents processes to continuously involve clients to
express their expectations, set their expectations, and adjust inappropriate expectations. With
data from 206 projects, we analyze the relationships between client expectation alignment, goal
changes, client support, and project success. Using structural equation modeling (SEM), the
analyses reveal mediating effects of project goal changes and client support of client expectation
alignment on project success. The study also identifies three important factors that facilitate the
expectation alignment process: client competence, project team competence, and project
manager’s formal project decision authority. The results expand the stakeholder theory and offer
a conceptual and empirical basis for research in project management. The results direct project
managers to the mechanics and the specific challenges in achieving client expectation alignment
and its consequences for achieving project success.
Keywords: client expectation alignment, goal changes, project success, stakeholder
theory

C
onfidential

Explaining Project Success with Client Expectation Alignment: An Empirical Study
Projects always involve multiple stakeholders whose interests and needs should be
considered in managerial decisions to ensure project success (Cleland, 1986; Mallak, 1991;
Turner, 1999; Olander and Landin, 2005; Takim, 2009). Among them, clients play an important
role in projects because they are the ones for whom a project is usually intended and made use
of. Actually, no project would exist without clients. They determine project scope, influence
project implementation and test a project’s result (Project Management Institute, 2004). Clients
are also considered one of the most important stakeholders to decide project success criteria
(Struckenbruck, 1987; Atkinson, 1999). However, project managers report that it is hard to
satisfy their clients’ needs or meet their expectations (Darnall & Preston, 2010). Deane, Clark
and Young (1997) also identified five levels of potential gaps between project outcomes and
customer needs or expectations. The problem is that clients cannot always clearly describe their
expectations at project start especially when projects are complex and face high levels of
uncertainty (Ojasalo, 2001). Another reason is that their expectations may change over the time
of the project execution through learning process in the dynamic business environments of
projects (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1993). Concepts of quality management, like the
house of quality (Griffin & Hauser, 1992), are used to identify explicit and unspoken needs and
expectations. Meeting those expectations would lead to client satisfaction only if they remain
stable over the implementation of a project, which is unusual in project settings.
Client or customer expectations have been most investigated in the customer satisfaction
and dissatisfaction and relationship marketing literatures (Oliver, 1977; Olson & Dover, 1979;
Parasuraman, Berry, & Zeithamel, 1991; Walker & Baker, 2000). Although the importance of

C
onfidential

managing client expectation is increasingly recognized by practitioners in project management,
only a few studies directly investigate client expectation or its dynamics in project management
literature (Deane, Clark & Young, 1997; Darnall & Preston, 2010). Following relationship
marketing literature, we focus on the dyadic relationship between project management team and
clients. Our first goal is to introduce the concept of client expectation alignment from a process
related perspective. It represents those processes to manage client expectations which can lead to
improved interactions and further better performance. The second goal is to identify important
determinants, which can facilitate the management of client expectations. The third goal of this
study aims to derive important implications for the practice and research of project management.
The paper is organized in six sections. The first section lays a theoretical foundation based
on a comprehensive literature review to define client expectation alignment and its relationship
to goal changes and client support. The second section explains the conceptual model and
hypotheses. Section 3 describes the data collection methods, research design, and data analysis
methods. Section 4 gives the results of our empirical test of the hypotheses. Discussion and
implications of the results follow.
Literature Review
Effects Induced by Instable Client Expectations
A growing awareness of the instability of client expectations is found in a number of
research settings (Frame, 1987; Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1993; Kreiner, 1995; Yao &
Murphy, 2002). For example, Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman (1993) state that the needs,
desires, and expectations change in response to new experiences, specific circumstances or
predicted services.

C
onfidential

The instability of client expectations may cause harmful results to projects. A project may lose
its relevance when changes of client expectations during project implementation are ignored or
disregarded (Kreiner, 1995). The downside of adapting to changes of client expectations is the
problem that if the project is hypersensitive to its clients and adapts itself to every change of
client expectations, it will face many changes (Kreiner, 1995). Not surprisingly, clients or
customers are always in a situation where they would like to introduce changes during project
implementation (Globerson, 1997). Kreiner (1995) also described clients as those fighting for
their right to keep suggesting additions to, changes in, or new directions for the project, almost
up to the time of delivery. Especially, the changes of client expectations are effecting goal
changes. Project goal changes occur when clients realize new needs, especially in high value,
complex industrial products and systems projects (Hobday, 2000). Many empirical studies
confirm that the definition of project goals is important for project success (Rubenstein,
Chakrabarti, O’Keefe, Souder, & Young, 1976; Pinto, 1986; Thamhain & Wilemon, 1986;
Larson & Gobeli, 1987). Frequent goal changes could have a strong negative impact on project
performance (Dvir & Lechler, 2004; Murphy et al., 1974).
The research also shows that instable client expectations lead to a loss of client support
(Baccarini, Salm, & Love, 2004). The value of the project to the clients is reduced when their
expectations are not met and consequently their support to the project is lost. Client support is
essential to project success, and thus loss of client support may bring detrimental results to
projects (Villachica et al., 2004). As Takim (2009) stated, the lack of client support is a factor
contributing to project failure.
Reasons for Instability of Client Expectations

C
onfidential

The significant influence of instable client expectations brings the need to explore its
reasons. In this section, we develop a theoretical explanation for the dynamics of client
expectations. We consider two assumptions to explain the instability. The first assumption is
related to information asymmetry, and the second is related to the clients’ motivation to
maximize value.
Information asymmetry exists between project clients and the project team. As insiders,
project manager and project team members are in a position to know more about the project than
their clients are. Information asymmetry between clients and project team is an important reason
to cause instability of client expectations. The clients do not have access to the same information
as the project manager, and do not know if the project represents their interests and follows an
appropriate process to deliver a product that will meet their needs. The existence of information
asymmetry between them creates the potential for mistrust (Turner & Muller, 2004). As a
response, the clients may adjust their expectations to a more demanding level out of fear that the
project team will seek to maximize the team’s utility rather than theirs (Parasuraman et al.,
1991). In addition, without updated knowledge of the project value proposition and the project
status from the project team, clients may change their expectations to impose new requirements
since they have no idea of the impacts that these changes will have on projects (Gil, Tommelein,
& Schruben, 2006).
From a traditional economic perspective, researchers state that a major aim of consumers
is to maximize their utility or value (Fishburn, 1987; Eatwell, Millgate, & Newman, 1987). As
Machina (1987) stated, consumers always choose that “prospect” which maximizes the value of
their individual utility function at a particular point in time. Also from the stakeholder
perspective, stakeholders can be seen as supplying the firm with critical resources and in

