\documentclass[11pt,twoside]{article}\makeatletter \IfFileExists{xcolor.sty}% {\RequirePackage{xcolor}}% {\RequirePackage{color}} \usepackage{colortbl} \usepackage{wrapfig} \usepackage{ifxetex} \ifxetex \usepackage{fontspec} \usepackage{xunicode} \catcode`⃥=\active \def⃥{\textbackslash} \catcode`❴=\active \def❴{\{} \catcode`❵=\active \def❵{\}} \def\textJapanese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK JP}} \def\textChinese{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK SC}} \def\textKorean{\fontspec{Noto Sans CJK KR}} \setmonofont{DejaVu Sans Mono} \else \IfFileExists{utf8x.def}% {\usepackage[utf8x]{inputenc} \PrerenderUnicode{–} }% {\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}} \usepackage[english]{babel} \usepackage[T1]{fontenc} \usepackage{float} \usepackage[]{ucs} \uc@dclc{8421}{default}{\textbackslash } \uc@dclc{10100}{default}{\{} \uc@dclc{10101}{default}{\}} \uc@dclc{8491}{default}{\AA{}} \uc@dclc{8239}{default}{\,} \uc@dclc{20154}{default}{ } \uc@dclc{10148}{default}{>} \def\textschwa{\rotatebox{-90}{e}} \def\textJapanese{} \def\textChinese{} \IfFileExists{tipa.sty}{\usepackage{tipa}}{} \fi \def\exampleFont{\ttfamily\small} \DeclareTextSymbol{\textpi}{OML}{25} \usepackage{relsize} \RequirePackage{array} \def\@testpach{\@chclass \ifnum \@lastchclass=6 \@ne \@chnum \@ne \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=7 5 \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=8 \tw@ \else \ifnum \@lastchclass=9 \thr@@ \else \z@ \ifnum \@lastchclass = 10 \else \edef\@nextchar{\expandafter\string\@nextchar}% \@chnum \if \@nextchar c\z@ \else \if \@nextchar l\@ne \else \if \@nextchar r\tw@ \else \z@ \@chclass \if\@nextchar |\@ne \else \if \@nextchar !6 \else \if \@nextchar @7 \else \if \@nextchar (8 \else \if \@nextchar )9 \else 10 \@chnum \if \@nextchar m\thr@@\else \if \@nextchar p4 \else \if \@nextchar b5 \else \z@ \@chclass \z@ \@preamerr \z@ \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi \fi} \gdef\arraybackslash{\let\\=\@arraycr} \def\@textsubscript#1{{\m@th\ensuremath{_{\mbox{\fontsize\sf@size\z@#1}}}}} \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \def\abbr{} \def\corr{} \def\expan{} \def\gap{} \def\orig{} \def\reg{} \def\ref{} \def\sic{} \def\persName{}\def\name{} \def\placeName{} \def\orgName{} \def\textcal#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Calligraphy}#1}} \def\textgothic#1{{\fontspec{Lucida Blackletter}#1}} \def\textlarge#1{{\large #1}} \def\textoverbar#1{\ensuremath{\overline{#1}}} \def\textquoted#1{‘#1’} \def\textsmall#1{{\small #1}} \def\textsubscript#1{\@textsubscript{\selectfont#1}} \def\textxi{\ensuremath{\xi}} \def\titlem{\itshape} \newenvironment{biblfree}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{bibl}{}{} \newenvironment{byline}{\vskip6pt\itshape\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{citbibl}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docAuthor}{\ifvmode\vskip4pt\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont\fi\itshape}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docDate}{}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docImprint}{\vskip 6pt}{\ifvmode\par\fi } \newenvironment{docTitle}{\vskip6pt\bfseries\fontsize{22pt}{25pt}\selectfont}{\par } \newenvironment{msHead}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{msItem}{\vskip 6pt}{\par} \newenvironment{rubric}{}{} \newenvironment{titlePart}{}{\par } \newcolumntype{L}[1]{){\raggedright\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{C}[1]{){\centering\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{R}[1]{){\raggedleft\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{P}[1]{){\arraybackslash}p{#1}} \newcolumntype{B}[1]{){\arraybackslash}b{#1}} \newcolumntype{M}[1]{){\arraybackslash}m{#1}} \definecolor{label}{gray}{0.75} \def\unusedattribute#1{\sout{\textcolor{label}{#1}}} \DeclareRobustCommand*{\xref}{\hyper@normalise\xref@} \def\xref@#1#2{\hyper@linkurl{#2}{#1}} \begingroup \catcode`\_=\active \gdef_#1{\ensuremath{\sb{\mathrm{#1}}}} \endgroup \mathcode`\_=\string"8000 \catcode`\_=12\relax \usepackage[a4paper,twoside,lmargin=1in,rmargin=1in,tmargin=1in,bmargin=1in,marginparwidth=0.75in]{geometry} \usepackage{framed} \definecolor{shadecolor}{gray}{0.95} \usepackage{longtable} \usepackage[normalem]{ulem} \usepackage{fancyvrb} \usepackage{fancyhdr} \usepackage{graphicx} \usepackage{marginnote} \renewcommand{\@cite}[1]{#1} \renewcommand*{\marginfont}{\itshape\footnotesize} \def\Gin@extensions{.pdf,.png,.jpg,.mps,.tif} \pagestyle{fancy} \usepackage[pdftitle={Assessing the Influence of Project Success Factors (PSFs) on Project Performance among Organizations}, pdfauthor={}]{hyperref} \hyperbaseurl{} \paperwidth210mm \paperheight297mm \def\@pnumwidth{1.55em} \def\@tocrmarg {2.55em} \def\@dotsep{4.5} \setcounter{tocdepth}{3} \clubpenalty=8000 \emergencystretch 3em \hbadness=4000 \hyphenpenalty=400 \pretolerance=750 \tolerance=2000 \vbadness=4000 \widowpenalty=10000 \renewcommand\section{\@startsection {section}{1}{\z@}% {-1.75ex \@plus -0.5ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large\bfseries}} \renewcommand\subsection{\@startsection{subsection}{2}{\z@}% {-1.75ex\@plus -0.5ex \@minus- .2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\Large}} \renewcommand\subsubsection{\@startsection{subsubsection}{3}{\z@}% {-1.5ex\@plus -0.35ex \@minus -.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\large}} \renewcommand\paragraph{\@startsection{paragraph}{4}{\z@}% {-1ex \@plus-0.35ex \@minus -0.2ex}% {0.5ex \@plus .2ex}% {\reset@font\normalsize}} \renewcommand\subparagraph{\@startsection{subparagraph}{5}{\parindent}% {1.5ex \@plus1ex \@minus .2ex}% {-1em}% {\reset@font\normalsize\bfseries}} \def\l@section#1#2{\addpenalty{\@secpenalty} \addvspace{1.0em plus 1pt} \@tempdima 1.5em \begingroup \parindent \z@ \rightskip \@pnumwidth \parfillskip -\@pnumwidth \bfseries \leavevmode #1\hfil \hbox to\@pnumwidth{\hss #2}\par \endgroup} \def\l@subsection{\@dottedtocline{2}{1.5em}{2.3em}} \def\l@subsubsection{\@dottedtocline{3}{3.8em}{3.2em}} \def\l@paragraph{\@dottedtocline{4}{7.0em}{4.1em}} \def\l@subparagraph{\@dottedtocline{5}{10em}{5em}} \@ifundefined{c@section}{\newcounter{section}}{} \@ifundefined{c@chapter}{\newcounter{chapter}}{} \newif\if@mainmatter \@mainmattertrue \def\chaptername{Chapter} \def\frontmatter{% \pagenumbering{roman} \def\thechapter{\@roman\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\roman{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@roman\c@section} \def\theHsection{\roman{section}} \def\@chapapp{}% } \def\mainmatter{% \cleardoublepage \def\thechapter{\@arabic\c@chapter} \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \pagenumbering{arabic} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{6} \def\@chapapp{\chaptername}% \def\theHchapter{\arabic{chapter}} \def\thesection{\@arabic\c@section} \def\theHsection{\arabic{section}} } \def\backmatter{% \cleardoublepage \setcounter{chapter}{0} \setcounter{section}{0} \setcounter{secnumdepth}{2} \def\@chapapp{\appendixname}% \def\thechapter{\@Alph\c@chapter} \def\theHchapter{\Alph{chapter}} \appendix } \newenvironment{bibitemlist}[1]{% \list{\@biblabel{\@arabic\c@enumiv}}% {\settowidth\labelwidth{\@biblabel{#1}}% \leftmargin\labelwidth \advance\leftmargin\labelsep \@openbib@code \usecounter{enumiv}% \let\p@enumiv\@empty \renewcommand\theenumiv{\@arabic\c@enumiv}% }% \sloppy \clubpenalty4000 \@clubpenalty \clubpenalty \widowpenalty4000% \sfcode`\.\@m}% {\def\@noitemerr {\@latex@warning{Empty `bibitemlist' environment}}% \endlist} \def\tableofcontents{\section*{\contentsname}\@starttoc{toc}} \parskip0pt \parindent1em \def\Panel#1#2#3#4{\multicolumn{#3}{){\columncolor{#2}}#4}{#1}} \newenvironment{reflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\itshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{sansreflist}{% \begin{raggedright}\begin{list}{} {% \setlength{\topsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0.25in}% \setlength{\itemindent}{0pt}% \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}% \setlength{\parsep}{2pt}% \def\makelabel##1{\upshape ##1}}% } {\end{list}\end{raggedright}} \newenvironment{specHead}[2]% {\vspace{20pt}\hrule\vspace{10pt}% \phantomsection\label{#1}\markright{#2}% \pdfbookmark[2]{#2}{#1}% \hspace{-0.75in}{\bfseries\fontsize{16pt}{18pt}\selectfont#2}% }{} \def\TheFullDate{2020-01-15 (revised: 15 January 2020)} \def\TheID{\makeatother } \def\TheDate{2020-01-15} \title{Assessing the Influence of Project Success Factors (PSFs) on Project Performance among Organizations} \author{}\makeatletter \makeatletter \newcommand*{\cleartoleftpage}{% \clearpage \if@twoside \ifodd\c@page \hbox{}\newpage \if@twocolumn \hbox{}\newpage \fi \fi \fi } \makeatother \makeatletter \thispagestyle{empty} \markright{\@title}\markboth{\@title}{\@author} \renewcommand\small{\@setfontsize\small{9pt}{11pt}\abovedisplayskip 8.5\p@ plus3\p@ minus4\p@ \belowdisplayskip \abovedisplayskip \abovedisplayshortskip \z@ plus2\p@ \belowdisplayshortskip 4\p@ plus2\p@ minus2\p@ \def\@listi{\leftmargin\leftmargini \topsep 2\p@ plus1\p@ minus1\p@ \parsep 2\p@ plus\p@ minus\p@ \itemsep 1pt} } \makeatother \fvset{frame=single,numberblanklines=false,xleftmargin=5mm,xrightmargin=5mm} \fancyhf{} \setlength{\headheight}{14pt} \fancyhead[LE]{\bfseries\leftmark} \fancyhead[RO]{\bfseries\rightmark} \fancyfoot[RO]{} \fancyfoot[CO]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[LO]{\TheID} \fancyfoot[LE]{} \fancyfoot[CE]{\thepage} \fancyfoot[RE]{\TheID} \hypersetup{citebordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,linkbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,urlbordercolor=0.75 0.75 0.75,bookmarksnumbered=true} \fancypagestyle{plain}{\fancyhead{}\renewcommand{\headrulewidth}{0pt}} \date{} \usepackage{authblk} \providecommand{\keywords}[1] { \footnotesize \textbf{\textit{Index terms---}} #1 } \usepackage{graphicx,xcolor} \definecolor{GJBlue}{HTML}{273B81} \definecolor{GJLightBlue}{HTML}{0A9DD9} \definecolor{GJMediumGrey}{HTML}{6D6E70} \definecolor{GJLightGrey}{HTML}{929497} \renewenvironment{abstract}{% \setlength{\parindent}{0pt}\raggedright \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt \textcolor{GJBlue}{\large\bfseries\abstractname\space} }{% \vskip8pt \textcolor{GJMediumGrey}{\rule{\textwidth}{2pt}} \vskip16pt } \usepackage[absolute,overlay]{textpos} \makeatother \usepackage{lineno} \linenumbers \begin{document} \author[1]{Sekou Marouf Magassouba} \author[2]{Muhammad Omar Al Thunibat} \renewcommand\Authands{ and } \date{\small \em Received: 12 December 2019 Accepted: 4 January 2020 Published: 15 January 2020} \maketitle \begin{abstract} The demand for project effectiveness in its early phase to enhance the success rate is increasing among project management professionals. Several success factors had been studied in the last decades to determine the issue of project success. However, the practice of determining the success of a project based exclusively on the criteria of time, cost, and quality is no longer relevant and deemed out-dated. \end{abstract} \keywords{project success factors (PSFs), project success, project management} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1cm,1cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\LARGE Global Journals \LaTeX\ JournalKaleidoscope\texttrademark} \end{textblock*} \begin{textblock*}{18cm}(1.4cm,1.5cm) % {block width} (coords) \textcolor{GJBlue}{\footnotesize \\ Artificial Intelligence formulated this projection for compatibility purposes from the original article published at Global Journals. However, this technology is currently in beta. \emph{Therefore, kindly ignore odd layouts, missed formulae, text, tables, or figures.}} \end{textblock*} \let\tabcellsep& \section[{Introduction}]{Introduction}\par roject management is widely acknowledged as the most critical tool and technique used to achieve the strategic goals of organizations. Since last decades, a great discussions have been carried out on the issue of project success, and it is currently one of the most researched topics in the project management field (Cooke-Davies, 2000; Turner \& Serrador, 2015; Anantatmula \& Rad, 2018; \hyperref[b79]{Serrador \& Reich, 2018;} {\ref Müller, 2019)}. As time goes by, the conventional measurement of project success has always focused on tangibles, and traditionally based on whether it achieved time, cost, and quality specifications \hyperref[b99]{(Turner \& Zolin, 2012;} {\ref Anantatmula \& Rad, 2018)}.