C
onfidential

exchange expecting their interests to be satisfied (Hill & Jones, 1992). As for customers, they
supply the firm with revenues and expect value for money in exchange. Clients try to maximize
their value in any situation they encounter. On one hand, typically, clients do not have a clear
understanding of what they want from a project. They may feel something is wrong or needs an
improvement, but do not know what kind of improvement this should be. Also, they may be
unfamiliar with that kind of project or they do not have the knowledge to understand the
technological design. As a result, clients may just have fuzzy or implicit expectations and are not
able to clearly specify their needs at the start (Ojasalo, 2001). However, when they could clearly
express their needs at a later stage or new ones reveal through their experiential learning during
the project implementation, clients will change their expectations to maximize their value. Even
if clients have clear expectations at an early project stage, they might not be satisfied with their
past choices at a later project stage particularly with increasing project duration. Their changed
expectations depend on their experiences, or temporal dependencies and their dissatisfaction with
their past choices (Huber et al., 1997).
Thus, as clients are motivated by value maximization, their change of expectation is
contingent on new information they perceive from the environment (Zeithaml et al., 1993;
Kreiner, 1995). This is also the reason why researchers argue that client needs are dynamic and
misunderstood (Frame, 1987; Parasuraman et al., 1991).
Client Expectation Alignment
According to relationship marketing literature, managers can to some degree influence
customers or clients expectations through mediated and interpersonal communications to achieve
a better relationship (Morgan and Hunt, 1994). The relationship is characterized by concern, trust
and commitment which will bring acquiescence and cooperation from clients (Buttle, 2001). We

C
onfidential

access this issue from a process perspective. We define client expectation alignment as the
processes to bring client expectations into alignment with project objectives and project team’s
ability to meet the requirements. These alignment process help build trust and relationship
commitment between project management team and clients and control for the instability of
client expectations. The processes may include allowing clients to express their expectations,
setting their expectations, and adjusting inappropriate expectations. All these processes rely on
information sharing and mutual understanding (Rogers, 1986). As Reich and Benbasat (2000)
argued that such information sharing over time causes the individuals to converge to achieve the
mutual understanding and further support. Since alignment is achieved by maximization of
mutual information, a regular two-way communication between project team and clients is
especially important.
Client expectation alignment is the key to manage client expectation with the intent to
reduce goal changes. To align client expectations with the reality of the project, clients have to
be constantly persuaded to maintain realistic value expectations. Their perceived value of the
project will be shaped, reminded, and reinforced, leaving no necessity to change. Taylor (2006)
suggested that educating the client to have a realistic expectation of how the project will progress
is a key to ensure client satisfaction. Client expectation alignment is an important educational
process. Moreover, client expectation alignment through communication, especially when the
communication is timely, can serve to promote trust by overcoming information asymmetry and
clarifying misunderstanding (Etgar, 1979; Moorman, Deshpande, & Zaltman, 1993; Turner &
Muller, 2004; Pinto, Slevin, & English, 2009). Parasuraman et al. (1991) also stated that open,
regular, two-way communication paves the path for trust. Research suggests that when trust is
established, client expectations tend to stay stable (Anderson & Narus, 1990; Morgan & Hunt,

C
onfidential

1994; Yao & Murphy, 2002). Clients are likely to buy into the project product and process or
keep their expectations if they believe the project team is trying to be fair and behave as
expected. Therefore, client alignment through regular mutual communication should help
stabilize expectations and further reduce the frequency of goal changes during project
implementation.
Client expectation alignment can also help increase support from clients. According to
the theory of planned behavior, a person’s behavior is driven by an intention to perform a
behavior and that intention can be predicted from three factors: attitude toward the behavior,
subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control over the performance of the behavior (Ajzen,
1991). Since client’s support of a project can be considered a behavior choice, the forces that
govern general human behavior can be relevant to this specific behavior. Client expectation
alignment mainly influences the attitude of the clients to get their support. The attitude refers to
“the degree to which a person has a favorable or unfavorable evaluation or appraisal of the
behavior in question” as Ajzen (2005, p.118) states “people intend to perform a behavior when
they evaluate it positively.” On one hand, the alignment process will bring client expectations
into alignment with project objectives. When clients believe the project team strives to meet their
expectations, they tend to have a favorable evaluation of the project and try to cooperate and
commit to achieve the common goals. On the other hand, during the alignment process, the
assumptions held by the clients for the project are realistic and consistent with the deliverables
promised by the project team. In this case, once a project is faced with difficulties, clients with
prepared minds will not evaluate project unfavorably and will continue to support the project
rather than be disappointed. Therefore, client expectation alignment helps the project to gain the
necessary commitments and buy-in from the clients through managing their expectations.

C
onfidential

Model Development and Hypotheses
Based on the previous discussion about theoretical background and literature review, we
drew the conceptual framework of our study in Figure 1. As it shows, we use a multidimensional
approach for assessing project success, which was recognized by many other researchers (Pinto
& Mantel, 1990; Tatikonda & Rosenthal, 2000; Shenhar, Tishler, Dvir, Lipovetsky, & Lechler,
2002; Lechler & Dvir, 2010).
Figure 1. Conceptual framework of this study
Goal changes in our study are the changes that reflect a change in the project goals with
high importance and high frequency. It is typically caused by the conscious decisions of
stakeholders as we assume in this study that clients are one of main reasons for goal changes
(Baccarini et al., 2004). These frequent goal changes are harmful to the project. Project goals are
supposed to provide direction for the project team. Frequent goal changes may break down
efforts and cause difficulty in efforts to implement the project. As Williams (1999) recognized,
goal changes will result in product and project complexity while continuous changes may make
it extremely difficult to deliver the project in a stable way with constrained elements assigned to
a project. Thus, project progress may be hindered because of ad hoc changes or even terminated
(Baccarini et al., 2004). A few empirical studies have demonstrated the direct negative effects of
goal changes on project success (Murphy, Baker, & Fisher, 1974; Lechler, 1998; Dvir & Lechler,
Client Competence
Project Authority
Goal Changes Project Success
. Efficiency
. Effectiveness
. Customer Satisfaction
. Economic SuccessClient Support
Client
Expectation
Alignment
Team Competence
+
+
-
+
-+
+
+