\par However, current thinking measure the overall success of the project about how well the project achieves its strategic goals, and the degree of satisfaction of its stakeholders \hyperref[b78]{(Turner \& Serrador, 2015;}\hyperref[b87]{Sperry \& Jetter, 2019}. The high prevalence of using projects in various fields determines the increasing importance of project management, and consequently, the concept of successful project management refers to the effective integration, planning, organizing, reporting, monitoring, and controlling all aspects of the project which are vested to an individual or group within the organization \hyperref[b37]{(Cleland, 1999;} {\ref Gauthier \& Ika, 2012;} {\ref Westerveld, 2003)}.\par As the term "success" differs considerably among scholars {\ref Shenhar et al., 2001;} Gauthier \& Ika, 2012; {\ref Joslin \& Muller, 2015)}. The overall project success is a much wider concept than the conventional "Triple Constraint," "Golden Triangle," "Triangle of Virtue," or the "Holy Trinity" criteria of time, cost, and quality/scope. For instance, there are several projects that have been completed within the expected time, cost, and quality, but still considered as unsuccessful; while there are also many other projects that have exceeded their initial time, budget, scope, and quality specifications, but ultimately viewed as successful. This paradox and interpretations of what constitutes success led to various dimensions of project success. It revealed that there is no single conventional measurement of project success ( {\ref (Pinto \& Slevin, 1988;} {\ref Shenhar et al., 2001;}\hyperref[b64]{Jugdev \& Muller, 2005;}\hyperref[b41]{Davis, 2017)}.\par Moreover, the assessment of project success can vary based on the types, size, and scope of the projects. Over the triple constraint, the most well-known Project Success Factors (PSFs) that often affect project success include: project mission, top management support, project schedule and plan, stakeholders' satisfaction, effective communication and procurement, monitoring and feedback, qualification of project managers, troubleshooting, etc. {\ref (Pinto \& Slevin, 1988;}\hyperref[b37]{Cleland, 1999;}\hyperref[b30]{Bryde, 2005;} {\ref Müller \& Turner, 2007;} {\ref Kerzner, 2009;} {\ref Joslin \& Muller, 2015;}\hyperref[b18]{Badewi, 2016)}.\par Furthermore, project success factors are considered as all the elements that are needed to form a context where project managers can deliver their projects successfully {\ref (Ika et al., 2011;}\hyperref[b70]{Khang \& Moe, 2008;}\hyperref[b90]{Struyk, 2007}. However, it is becoming more challenging to identify a set of PSFs that are common to every type of project. In that respect, different models of critical success factors were developed through project management literature {\ref (Pinto \& Slevin, 1988;} {\ref Westerville, 2003;} {\ref Bryde, 2003;} {\ref Lewis, 2006)}. And it was found that the connection between the research on project success criteria and Project Success Factors (PSFs) was the most effective way to establish a successful project management framework (longer-term outcome). Researches on project success factors identified different levers that project managers can employ to enhance the likelihood of project success {\ref (Pinto \& Slevin 1988;} {\ref Cooke-Davies, 2002;} {\ref De Lone et al., 2003)}. Those approaches have emerged by grouping PSFs as a set; instead of focusing on a few factors alone. Thus, the current theoretical framework provides interaction between different groups of factors associated with the project success. The method involves the relationship between project planning, top management support, and project success {\ref (Nguyen \& Wong (2009)}.\par Accordingly, this study investigates the influence of project success factors, namely project planning and top management support on project performance. Hopefully, the findings would provide for project managers, members, suppliers, sponsors, committees, or task forces an advanced technique and tool for successful project initiating, planning, tracking, monitoring, and controlling within organizations. \section[{II.}]{II.} \section[{Literature Review a) Theoretical Framework}]{Literature Review a) Theoretical Framework}\par The issue of delivering a successful project in a dynamic environment had been recognized in the project management literature (Collyer \& Warren, 2009; Killen \& Petit, 2012). As project management is relatively a growing discipline, the concept of project success is ever open to interpretation and debate among project management scholars As a result, this study developed a simple theoretical framework to investigate the influence of project planning and top management support on project success the review showed how each approach would be integrated and unified with the objectives of the present study, and how they would improve the likelihood of project success. The theoretical framework of this study involved two popular management theories, especially the Theory of Constraints (TOC) and the multidimensional theory of top management as follow:\par ? Theory of Constraint (TOC)\par The primary role of project managers in a successful project is managing properly the constraints attached to the project (Kishira, 2018). Traditionally, project success was measured using the "triple constraints" of time, cost, and scope/quality (Müller \& Jugdev, 2012). These critical factors are mutually dependent, and therefore, a change in one will have a resultant effect on at least one other part.\par The Theory of Constraint (TOC) is used to track the project plan, to manage the limited resources, and to keep the scope within the specifications \hyperref[b89]{(Steyn, 2002;} {\ref Hammad \& Ryan, 2018)}. TOC helps to identify project risks, to enhance its social development and improve its technical requirements. {\ref Cleland et al. (2009)} reported that organizations should focus more on performing the project plan and to identify the major constraints that prevent the project from success. Also, \hyperref[b60]{Johansen et al. (2006)} argued that detailed project planning would not predict the constraint-based problems accurately (delays, overbilling, or changes in scope); instead, it would bring the process up by improving the efficiency of each phase of the project. Moreover, the application of TOC, as mentioned by Rand (2000), needs a supportive organizational policy, sufficient resource availability, and a realistic project timeline as it includes a sequence of progressive enhancement of project situations. The objective is to explore the weakest links in the project management plan and apply the proper strategy to deal with those constraints.