C
onfidential

2004). For example, Lechler’s study (1998) showed that a lack of continuity in goals is
significantly related to failed projects. Therefore, we expect a negative impact of goal changes in
all measures of project success.
Hypothesis 1: Goal changes are negatively related to project success.
The basic idea of project stakeholder theory is that the project has relationships with
many constituent groups and the support of these groups needs to be considered and maintained.
As clients are one of the primary stakeholders in the project, their support is important to project
success. When clients support the project, they will share a vision of common success measures
with the project team. In addition, their support will bring their commitment and buy-in to the
project that lays the foundation for successful development and implementation efforts of the
project team (Karlsen, 2002; Villachica, Stone, & Endicott, 2004). On the other hand, lack of
client support is often reported to be a factor contributing to project failure (Takim, 2009).
Therefore, we propose that client support will positively impact the success of project.
Hypothesis 2: Client support is positively related to project success.
In this study, client expectation alignment means the processes to bring client
expectations into alignment with project objectives. These processes include the extensive
involvement of clients to express their expectation, timely communication between the project
team and clients to increase shared understanding of the project and the like.
Taylor (2006) suggested that educating the client to have realistic expectations of how the
project will progress is a key to ensure client satisfaction. Some empirical studies have also been
conducted to test the effect of client management on project success. They find that client
involvement (Dvir, Lipovetsky, Shenhar, & Tishler, 1998; Deakin, 1999; Hyvari, 2006), client
consultation, and client acceptance (Pinto & Prescott, 1988), or client communication (Mo & Ng,

C
onfidential

1997; Gopal, Mukhopadhyay, & Krishnan, 2002) are critical success factors. Quality
improvement tools and techniques in project management also help heighten awareness of the
importance of gathering input from the customer (Kumar & Wolf, 1992; Jonker, 2000; Jugdev &
Müller, 2005). Pinto and Slevin (1988) emphasized the importance of interaction with the
project’s clients throughout the duration of the project. Further, researchers confirmed the role of
interaction with clients through different kinds of projects such as new product development
(Gruner & Homburg, 2000), design and build project (Mo & Ng, 1997; Chan, Ho, & Tam, 2001;
Deakin, 1999), defense development projects (Dvir et al., 1998), offshore software development
(Gopal et al., 2002), the high-technology projects (Hobday, 2000), and the large engineering
design project (Gil et al., 2006). For example, Gruner and Homburg (2000) found intensity of
customer interaction and closeness with customers to be significant in early and late stages of
new product development (NPD) projects.
In sum, we expect the processes to align client expectations will increase the efficiency of
the project, improve the effectiveness, and ensure client satisfaction and economic success.
Hypothesis 3a: Client expectation alignment has a strong positive effect on project
success.
In our conceptual discussion, we demonstrate that managing client expectations is an
effective way to reduce client induced goal changes. In practice, especially in software project
management, managing user expectations has been considered increasingly important.
Researchers point out that managing user expectation is to ensure that the assumptions held by
the user for a software project are realistic and consistent with the software deliverable promised
by the project team (Baccarini et al., 2004; Ginzberg, 1981). These expectations “must be
correctly identified and constantly reinforced in order to avoid failure” (Schmidt, Lyytinen, Keil,

C
onfidential

& Cule, 2001). That is the function of client expectation alignment. Client expectation alignment
is about managing the promises. Project goals will have a better chance of staying stable when a
project team’s promises reflect the project actually delivered rather than an idealized version. At
the same time, project teams should help clients set expectations at a reasonable level before the
project starts, and then reinforce their expectations and get their buy-in throughout the project.
Therefore, client expectation alignment is the key to manage client expectations to reduce the
frequent goal changes through educating clients to have realistic expectations, reinforcing their
perceived value of project and clarifying misunderstanding between clients and the project team.
We expect a negative effect of client expectation alignment on goal changes.
Hypothesis 3b: Client expectation alignment has a strong negative effect on goal
changes.
Client expectation alignment is expected to increase support from clients based on our
conceptual discussion. When clients’ expectations are aligned with project objectives, their
attitudes toward the project are also influenced in a positive way. According to the theory of
planned behavior, while the clients are aware that the project team is striving to meet their
expectations, they are willing to cooperate and commit to achieve shared goals. Their favorable
evaluation of the project also ensures a necessary buy-in and support during the implementation
of the project. Therefore, we propose:
Hypothesis 3c: Client expectation alignment has a strong positive effect on client
support.
We also expect client expectation alignment to relate indirectly to project success through
client support and goal changes as mediators. Indeed, as client expectation alignment reduces the
frequency of goal changes, project success will be improved since the negative impact of goal

C
onfidential

changes on project success is reduced. Similarly, as client expectation alignment increases client
support, it becomes increasingly likely that the client support will increase project success.
Considering the findings from prior empirical literature that client management has
significant direct effects on project performance, we expect that client expectation alignment will
still have significant direct effects on project success. Stated differently, we expect the
relationship between client expectation alignment and project success will be partially mediated
by goal changes and client support.
Hypothesis 4a: Client support partially mediates the relationship between client
expectation alignment and project success.
Hypothesis 4b: Goal changes partially mediate the relationship between client
expectation alignment and project success.
Since client expectation alignment is so important, we explored important factors that
might facilitate the alignment processes. We take into consideration the competence and
authority of relevant stakeholders including clients, project team, and the project manager.
In Cleland and Ireland’s (2004) book, competency is defined as being properly qualified
and capable, adequate for the stipulated purpose. Individuals’ competency depends on their
knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Since a project is usually conducted within the context of some
technology, we consider the technical knowledge of clients and the project team as part of their
competence. We also consider sufficient training and understanding of project team.
Cleland and Ireland (2004) define authority as the power to command others to act or not
to act. Project managers’ authority may be defined by their position and their competency. With
high competence or authority, clients, the project team, and the project manager have more
capabilities to influence each other and tend to have a shared vision of success criteria. In the

C
onfidential

client expectation alignment processes, when both clients and the project team have more
relevant technological knowledge, it is easier for them to communicate and achieve a common
understanding of the implementation process, its complexity, and its limitations. The clients’
expectations will be more realistic accordingly. The project manager with sufficient power builds
the foundation to align client expectations with project objectives since authority will be needed
to make change decisions about the project to align project with client expectations or to
negotiate with clients to bring their expectations in alignment with the abilities of the project
team to deliver the project. Thus, we expect client competence, project team competence and PM
authority will positively influence the client expectation alignment.
Hypothesis 5a: Client competence is positively related to client expectation
alignment.
Hypothesis 5b: Project team competence is positively related to client expectation
alignment.
Hypothesis 5c: Project manager authority is positively related to client expectation
alignment.
Methodology
Research Sample and Data Collection
The proposed model was tested based on a sample of project data collected between 2001
and 2006 in the United States. A detailed questionnaire was developed to collect information on
success factors of project management. The collection was assisted by project team members
and/or project managers. They were asked to select a single successful or failed project that was
recently completed within their organizations, or that was close to completion, with a budget of
at least $500,000 and duration of at least six months. These individuals were then given three