\par The method of TOC is employed throughout the project life cycle on project planning to reduce potential delays, cost overrun, and change in scope as reported in PMBOK Guide (PMI, 2013). In the initiation, planning, and execution phase, project managers can minimize uncertainties and risks by using prior techniques and strategies which have been successful in the past. Then, the challenges for project managers during each stage would be to keep project cost, schedule, or specifications on the track and to implement any corrective actions to address issues. The technique will be a continual process improvement until the closing stage where the final review of the project and documentation of "experience learned" is conducted \hyperref[b37]{(Cleland, 1999;} {\ref Rand, 2000;} {\ref Sari \& Siboro, 2019)}.\par Furthermore, the approach of TOC provides a comprehensive solution to address the issue of delays during the project execution. The solution involves a realistic and solid project planning, effective tasks execution process, adequate methodology for operations, and good control procedures for the overall performance of the project (Momanyi \& Sang, 2019). As the main objectives of this study is to investigate the impact of project success factors on project success, the application of TOC will be the way of enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of the project. {\ref (} Additionally, through the literature of project management, we found a number of TOC research as applied theory (Izmailov \& Kozhemiakin, 2016; Thürer \& Stevenson, 2018). And likewise, this current review demonstrates that the essence of using the TOC approach in improving the performance of project is relevant, and its contribution in the optimization of project planning processes is vital to achieve the strategic goals of the project, to estimate the entire completion time of the project, to control, and keep the ongoing project plan on track \hyperref[b89]{(Steyn, 2002} ). The support of senior management is determinant to ensure success; in contrast, the lack of support from the top management may also constitute one of the primary causes of project failure {\ref (Zwikael, 2008)}.\par As this study adopted Boostra (2013) multidimensional theory of top management, with the dimensions of resources provided, structural arrangements, communication, power, and expertise, top management support reveals to be a fundamental project success factor (Zwikael, 2008; \hyperref[b81]{Shao \& Hu, 2016)}. The basic principles of this integrated approach are system adaptation, improving organizational effectiveness, effective controlling procedures, implementing organizational change, and strengthening the stakeholder's support and involvement \hyperref[b28]{(Boonstra, 2013)}.\par The support from the top management is fundamental for the project team in achieving project goals (Crawford, 2009; Liu \& Chua, 2015; Ali \& Israr, 2018). Through the functional structure of organizations, top management facilitates an adequate team formulation, resource allocating, and successful projet delivering \hyperref[b22]{(Belassi \& Tukel, 1996)}. Senior managers should establish and perform an appropriate project implementation process, procedures, and structures in that respect.\par Similarly, top management support is essential in a successful project. The theory had been consistently deployed to deal with the project team to achieve project goals. \hyperref[b35]{(Chen \& Popovich 2003;}\hyperref[b28]{Boonstra, 2013)}. From this point of view, top management should keep regular communication lines with various groups of stakeholders, promote the company-wide acceptance, practice incentive support toward the project team, and manage potential organizational changes \hyperref[b28]{(Boonstra, 2013)}.\par Practical top management support is the foundation of successful project execution. Project managers in providing structural arrangement, power, and authority, financial and human resources are then contributing unquestionably to project success (Morgan, 2012). Top managers use their power to influence the project, protect the team members, facilitate the potential system changes, and identify the needs, roles, and responsibilities of project stakeholders \section[{b) Hypotheses Development}]{b) Hypotheses Development}\par The development of hypotheses aims to highlight the relationship between constructs involved in the study, as well as to establish their influence on project performance in order to improve the likelihood of project success. Therefore, the following hypothese are formulated: \section[{i. Project Planning and Porject Performance}]{i. Project Planning and Porject Performance}\par Project planning had gained great attention in previous studies as critical success factors associated with project success among organizations \hyperref[b37]{(Cleland, 1999;}\hyperref[b51]{Dvir et al., 2003} Iyer and Jha, ( {\ref 2006}) conducted another study on planning performance in Indian construction projects; they found that factors such as the commitment of different project stakeholders, support of project owners, and competence of project teams in planning were regarded as factors contributing significantly to project success. They also revealed that adopting proactive scheduling with realistic programs and a practical open communication approach is critical in planning and help to achieve the project's goals. Moreover, Snoo et al. ( {\ref 2011}) assessed the factors impacting project success from a planning perspective and the number of stakeholders. They found that project schedules did not seem to be adequately considered by both project managers and their planners, as many criteria were dismissed while developing and implementing a project plan. The authors developed a measurement framework on scheduling performance, and they categorized the factors affecting planning performance into four main groups: factors focused on the schedule outcomes, factors focused on the scheduling process, indirect scheduling performance factors, and influencing factors.\par Consequently, \hyperref[b102]{Wang (2008)} and King et al. (1986) examined different factors influencing project planning processes within organizations, especially factors causing delay during the planning and implementation phase. They revealed that changes in the requirements of project stakeholders, ineffective scope definition, and an ambiguous initial or outline plan were the top factors causing delay to a project. \hyperref[b51]{Dvir et al. (2003)} developed the relationship between project success and project planning from the view of project stakeholders. They reported that stakeholders have a significant impact on project planning procedures and adequate identification of key stakeholders since the first milestone of planning is fundamental to deliver a successful project.\par The application of the project plan and practice was previously discussed in the project management context, and the main objective of planning was then to ensure that the project work was implemented as originally planned. It means to define goals adequately, to identify tasks, to monitor progress, and to provide the basic foundation for measuring success throughout the project lifecycle as stated by \hyperref[b9]{(Ahuja \& Thiruvengadam, 2004;}\hyperref[b20]{Baldwin \& Bordoli, 2014)}.\par Moreover, according to \hyperref[b36]{Cleland (1986)}, the connection between project planning efforts and project success is based on three aspects: project requirements, technical specifications, and management processes or procedures. This idea was supported and developed by \hyperref[b51]{(Dvir et al., 2003)}. In their different studies, they found a positive connection between the three requirements and project success. They explained that project managers, contracting officers, or the end-users explore project planning requirements with the perspective of the final results of the project. So although planning does not ensure the success of a project, a lack of planning could lead to its direct failure \hyperref[b36]{Cleland, (1986)}.\par Accordingly, the positive relationship between project planning and project success had been established in the project management field {\ref (Wang and Haga, 2008)}; \hyperref[b51]{Dvir and Shenhar, 2003)}. The effort invested in the project planning phase and the degree of performance achieved, determine whether or not the project was successful. The project stakeholders will judge success by asking whether or not project goals were completed within the planned specifications (Andreas, 2016). However, a project plan in advance cannot overcome all unforeseen events, risks, or uncertainties, but having a plan with threats is still better than getting any plan. Thus, the main challenge for project managers remains their ability and aptitude to keep the project plan on track, within the time and budget, and quality \hyperref[b20]{(Baldwin \& Bordoli, 2014)}. As a result, keeping in view these relationships and alongside the literature review, the following hypothesis is proposed:\par Hypothesis 1: Project planning has a significant and positive effect on project performance among organizations. \section[{ii. Top Management Support and Project Performance}]{ii. Top Management Support and Project Performance}\par The present study adopted the function of top management established by \hyperref[b28]{Boonstra (2013)} as an instrument to examine the relationship between top management support and project performance. The top management support theory developed by \hyperref[b28]{Boonstra (2013)} through exploratory research identified top management support as a multidimensional construct. Relatively, many studies found that top management support is among critical success factors {\ref Lester, 1998;} {\ref Whittaker, 1999;} {\ref Zwikael \& Globerson, 2004;}\hyperref[b62]{Johnson et al., 2001;}\hyperref[b28]{Boonstra, 2013)}.\par The previous literature on project management revealed that top management support contributes highly to project success {\ref Zwikael \& Globerson, 2004;}\hyperref[b62]{Johnson et al., 2001)}. \hyperref[b22]{Belassi and Tukel (1996)} have mentioned that most of the critical success factors are quite different across industries, but top management support is still the most relevant, and common success factors within organizations. It means that the more top management support is practiced in the organization, the higher the level of success will be.\par Moreover, the demographic profile such as position, experiences, personality, leadership, or attitude of project executive would ensure project success, but unfortunately, few studies had been written about these questions. Baccarini and Collins (2003); \hyperref[b30]{Bryde and Robinson, (2005)} reported that success criteria vary across industries. And with limited time and resources, it is essential to identify effective top management support procedures that are specific to each project or industry.\par Top management commitment is a crucial enabler for successful project implementation. Senior management support is essential for setting up the vision, mission, goals, strategies, and integration of the project within the organizations . Top managers are critical to the project success when they are highly supportive in providing sufficient human, material, and financial resources to the project team (Young \& Poon 2013).\par Additionally, top management support is the degree to which senior managers understand the importance of the project's purpose and the extent to which they are willing to achieve it. \section[{Conclusion}]{Conclusion}\par The primary concern of project management is to improve its conceptual and theoretical foundations. Therefore, this paper provided the review of the literature to show the relatipnship between Project Success Factors (PSFs) and project performance. Through the literature, we found a positive impact of PSFs namely, project planning and top management support on project success. The empirical review concludes that project planning and top management support have a significant influence on successful projects. The finding are significant in providing more detailed information regarding the concept of successful project management. Consequently, the finding would assist project managers, team and employees as well as the general public in gaining