C
onfidential

identical questionnaires, which they were asked to distribute to the project manager, a core
project team member, and the senior manager responsible for the funding of the project. The
questionnaires were independently completed by the different participants. As a result, at least
two members of each project we selected responded to the survey, which resulted in over 600
surveys and a sample of 249 projects. Thirty-nine percent of our respondents are project
managers, thirty-six percent are project technical team members, and nine percent are project
administrative team members. Seventeen percent are other members. The multiple respondents
help to avoid the common rater variance and reduce the expected value of correlation between
systematic sources.
The sample included different kinds of projects. As shown in Table 1, we used the project
manager’s response about type of project. In our sample, 39% of the projects are new product
development projects, IT/IS projects count for 34%, and construction projects and R&D projects
are 8% separately. The sample also includes 5% organizational projects, 1% investment project,
and 6% other kind of projects we did not specify in our questionnaires. In sum, our sample
provides a representative cross-sectional distribution of projects conducted in U.S industry.
Table 1: Distribution of project types
Project type Frequency Frequency (%)
New product development 98 39
Software/IT development 38 15
IT system project implementation 47 19
Construction 19 8
Investment project (capital
equipment) 2 1
Organizational projects 12 5
R&D 19 8
Others 14 6

C
onfidential

Total 249 100%
Research Measures
The questionnaires used in this study include 199 single items and some quantitative
measures of project-specific characteristics. Out of these, 67 items were directly taken from
Pinto’s questionnaire, with permission of the author. The remaining items were developed with
the help of some experienced project managers. Each item was assessed on seven-point rating
scales with a range from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” All constructs and items
relevant to this study are listed in Table 2. We applied existing and validated measurement from
prior literature. Those constructs consisting of multiple items were tested for composite validity
using factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha. The Cronbach’s alpha scores ranged from 0.83 to
0.95, well above the acceptable scale levels as suggested by Van de Ven and Ferry (1980).
Project Success. There is no commonly accepted framework to measure project success.
Reviewing the project management literature, Brown and Eisenhardt (1995) and Tatikonda and
Rosenthal (2001) identified two dimensions of new product project performance: (1) the
operational success, and (2) market success. Pinto and Mantel (1990) provided three aspects that
were concerned with internal efficiency and external effectiveness of project performance: (1)
the implementation process itself; (2) the perceived value of the project; and (3) client
satisfaction with the delivered project. Shenhar et al. (2002) suggested another three success
criteria: (1) meeting design goals; (2) benefit to the customer; and (3) benefit to the organization.
Following our previous study (Lechler & Dvir, 2010), we use a four-criterion success measure:
efficiency, effectiveness, customer satisfaction, and economic success. The four criteria are

C
onfidential

confirmed by the exploratory factor analysis using our sample and the Alpha values of the four
success scales are between 0.85 and 0.95 indicating high reliability of the success measure.
Client Expectation Alignment. We measured this construct by integrating items from
the scales of client consultation and client acceptance developed by Pinto and Prescott (1990). In
their study, client consultation means communication and active listening to concerned parties
and potential users. The items measuring this construct include “the clients had been given the
opportunity to provide input early in the project development stage,” “the client were told
whether or not their input was adopted into the project plan.” Therefore, this process helps
clients express their expectations, which is necessary for the project team to align the project
objectives with the client expectations. The typical items for client acceptance are “potential
clients had been contacted about the usefulness of the project output,” “adequate advanced
preparation had been done to determine how best to ‘sell’ the project to the clients,” and the like.
From expectation perspective, these activities allow the project team to keep clients’
expectations realistic and aligned with the abilities of the project team to deliver the project. In
addition, two-way communication and mutual adaption between the project team and the clients
reflected in those two constructs are necessary to pave the way for our concept of client
expectation alignment. Thus, we include items from both of these construct as measures of client
expectation alignment. The result of exploratory factor analysis showed only one main factor
underlying the items, which suggests undimensionality of the created measurement construct
(Hair, Anderson Jr., Tatham, & Black, 1998). The reliability of this measure is 0.89 and suggests
a good reliability of this scale to measure.
Goal Changes. Two items are used to measure this construct. This scale emphasizes the
frequency and the magnitude of the change in project goals. The alpha of this variable is 0.85.

C
onfidential

Client Support. The item used to measure this variable is “In case of difficulties, the
clients supported the project team.” If the clients can support the project team in case of
difficulties, they must have high support of the project. Therefore, this item represents the scale
to measure client support.
Client Competence. Client competence mainly measures the technical competence of
the clients using the item “During the negotiation process the client appeared knowledgeable
regarding the technical aspects of the project.”
Team Competence. Three items are used to measure team competence. One item is
about sufficient training, another one is about technical competence and the third about the
project understanding of the project team. The alpha of the construct is 0.83.
Project Manager’s Authority (PM authority). PM authority is measured by four items
describing the sufficiency of project manager’s authority to negotiate with clients, make
necessary decisions and make change decisions to achieve the project goals. The alpha of PM
authority is 0.84.
Table 2: Measurement
Scale Alpha Items
Efficiency 0.85 1. The project was completed on schedule.
2. The project was completed within budget.
Effectiveness 0.95 1. The project met all technical specifications.
2. The project does what it is supposed to do.
3. The results of this project represent an improvement in
client performance.
4. The project is used by its intended clients.
5. The project has a positive impact on those who make
use of it.
6. Important clients, directly affected by the project,
make use of it.

C
onfidential

7. Clients using this project will experience more
effective decision making and / or improved
performance.
Customer satisfaction 0.91 1. The clients were satisfied with the process by which
this project was completed.
2. The clients are satisfied with the results of the project.
Economic success 0.89 1. The project was an economic success for the
organization that completed it.
2. All things considered, the project is a success.
Client expectation alignment 0.89 1. Potential clients had been contacted about the
usefulness of the project output.
2. The clients had been given the opportunity to provide
input early in the project development stage.
3. The limitations of the project had been discussed with
the client (what the project is not designed to do).
4. The clients were told whether or not their input was
adopted into the project plan.
5. Clients know whom to contact when problems or
questions arose.
6. The clients (intended users) were kept informed about
the project’s progress.
7. Adequate advanced preparation had been done to
determine how best to “sell” the project to the clients.
8. There was adequate documentation of the project to
permit easy use by the clients (instructions, manuals, etc).
9. An adequate presentation of the project had been
developed for the clients.
Goal changes 0.85 1. Project goals were often changed.
2. At least one major project goal was changed
considerably.
Client support N/A 1. In case of difficulties, the clients supported the project
team.
Client competence N/A 1. During the negotiation process, the client appeared
knowledgeable regarding the technical aspects of the