a better perspective of project management. Also, The study would be useful in identifying critical success factors in a way that can be reflected positively on the project performance. Finally, findings of this study would help in developing new techniques and tools to fill the gap in the relevant literatures in improving the project delivery performance. \section[{Global}]{Global} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{} \par \begin{longtable}{} \end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_0}}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{} \par \begin{longtable}{} \end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_2}}\end{figure} \begin{figure}[htbp] \noindent\textbf{} \par \begin{longtable}{P{0.8058653846153846\textwidth}P{0.026153846153846156\textwidth}P{0.009807692307692307\textwidth}P{0.0032692307692307695\textwidth}P{0.004903846153846154\textwidth}} \multicolumn{4}{l}{? Multidimensional Theory of Top Management}\tabcellsep \\ The\tabcellsep multidimensional\tabcellsep theory\tabcellsep of\tabcellsep top\\ \multicolumn{5}{l}{management refers to the development of project}\\ \multicolumn{5}{l}{managers' skills to ensure project success properly.}\\ \multicolumn{5}{l}{Project success is broadly discussed in project}\\ \multicolumn{5}{l}{management literature (Pinto and Slevin, 1988; Cooke-}\\ \multicolumn{5}{l}{Davis, 2002; Serrador \& Reich, 2018; Zuo \& Nguyen,}\\ \multicolumn{5}{l}{2018). Researchers identified various success factors}\\ \multicolumn{5}{l}{influencing projects, among which top management}\\ \multicolumn{5}{l}{support is considered as one of the most critical (Pinto}\\ \multicolumn{3}{l}{and Slevin, 1988; Ziemba \& Ob?ak, 2013}\tabcellsep \tabcellsep \end{longtable} \par \caption{\label{tab_3}}\end{figure} \footnote{© 2020 Global JournalsAssessing the Influence of Project Success Factors (PSFs) on Project Performance among Organizations} \footnote{© 2020 Global Journals} \footnote{Assessing the Influence of Project Success Factors (PSFs) on Project Performance among Organizations} \backmatter \begin{bibitemlist}{1} \bibitem[ Management Science Letters]{b3}\label{b3} \textit{}, \textit{Management Science Letters} 9 (1) p. . \bibitem[]{b16}\label{b16} \textit{}, \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/IJQRM-04-2013-0063}{10.1108/IJQRM-04-2013-0063}. \bibitem[Dictionary ()]{b48}\label{b48} \textit{}, C O Dictionary . 1998. Katherine Barber. Toronto: Oxford University Press. p. 115. \bibitem[ European Management Journal (2007)]{b58}\label{b58} \textit{}, \textit{European Management Journal} August 2007. 25 p. . \bibitem[Syed Moize]{b94}\label{b94} \textit{2015) the importance of executive ma nagement support}, Syed Moize . Project Management Institute -PMI \bibitem[Sutterfield et al. ()]{b92}\label{b92} ‘A case study of project and stakeholder management failures: lessons learned’. J S Sutterfield , S S Friday-Stroud , S L Shivers-Blackwell . \textit{Project Management Journal} 2006. 37 (5) p. . \bibitem[Abbasi ()]{b0}\label{b0} \textit{A Heuristic to Maximize the Net Present Value for Resource Abdomerovic}, G Y Abbasi . 2001. \bibitem[Belassi and Tukel ()]{b22}\label{b22} ‘A new Framework for determining Critical Success/Failure Factors in Projects’. W Belassi , \& O I Tukel . \textit{International Journal of Project Management} 1996. 14 (3) p. . \bibitem[Ahlemann et al. ()]{b5}\label{b5} ‘A process framework for theoretically grounded prescriptive research in the project management field’. F Ahlemann , F El Arbi , M G Kaiser , A Heck . \textit{International Journal of Project Management} 2013. 31 (1) p. . \bibitem[Jugdev and Muller ()]{b64}\label{b64} ‘A retrospective looks at our evolving understanding of project success’. K Jugdev , R Muller . \textit{Project Management Journal} 2005. p. . \bibitem[Srimathi et al. ()]{b88}\label{b88} ‘A Review On Critical Success Factors In Construction Project’. S Srimathi , S Dinesh , R Sethuraman . \textit{International Journal of Project Management} 2017. 21 (2) p. . \bibitem[Cerny and Kaiser ()]{b34}\label{b34} ‘A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices’. B A Cerny , H F Kaiser . \textit{Multivariate behavioral research} 1977. 12 (1) p. . \bibitem[Bubushail (1986)]{b69}\label{b69} \textit{A Survey of the Practices of Project Management. Techniques in different Industries}, Khaled Bubushail . September 1986. p. 132. \bibitem[Sperry and Jetter ()]{b87}\label{b87} ‘A Systems Approach to Project Stakeholder Management: Fuzzy Cognitive Map Modeling’. R C Sperry , A J Jetter . \textit{Project Management Journal} 2019. \bibitem[Karena et al. ()]{b66}\label{b66} \textit{A teambased approach}, A B Karena , Nancy Lea , Hyer . 2010. p. . (first edition. Managing Projects) \bibitem[Akintoye et al. ()]{b13}\label{b13} ‘Achieving the best value in private finance initiative project procurement’. A Akintoye , C Hardcastle , M Beck , E Chinyio , D Asenova . \textit{Construction management and economics Journal} 2003. 21 (5) p. . \bibitem[Eskerod and Larsen ()]{b56}\label{b56} ‘Advancing project stakeholder analysis by the concept 'shadows of the context'’. P Eskerod , T Larsen . \textit{International Journal of Project Management} 2018. 36 (1) p. . \bibitem[Eskerod and Larsen ()]{b57}\label{b57} ‘Advancing project stakeholder analysis by the concept 'shadows of the context'’. P Eskerod , T Larsen . \textit{International Journal of Project Management} 2018. 36 (1) p. . \bibitem[Dvir et al. ()]{b51}\label{b51} ‘An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success’. D Dvir , T Raz , A J Shenhar . \textit{International journal of project management} 2003. 21 (2) p. . \bibitem[Davis ()]{b41}\label{b41} ‘An empirical investigation into different stakeholder groups' perceptions of project success’. K Davis . \textit{International Journal of Project Management} 2017. 35 (4) p. . (International Journal of Project Management) \bibitem[De Snoo et al. ()]{b42}\label{b42} ‘An empirical investigation of scheduling performance criteria’. C De Snoo , W Van Wezel , R J Jorna . \textit{Journal of Operations Management} 2011. 29 (3) p. . \bibitem[De Snoo et al. ()]{b43}\label{b43} ‘An empirical investigation of scheduling performance criteria’. C De Snoo , W Van Wezel , R J Jorna . \textit{Journal of Operations Management} 2011. 