C
onfidential

project.
Team competence 0.83 1. The project team was sufficiently trained.
2. The project team was technically competent.
3. The people implementing the project understood it.
Project manager’s authority 0.84 1. The authority allocated to the position of project
manager was sufficient.
2. The project manager had enough authority to negotiate
agreements with project clients (internal or external)
regarding the terms, conditions, and or deliverables of the
project.
3. The project manager had sufficient authority to make
all the necessary decisions to achieve the project goals.
4. The project manager had the authority to change
objectives in order to achieve the project goal.
Data Analysis
Because the variables in this study were conceptualized at the project level, individual
scores had to be aggregated to the project level by taking the average of project members’ scores.
We calculated the within unit agreement rwg(j) to justify our aggregation. The rwg(j) statistic
estimated the consistency of judgments made by project manager, project team members and
senior managers in a project for each relevant variable. The average rwg(j) values for all scales
were above the generally acceptable level of 0.70 (George, 1990) except for those of 43 projects
which showed a lower agreement among project team members. Therefore, we deleted the data
of those 43 projects and aggregated the left 206 project teams. There were no big differences in
the distribution of type of respondents and projects. All further analyses in our study were based
on the sample of 206 projects.
The mediational hypotheses were tested using a structural equation modeling—LISREL.
The advantage of LISREL is to allow simultaneous analysis of hypothesized causal relationships

C
onfidential

for multiple variables (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1993). It greatly simplifies the modeling of
mediation by allowing one to incorporate measurement error and provides modeling of
nonrecursive structures (Brown, 1997) which are two limitations of multiple regression models
(Baron & Kenny, 1986). LISREL can also give a diagram of all relationships among variables,
compute indirect effects and handle missing data in a better way. Multiple criteria were used to
evaluate the fit of the structural equation model such as chi-square, adjusted goodness of fit
index (AGFI), and the comparative fit index (CFI). To accept the model, the following criteria
have to be satisfied: a chi-square with P above 0.05 (Browne & Cudeck, 1993), AGFI > 0.90
(Baumgartner & Homburg, 1996), and CFI > 0.85 (Bentler & Bonett, 1980).
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations are provided in Table 3. Consistent with
prior studies, goal changes are negatively correlated with all success measures (r between –0.33
and –0.4) while client support are significantly positively correlated with success (r between 0.53
and 0.77). Other significant correlation includes the relationship between client expectation
alignment and project success (r between 0.40 and 0.65). As we expect, client expectation
alignment is significantly negatively related with goal changes and positively related with client
support. Finally, the correlations suggest that client competence, team competence, and PM
authority significantly relate to client expectation alignment with a correlation coefficient of
0.50, 0.60, and 0.38 respectively.

C
onfidential
EXPLAINING PROJECT SUCCESS WITH CLIENT EXPECTATION

Table 3: Descriptive Statistics and Correlations Among the Measured Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Efficiency 1
2. Effectiveness 0.55**
1
3. Customer
satisfaction
0.65**
0.86**
1
4. Economic success 0.66**
0.88**
0.86**
1
5. Goal changes -0.33**
-0.35**
-0.37**
-0.40**
1
6. Client support 0.53**
0.60**
0.77**
0.66**
-0.31**
1
7. Client expectation
alignment
0.39**
0.65**
0.61**
0.58**
-0.31**
0.59**
1
8. Client competence 0.23**
0.33**
0.36**
0.35**
-0.17*
0.35**
0.50**
1
9. Team competence 0.50**
0.55**
0.52**
0.55**
-0.42**
0.46**
0.60**
0.34**
10. PM authority 0.45**
0.44**
0.50**
0.52**
-0.28**
0.36**
0.38**
0.19**
Mean 4.32 5.52 4.99 5.08 3.79 4.79 5.24 4.88
Std. Deviation 1.72 1.28 1.55 1.68 1.55 1.08 1.00 1.36
Minimum 1.00 1.05 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.56 1.00
Maximum 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00 7.00
Note: * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

C
onfidential

Tests of the Research Hypotheses
We applied LISREL analysis to test the interaction of our model variables
simultaneously. The results of the structural equation model are presented in Figure 2. Fit
indexes suggested that the model fitted reasonably well (χ2 = 2.19, df = 1, P–value=0.14, AGFI
= 0.94, CFI =1.00). Parameter estimates are from the completely standardized solution and are
significant at P < 0.05 or better. Since all tests achieve or exceed the required fit criteria, the final
structural equation model is accepted.
Figure 2. Results of the structural equation model
Hypothesis 1 stated that goal changes would be negatively related to project success. The
significantly negative path coefficient (-0.14) of goal changes on project success supports this
hypothesis. The high positive impact (+0.59) of client support on project success fully supports
our second hypothesis H2. As the positive path coefficient (+0.24) shows project success is
significantly affected by client expectation alignment. Hypothesis 3a describing the direct impact
of client expectation alignment on project success is supported. The signs of the path coefficients
indicate negative effect (-0.32) of client expectation alignment on goal changes and positive
effect (+0.56) of client expectation alignment on client support. Thus, Hypothesis 3b and 3c
proposing the effects of client expectation alignment on goal changes and client support are also
fully supported.
Goal Changes
Project
Success
Client Support
Client
Expectation
Alignment
+0.59
+ 0.24
-0.32
+0.56
-0.14

C
onfidential

Table 4: Direct and Indirect Effects to Project Success
Project success
Direct Indirect Total
Client expectation alignment +0.24 +0.38 +0.62
Goal changes -0.14 -- -0.14
Client support +0.59 -- +0.59
Hypothesis 4a and 4b proposed that client expectation alignment would be mediated by
goal changes and client support to influence project success. Baron and Kenny (1986) defined
that a variable functions as a mediator when it meets the following conditions: (1) variations in
levels of the independent variable significantly account for variations in the presumed mediator
(i.e., Path a); (2) variations in the mediator significantly account for variations in the dependent
variable (i.e., Path b); and (3) when paths a and b are controlled, a previously significant relation
between the independent and dependent variable is no longer significant, with the strongest
demonstration of mediation occurring when path c is zero. In our model, Condition 1 was
assessed by H3b and H3c and was supported. Condition 2 was assessed by H1 for the effect of
goal changes on project success and H2 for that of client support on project success. Condition 2
was also met for both mediators. Condition 3 was assessed by the significance test of indirect
effects of client expectation alignment on project success. LISREL gave the direct effects of
client expectation alignment on project success (+0.24), total effects (+0.62), and total indirect
effects (+0.38) as shown in Table 4 and significant tests of these effects. Since we proposed two
mediators, we followed Brown’s (1997) suggestions to decompose the total indirect effects of
two mediators into two specific indirect effects. The specific indirect effects of client expectation
alignment on project success via goal changes (0.05) and client support (0.33) were significant.
Since three conditions for a mediational effect to be present were met, Hypothesis 4a describing

C
onfidential

the mediational effect of goal changes and 4b describing the mediational effect of client support
are fully supported.
The exploratory hypothesis H5, proposing facilitating factors of client expectation
alignment, was tested by a linear regression model using stepwise method. Stepwise regression is
a procedure in which the most correlated variable is entered into the equation first, and then
remaining variance in dependent is explained by the next most correlated variable and so on. The
results of the regression model are shown in Table 5. All three determinants are significantly
related with client expectation alignment. Project team competence is the most important
determinant. The three variables in total account for 50% of variance in client expectation
alignment. We also tested the collinearity among independent variables and it was not a problem
in the model. Therefore, Hypothesis 5 is supported.
Table 5: Regression Results With Client Expectation Alignment as the Dependent Variable
Variables entered Step 1 Step 2 Step 3
Project team
competence
0.62**
(0.05)
0.51**
(0.05)
0.43**
(0.05)
Client competence 0.33**
(0.04)
0.32**
(0.04)
PM authority 0.17**
(0.05)
F value 118.82** 88.22** 64.30**
R2
0.38 0.48 0.50
R2
change 0.10 0.02
Notes:* p<0.05 ** p<0.01
Standardized betas are given with standard errors in parentheses.

C
onfidential

Discussion
Prior literature suggests that taking into account the needs and requirement of project
stakeholders is an essential element of project success (Cleland, 1986; Diallo & Thuillier, 2005;
Olander & Landin, 2005). Our study supports this view. In addition, we suggest that dynamics of
client expectations drives the need for managing client expectations. We developed a conceptual
model of instability of client expectations to understand its effects and possible reasons. The
instability of client expectations may cause a project to lose its relevance and client support or it
may lead to frequent goal changes, both of which are harmful to project performance. We made
two assumptions to explain why clients change their expectations: one is information asymmetry,
and the other is value maximization. Understanding the underlying reasons that cause clients to
change their expectations helps us to propose that client expectation alignment will stabilize
client expectations. It is the processes to align client expectations with project objectives over
project implementation. Our result showed a significant and highly positive relationship between
client expectation alignment and all project success criteria including efficiency, effectiveness,
customer satisfaction, and economic success.
Moreover, we explored how alignment processes influence project success through
reducing goal changes and increasing client support. Goal changes and client support are
proposed to mediate the effects of client expectation alignment on project success. The
mediational effects are fully supported. However, goal changes have a weaker mediational effect
(7% of the total effects) while client support has a much stronger mediational effect (54%). One
possible reason is that negative effects are usually hard to detect while positive effects are
overestimated in empirical studies. The results confirm the findings in the literature of change
management. The study supports the argument of researchers (Gil et. al, 2006; Hobday, 2000;

C
onfidential

Eckert, Clarkson, & Zanker, 2004; Baccarini et al., 2004) that clients are the main causes for
change requests in projects due to instability of their expectations. The negative effect between
goal changes and client success is consistent with other researchers (Murphy et al., 1974;
Lechler, 1998).
Our results also confirmed the significant effect of client support on project success,
which is a general success factors suggested by stakeholder theory. Combing these findings, we
can see that client expectation does not only influence project success directly, but it is also
mediated through goal changes and client support to improve project performance.
Finally, it is worthwhile to note that three factors were found to be important to facilitate
the alignment processes: client competence, project team competence, and PM authority. These
three factors explain about 50% of variance in client expectation alignment. They represent
important preconditions to align client expectations with project objectives.
Implications and Outlook
In this paper, we focus on management of client. Specifically we are interested in
management of client expectations represented by client expectation alignment. By analyzing the
interactions between client expectation alignment, client support, goal changes and project
success, this study contributes to stakeholder theory. Stakeholder management is an important
part of the management of an enterprise and the management of a project. From stakeholder
management perspective, a project needs to simultaneously satisfy a variety of its stakeholders
each of whom has its own desires and expectations with respect to the project. However,
stakeholder expectation does not often appear as a separate construct in stakeholder literature.
Our study showed that client expectation is an important construct for study because researcher

C
onfidential

can use client expectation to explain stakeholder influence or behaviors. In our case, dynamic
client expectation is a driver for project change.
The results of this study also showed that the management of client expectations has
significant effects on project success both directly and indirectly through goal changes and client
support. Although prior literature indicated that client management could positively influence
project success, we have proposed the mediating effects for the first time. The analysis provides
insights into the role of client expectations on goal changes and client support and their stability
for project performance. Project management research should consider both direct and indirect
effects of client expectations on project success.
This study makes a contribution to the practice of project management in two ways. First,
according to our study, management of client expectation helps improve project performance.
The results also suggest the nature of alignment processes. One important suggestion is allowing
clients to express their expectations from the start and during the project. A second suggestion is
rather than tailoring the project to meet the client’s unrealistic expectations, the project team may
attempt to educate their clients to let them know what is achievable through the project by
intense communication. The clients become more realistic when they understand the
implementation process, its complexity and its limitations. Once they become committed to the
project, they will tend to support the project even in difficult situations. Second, our study shed
light on the management of change. Prior literature provides many prescriptive suggestions to
manage changes caused by clients such as making more explicit to clients the economic impact
of changes, formulating contractual arrangements to shape the behavior of the parities
(Dayanand & Padman, 2001) or frequent meetings with clients to discuss the status of the project
(Pitsis, Clegg, Marosszeky, & Rura-Polley, 2003). However, our study explored mechanisms to

C
onfidential

stabilize client expectations. Our results showed that management of client expectations did
reduce goal changes. Therefore, this study helps the practitioners who struggle with frequent
change requests from clients to understand their issue in a deep way and develop their own
alignment process accordingly.
Although the study offers several new insights, some limitations should be noted. One
limitation is that although we proposed a conceptual model for reasons of instable client
expectations, we were not able to directly test our theoretical model. Another limitation is the
common method variance problem, which is attributable to the measurement method itself
(Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Podsakoff, & Lee, 2003). One potential source of the common method
variance is common rater problem, which means the same person is asked about his or her
activities and outcome. Since we collected project data from at least two members of a project
team, this doesn’t seem to be a significant problem. Another potential source is related with the
same questionnaire we used for collecting all of data. We conducted a Harman’s single-factor
test, and there was not a primary factor emerging from the confirmatory factor analysis.
Therefore, the common method variance in our paper does not pose any significant problems.
Another limitation is the absence of a direct measure of client expectation. Finally, the design of
this study is cross-sectional, which limits our ability to draw causal inferences.
From this study, we gain some suggestions for further research. First, we introduced an
operational definition for our core variable: client expectation alignment that needs to be more
accurately defined and operationalized. At least alternative measurement models should be
tested. Second, we explored the effect of management of client expectations in this paper, and it
was found to be beneficial to the project. A further direction may be how to manage expectations
of different internal and external stakeholder groups and its effect on project success. Third,

C
onfidential

project uncertainty may be a factor that could be added to our suggested model as a moderator
variable. When the project is under high uncertainty, the completion of the goals involves high
risks. In this situation, aligning client expectations with project objectives to get necessary
commitment and buy-in from clients is more important for the project than under lower
uncertainty. Fourth, the existence of significant direct effect between client expectation
alignment and project success indicates more mediating factors except goal changes and client
support. We may develop a more complete theory about instability of client expectations to find
more significant mediators that help us understand the role of client expectation alignment in
project management.