29 (3) p. . \bibitem[Roghanian et al. ()]{b52}\label{b52} ‘An improved fuzzy critical chain approach to face uncertainty in project scheduling’. E Roghanian , M Alipour , \& M Rezaei . \xref{http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2016.1225327}{10.1080/15623599.2016.1225327}. \textit{International Journal of Construction Management} 2018. 18 (1) p. . \bibitem[Bangphan et al. ()]{b21}\label{b21} ‘Application of project scheduling in the production process for paddy cleaning machine by using PERT and CPM techniques: Case study’. S Bangphan , P Bangphan , S Phanphet . \textit{Expert Systems in Finance}, Rutledge 21 Beer, M Tekie, EB (ed.) 2019. 2005. 38 p. . (Strategic management as organizational learning: Developing fit and alignment through a disciplined process) \bibitem[Alumran et al. ()]{b17}\label{b17} ‘Assessing the construct validity and reliability of the parental perception of antibiotics (PAPA) scales’. A Alumran , X Y Hou , J Sun , A A Yousef , C Hurst . \textit{BMC public health} 2014. 14 (1) p. 73. \bibitem[Afthanorhan et al. ()]{b2}\label{b2} \textit{Assessing the effects of service quality on customer satisfaction}, A Afthanorhan , Z Awang , N Rashid , H Foziah , P Ghazali . 2019. \bibitem[Slevin and Pinto ()]{b83}\label{b83} ‘Balancing Strategy and tactics in Project Implementation’. D P Slevin , J Pinto . \textit{Sloan Management Review} 1987. 29 (11) p. . \bibitem[Solutions ()]{b86}\label{b86} ‘Basics of Project Planning’. Z Solutions . \textit{A Report on Project Planning} 2012. p. . \bibitem[Ali et al. ()]{b14}\label{b14} ‘Behaviors of Top Management for Successful HRD Projects: A Qualitative Study’. M I Ali , R Ahmed , S Israr . \textit{Global Management Journal for Academic \& Corporate Studies} 2018. 8 (2) p. . \bibitem[Bryman and Bell ()]{b31}\label{b31} A Bryman , E Bell . \textit{Business research strategies, Business research methods}, 2007. \bibitem[Söderlund ()]{b84}\label{b84} ‘Building theories of project management: past research, questions for the future’. J Söderlund . \textit{International journal of project management} 2004. 22 (3) p. . \bibitem[Cleland and Ireland ()]{b38}\label{b38} D I Cleland , L R Ireland . \textit{Project management: strategic design and implementation}, (Singapore) 2002. McGraw-Hill. 4. \bibitem[Bryde and Robinson ()]{b30}\label{b30} ‘Client versus contractor perspectives on project success criteria’. D J Bryde , L Robinson . \textit{International Journal of project management} 2005. 23 (8) p. . \bibitem[Davis and Cobb ()]{b40}\label{b40} \textit{Corporations and economic inequality around the world: The paradox of hierarchy. Research in Organizational Behavior}, G F Davis , J A Cobb . 2010. 30 p. . \bibitem[Emhjellen et al. ()]{b53}\label{b53} ‘Cost estimation overruns in the North Sea’. M Emhjellen , K Emhjellen , P Osmundsen . \textit{Project Management Journal} 2003. 34 (1) p. . \bibitem[Serrador et al. ()]{b79}\label{b79} ‘Creating a climate for project success’. P Serrador , A Gemino , B H Reich . \textit{The Journal of Modern Project Management} 2018. 6 (1) . \bibitem[Pinto and Slevin ()]{b73}\label{b73} ‘Critical Success Factors across the life cycle’. J K Pinto , \& D P Slevin . \textit{Project Management Journal} 1987. 19 (3) p. . \bibitem[Ahmed ()]{b7}\label{b7} \textit{Critical Success Factors and Implementation of Capital Expenditure Projects of Telkom Kenya Limited within Nairobi City County}, A Ahmed . 2019. Kenya: Doctoral Dissertation. Kenyatta University \bibitem[Devellis ()]{b47}\label{b47} R F Devellis . \textit{Scale development: Theory and}, 2016. Sage publications. 26. \bibitem[Davis ()]{b67}\label{b67} ‘Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project success’. Kate Davis . \textit{International Journal of Project Management} 2014. p. . \bibitem[Besner and Hobbs ()]{b26}\label{b26} ‘Discriminating contexts and project management best practices on innovative and no innovative projects’. C Besner , B Hobbs . \textit{Project Management Journal} 2008. 39 (1) p. . \bibitem[Ahmed et al. ()]{b8}\label{b8} ‘Effect of multidimensional top management support on project success: an empirical investigation’. R Ahmed , Mohamad , A B Noor , M S Ahmad . \textit{Quality \& Quantity} 2016. 50 (1) p. . \bibitem[Shao et al. ()]{b81}\label{b81} ‘Effectiveness of top management support in enterprise systems success: a contingency perspective of fit between leadership style and system life-cycle’. Z Shao , Y Feng , Q Hu . \textit{European Journal of Information Systems} 2016. 25 (2) p. . \bibitem[Johnson and Curtis ()]{b62}\label{b62} ‘Effects of forest management on soil C and N storage: a meta-analysis’. D W Johnson , P S Curtis . \textit{Forest Ecology and Management} 2001. 140 (2-3) p. . \bibitem[Belout ()]{b23}\label{b23} ‘Effects of human resource management on project effectiveness and success: toward a new conceptual framework’. A Belout . \textit{International Journal of Project Management} 1998. 16 (1) p. . \bibitem[Bahkia et al. ()]{b19}\label{b19} ‘Exploratory Factor Analysis on occupational stress in the context of Malaysian sewerage operations’. A S Bahkia , Z Awang , A Afthanorhan , P L Ghazali , H Foziah . \textit{AIP Conference Proceedings} 2019. \bibitem[Struyk ()]{b90}\label{b90} ‘Factors in successful program implementation in Russia during the transition: pilot programs as a guide’. R J Struyk . \textit{Public Administration and Development: The International Journal of Management Research and Practice} 2007. 27 (1) p. . \bibitem[Bentler and Hu ()]{b24}\label{b24} \textit{Findings: Structural Equation Modelling}, \& Bentler , Hu . 1999. 11 p. . \bibitem[Turner and Zolin ()]{b99}\label{b99} ‘Forecasting success on large projects: developing reliable scales to predict multiple perspectives by multiple stakeholders over multiple time frames’. R Turner , R Zolin . \textit{Project Management Journal} 2012. 43 (5) p. . \bibitem[Baldwin and Bordoli ()]{b20}\label{b20} \textit{Handbook for construction planning and scheduling}, A Baldwin , D Bordoli . 2014. John Wiley \& Sons. \bibitem[Wateridge ()]{b103}\label{b103} \textit{How can IS/IT projects be measured for success? International journal of project management}, J Wateridge . 1998. 16 p. . \bibitem[Boonstra ()]{b28}\label{b28} ‘How do top managers support strategic information system projects, and why do they sometimes withhold this support?’