C
onfidential

References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior & Human Decision
Processes, 50(2), 179–211.
Ajzen, I. (2005). Attitudes, personality, and behavior (2nd ed.). Buckingham, England: Open
University Press (McGraw-Hill), Milton-Keynes.
Anderson, J. C., & Narus, J. (1990). A model of distributor firm and manufacturer firm working
partnerships. Journal of Marketing, 54(1), 42–58.
Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a
phenomenon, its time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project
Management, 17 (6), 337-342.
Baccarini, D., Salm, G., & Love, P. E. D. (2004). Management of risks in information
technology projects. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 104(4), 286–295.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social
psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.
Baumgartner, H., & Homburg, C. (1996). Applications of structural equation modeling in
marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 13(2), 139–161.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of
covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.
Boehm, B. W., & Ross, R. (1989). Theory-W software project management principles and
examples. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 15(7), 902–916.

C
onfidential

Brown, R. L. (1997). Assessing specific mediational effects in complex theoretical models.
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 4(2), 142–156. doi:
10.1080/10705519709540067
Brown, S. L., & Eisenhardt, K. M. (1995). Product development: Past research, present findings,
and future directions. The Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 343–378.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: K. A. Bollen,
& J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing Structural Equations Models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Buttle, F. (2001). Relationship marketing: theory and practice. In: Barnes, D, Understanding
Business: Processes, London: Taylor & Francis Ltd.
Chan, A. P. C., Ho, D. C. K, & Tam, C. M. (2001). Design and build project success factors:
multivariate analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 127(2), 93–
100.
Cleland, D. I. (1986). Project stakeholder management. Project Management Journal, 17(4), 36–
44.
Cleland, D. I., & Ireland, L. R. (2004). Project manager's portable handbook (2nd ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Darnall, R., Preston, J.M. (2010). Project management from simple to complex. Flat World
Knowledge, Inc.
Dayanand, N., & Padman, R. (2001). Project contracts and payment schedules: The client’s
problem. Management Science, 47(12), 1654–1667.
Deakin, P. (1999, January). Client’s local experience on design and build projects. Seminar
Proceedings On Design and Build Procurement System, Hong Kong, 11–15.

C
onfidential

Deane, R.H., Clark, T.B., Young, A.P. (1997). Creating a learning project environment: aligning
project outcomes with customer needs. Information Systems Management, 54-60.
Diallo, A., & Thuillier, D. (2005). The success of international development projects, trust and
communication: An African perspective. International Journal of Project Management,
23(3), 237–252.
Dvir, D., & Lechler, T. (2004). Plans are nothing, changing plans is everything: The impact of
changes on project success. Research Policy, 33(1), 1–15.
Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., Shenhar, A., & Tishler, A. (1998). In search of project classification: A
non-universal approach to project success factors. Research Policy, 27(9), 915–935.
Eatwell, J., Milgate, M., & Newman, P. (1987). Utility and probability. London, UK: Macmillan.
Eckert, C., Clarkson, P. J., & Zanker, W. (2004). Change and customization in complex
engineering domains. Research in Engineering Design, 15(1), 1–21.
Etgar, M. (1979). Sources and types of intrachannel conflict. Journal of Retailing, 55, 77–78.
Evans, N., & Hoole, C. (2005). Promoting business/IT fusion: An OD perspective. Leadership &
Organization Development Journal, 26(4), 310–325.
Fishburn, P. C. (1987). Utility theory and decision theory. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, and P.
Newman. Utility and probability. London, UK: Macmillan, 303–312.
Frame, J. D. (1987). Managing projects in organizations: How to make the best use of time,
techniques and people. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
George, J. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology,
75(2), 107–116.
Gil, N., & Beckman, S. (2007). Design reuse and buffers in high-tech infrastructure
development: A stakeholder perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering

C
onfidential

Management, 54(3), 484–497.
Gil, N., Tommelein, I. D., & Schruben, L. W. (2006). External change in large engineering
design projects: The role of the client. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management,
53(3), 426–439.
Ginzberg, M. J. (1981). Early diagnosis of misimplementation failure: Promising results and
unanswered questions. Management Science, 27(4), 459–478.
Globerson, S. (1997). Discrepancies between customer expectations and product configuration.
International Journal of Project Management, 15(4), 199–203.
Gobeli, D., & Larson, E. (1987). Relative effectiveness of different project structures. Project
Management Journal, 18(2), 81–85.
Gopal, A., Mukhopadhyay, T., & Krishnan, M. S. (2002). The role of software processes and
communication in offshore software development. Communications of the ACM, 45(4),
193–200.
Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1992). Patterns of communication among marketing engineering
and manufacturing - a comparison between two new product teams. Management
Science, 38(3), 360–373.
Gruner, K. E., & Homburg, C. (2000). Does customer interaction enhance new product success?
Journal of Business Research, 49(1), 1–14.
Hair, J. F., Jr., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data
analysis. (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hill, C. W. L, & Jones, T. M. (1992). Stakeholder-agency theory. Journal of Management
Studies, 29(2), 131–154.
Hobday, M. (2000). The project-based organization: an ideal form for managing complex

C
onfidential

products and systems? Research Policy, 29(7–8), 871–893.
Huber, J., Lynch, J., Corfman, K., Feldman, J., Holbrook, M. B., Lehmann, D., Simonson, I.
(1997). Thinking about values in prospect and retrospect: Maximising experienced utility.
Marketing Letters, 8(3), 323–334.
Hyvari, I. (2006). Success of projects in different organizational conditions. Project Management
Journal, 37(4), 31–41.
Jonker, J. (2000). Organizations as responsible contributions to society: Linking quality,
sustainability and accountability. Total Quality Management, 11(4–6), 741–748.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8 user’s reference and guide. Mooresville, NC:
Mooresville Scientific Software Inc.
Jugdev, K., & Müller R. (2005). A retrospective look at our evolving understanding of project
success. Project Management Journal, 36(4), 19–31.
Karlsen, J. T. (2002). Project stakeholder management. Engineering Management Journal, 14
(4), 19-24.
Kreiner, K. (1995). In search of relevance: Project management in drifting environments.
Scandinavian Journal of Management, 11(4), 335–346.
Kumar, C.C.P. & Wolf, C. (1992). Assessing project quality. American Association of Cost
Engineers Transactions, 2(40), 40–46.
Gobeli, D., & Larson, E. (1987). Relative effectiveness of different project structures. Project
Lechler, T. (1998). When it comes to project management, it’s the people that matter: An
empirical analysis of project management in Germany. In: F. Hartman, G. Jergeas, & J.
Thomas (Eds.). IRNOP III. The nature and role of projects in the next 20 years: research

C
onfidential

issues and problems. Calgary University of Calgary, 205–215.
Lechler, T. G., & Dvir, D. (2010). An alternative taxonomy of project management structures:
Linking project management structures and project success. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 57(2), 198–210.
Machina, M. J. (1987). Expected utility hypothesis. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, & P. Newman
(Eds.), Utility and probability (pp. 79–95) . London, UK: Macmillan.
Mallak, A.M., Patzak, G.R., Kursted Jr., H.A. (1991). Satisfying stakeholders for successful
project management. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on Computers and
Industrial Engineering, 21(1-4), 429-433.
Mo, J. K., & Ng, L. Y. (1997). Design and build procurement method in Hong Kong - An
overview. Procurement CIB W92 Procurement-A Key to Innovation, Procurement
Systems Symposium, 453–462.
Moorman, C., Deshpande, R., & Zaltman, G. (1993). Factors affecting trust in market research
relationships. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 81–101.
Morgan, R., & Hunt, S. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal
of Marketing, 58(3), 20–38.
Murphy, D., Baker, N., & Fisher, D. (1974). Determinants of project success. NSF Report NGR
22-003-028.
Ojasalo, J. (2001). Managing customer expectations in professional services. Managing Service
Quality, 11(3), 200–212.
Olander, S., & Landin, A. (2005). Evaluation of stakeholder influence in the implementation of
construction projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23(4), 321–328.

C
onfidential

Oliver, R. L. (1977). Effect of Expectation and Disconfirmation on Postexposure Product
Evaluations: An Alternative Interpretation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (4), 480 -
486.
Olson, J., Dover, P. (1979). Disconfirmation of Customer Expectations through Product Trial.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 64 (2), 179-189.
Parasuraman, A., Berry, L. L, & Zeithaml, V. A. (1991). Understanding customer expectations
of service. Sloan Management Review, 32(3), 39–48.
Pinto, J. (1986). Project implementation: a determination of its critical success factors,
moderators and their relative importance across the project life cycle. Dissertation at the
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh.
Pinto, J. K., & Mantel, S. J., Jr. (1990). The causes of project failure. IEEE Transactions on
Engineering Management, 37(4), 269–276.
Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1988). Variations in critical success factors over the stages in the
project life cycle. Journal of Management, 14(1), 5–18.
Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1990). Planning and tactical factors in the project implementation
process. Journal of Management Studies, 27(3), 305–327.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1988). Project success: Definitions and measurement techniques.
Project Management Journal, 19(1), 67–73.
Pinto, J. K., Slevin, D. P., & English, B. (2009). Trust in projects: An empirical assessment of
owner/contractor relationships. International Journal of Project Management, 27(6),
638–648.
Pitsis, T. S., Clegg, S. R., Marosszeky, M., & Rura-Polley, T. (2003). Constructing the Olympic
dream: A future perfect strategy of project management. Organization Science, 14(5),

C
onfidential

574–591.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Podsakoff, N. P., & Lee, J.-Y. (2003). Common method
biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and some recommended
remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.
Project Management Institute. (2004). A guide to the project management body of knowledge
(PMBOK®
guide) (3rd ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Reich, B. H., & Benbasat, I. (2000). Factors that influence the social dimension of alignment
between business and information technology objectives. MIS Quarterly, 24(1), 81–113.
Rogers, E. M. (1986).Communication technology: The new media in society. New York, NY:
The Free Press.
Rubenstein, R., Chakrabarti, A., O'Keefe, R., Souder, W., & Young, H. (1976). Factors
influencing innovation success at the project level. Research Management, 5, 15–20.
Schmidt, R., Lyytinen, K., Keil, M., & Cule, P. (2001). Identifying software project risks: An
international Delphi study. Journal of Management Information Systems, 17(4), 5–36.
Shenhar, A. J., Tishler, A., Dvir, D., Lipovetsky, S., & Lechler, T. (2002). Refining the search
for project success factors: A multivariate typological approach. R&D Management,
32(2), 111–126.
Smith, J., Love, P. E. D., & Wyatt, R. (2001). To build or not to build? Assessing the strategic
needs of construction industry clients and their stakeholders. Structural Survey, 19(2),
121–132.
Struckenbruck, L. (1987). Who determines project success. Project management Institute
Seminar/Symposium, Montreal, Canada, Sep., 85-93.
Takim, R. (2009). The management of stakeholders’ needs and expectations in the development

C
onfidential

of construction project in Malaysia. Modern Applied Science, 3(5), 167–175.
Tatikonda, M. V., & Montoya-Weiss, M. M. (2001). Integrating operations and marketing
perspectives of product innovation: The influence of organizational process factors and
capabilities on development performance. Management Science, 47(1), 151–172.
Tatikonda, M. V., & Rosenthal, S. R. (2000). Successful execution of product development
projects: Balancing firmness and flexibility in the innovation process. Journal of
Operations Management, 18, 401–425.
Taylor, H. (2006). Critical risks in outsourced IT projects: The intractable and the unforeseen.
Communications of the ACM, 49(11), 75–79.
Thamhain, H., & Wilemon, D. (1986). Criteria for controlling projects according to plan. Project
Turner, J. R. (1999). The handbook of project-based management (2nd ed). Improving the
processes for achieving strategic objectives. London, UK: McGraw-Hill Companies.
Turner, J. R., & Muller, R. (2004). Communication and co-operation on projects between the
project owner as principal and the project manager as agent. European Management
Journal, 22(3), 327–336.
Van De Ven, A. H., & Ferry, D. L. (1980). Measuring and assessing organizations. New York,
NY: Wiley.
Villachica, S. W., Stone, D. L., & Endicott, J. (2004). Project alignment ensuring successful
development and implementation from day one. Performance Improvement, 43(10), 9–
15.
Williams, T. M. (1999).The need for new paradigms for complex projects. International Journal
of Project Management, 17(5), 269–273.

C
onfidential

Walker, J., Baker, J. (2000). An exploratory study of a multi-expectation framework for services.
The Journal of Service Marketing, 14 (5), 411-431.
Yao, Y., & Murphy, L. (2002). Client relationship development for application service providers:
A research model. Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii International Conference on System
Sciences.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1993). The nature and determinants of
customer expectations of service. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 21(1), 1-
12.

Lecture06 reading client_expectation_alignment

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (13)

Ähnlich wie Lecture06 reading client_expectation_alignment

Ähnlich wie Lecture06 reading client_expectation_alignment (20)

Mehr von henry KKK

Mehr von henry KKK (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Lecture06 reading client_expectation_alignment