. A Boonstra . \textit{International Journal of Project Management} 2013. 31 p. . \bibitem[Talke et al. ()]{b95}\label{b95} ‘How top management team diversity affects innovativeness and performance via the strategic choice to focus on innovation fields’. K Talke , S Salomo , K Rost . \textit{Research Policy} 2010. 39 (7) p. . \bibitem[Shahzad and Talha ()]{b80}\label{b80} ‘Impact of Project Project Success with Mediating Role of Risk Management and Moderating Role of Organizational Culture’. N Shahzad , M Talha . \textit{International Journal of Business and Social Science} 2018. 88 (9) p. . \bibitem[Alsmadi et al. ()]{b15}\label{b15} ‘Implementing an integrated ABC and TOC approach to enhance decision making in a Lean context’. M Alsmadi , A Almani , Z Khan . \textit{International Journal of Quality \& Reliability Management} 2014. (8) p. . \bibitem[Johansen and Wilson ()]{b60}\label{b60} \textit{Investigating first planning in construction. Construction management and economics}, E Johansen , B Wilson . 2006. 24 p. . \bibitem[Eshetie et al. ()]{b55}\label{b55} ‘Key project planning processes affecting project success’. B Eshetie , Birhanu , Beshat . \textit{International Journal for Quality Research} 2017. 11 (1) p. . \bibitem[Kaiser and Rice ()]{b65}\label{b65} \textit{Little jiffy, mark IV. Educational and psychological measurement}, H F Kaiser , J Rice . 1974. 34 p. . \bibitem[De Wit ()]{b44}\label{b44} ‘Measurement of project success’. A De Wit . \textit{International journal of project management} 1988. 6 (3) p. . \bibitem[Bertea ()]{b1}\label{b1} ‘Methods for testing discriminant validity’. Adriana Z Bertea , PE . \textit{Management \& Marketing Journal} 2011. 9 (2) p. . \bibitem[Faniran and Caban ()]{b59}\label{b59} \textit{Minimizing waste on construction project sites. Engineering, construction, and architectural management}, O O Faniran , G Caban . 1998. 5 p. . \bibitem[Turner and Müller ()]{b98}\label{b98} ‘On the nature of the project as a temporary organization’. J R Turner , R Müller . \textit{International journal of project management} 2003. 21 (1) p. . \bibitem[Denis and Denis ()]{b46}\label{b46} ‘Performance changes following top management dismissals’. D J Denis , D K Denis . \textit{The Journal of Finance} 1995. 50 (4) p. . \bibitem[Pinto and Prescott ()]{b72}\label{b72} ‘Planning and tactical factors in the project implementation process’. J K Pinto , J E Prescott . \textit{Journal of Management Studies} 1988. 27 (3) p. . \bibitem[Steyn ()]{b89}\label{b89} ‘Project management applications of the theory of constraints beyond critical chain scheduling’. H Steyn . \textit{International Journal of Project Management} 2002. 20 (1) p. . \bibitem[Stuckenbruck ()]{b91}\label{b91} \textit{Project management framework (an overview of the project management body of knowledge)}, L C Stuckenbruck . 1986. Project Management Institute. \bibitem[Cleland and King ()]{b39}\label{b39} \textit{Project Management Handbook}, D I Cleland , W King . 1988. Van Nostrand Reinhold. \bibitem[Besner and Hobbs ()]{b27}\label{b27} ‘Project management practice, generic or contextual: A reality check’. C Besner , B Hobbs . \textit{Project Management Journal} 2008. 39 (1) p. . \bibitem[Carol et al. ()]{b33}\label{b33} \textit{Project risk identification and management}, Y Carol , M W Cohen , G R Palmer . 2004. AACE International Transactions. \bibitem[Ahuja and Thiruvengadam ()]{b9}\label{b9} ‘Project scheduling and monitoring: current research status’. V Ahuja , V Thiruvengadam . \textit{Construction Innovation} 2004. 4 (1) p. . \bibitem[Cleland ()]{b36}\label{b36} ‘Project Stakeholders Management’. D I Cleland . \textit{Project Management Journal} 1986. p. . \bibitem[Scott-Young and Samson (2004)]{b75}\label{b75} ‘Project success and project team human resource management: evidence from capital projects in the process industries’. C Scott-Young , D Samson . \textit{Proceedings of the PMI Research Conference}, (the PMI Research ConferenceLondon) 2004. July. \bibitem[Pinto and Slevin ()]{b74}\label{b74} ‘Project success: definitions and measurement techniques’. J K Pinto , D P Slevin . \textit{Project Management Journal} 1986. p. . (3rd ed.) \bibitem[Aide Publique au Developpement (ed.) (2008)]{b10}\label{b10} \textit{Project to build six (6) rural bridges on some prefectural and national roads in the prefectures of Kindia}, 08/009 / DIT. Aide Publique au Developpement (ed.) December 2008. Dalaba, Dinguiraye, Forécariah. (and Gaoual in the Republic of Guinea) \bibitem[Wang et al. ()]{b102}\label{b102} ‘R. A Study of Pre-project Planning and Project Success using ANN and Regression Models/Yu’. Y R Wang , Wang , Gibson . \textit{the 25th Intern. Symp. on Automation and Robotics in Construction}, 2008. Vilnius Gediminas Technical University. p. . \bibitem[Joslin and Müller ()]{b63}\label{b63} ‘Relationships between a project management methodology and project success in different project governance contexts’. R Joslin , R Müller . \textit{International Journal of Project Management} 2015. 33 (6) p. . \bibitem[Sekaran and Bougie ()]{b77}\label{b77} \textit{Research methods for business: A skill-building approach}, U Sekaran , R Bougie . 2016. John Wiley \& Sons. \bibitem[Sekaran and Bougie ()]{b76}\label{b76} U Sekaran , Bougie . \textit{Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach}, 2010. John Wiley \& Sons. (5th edition) \bibitem[Ernst et al. ()]{b54}\label{b54} ‘Simple Scalar: An infrastructure for computer system modeling’. D Ernst , T Austin , E Larson . \textit{Computer} 2002. (2) p. . \bibitem[Cleland ()]{b37}\label{b37} \textit{Stakeholder management. Project management handbook}, D I Cleland . 1999. p. . \bibitem[Pedrini and Ferri ()]{b71}\label{b71} ‘Stakeholder management: a systematic literature review’. M Pedrini , L M Ferri . \textit{Corporate Governance: The International Journal of Business in Society} 2019. 19 (1) p. . \bibitem[Dong et al. ()]{b49}\label{b49} ‘Study design and implementation of the PINE study’. X Dong , E Wong , M A Simon . \textit{Journal of aging and health} 2014. 26 (7) p. . \bibitem[Khang and Moe ()]{b70}\label{b70} ‘Success criteria and factors for international development projects: A life-cycle-based framework’. D B Khang , T L Moe . \textit{Project Management Journal} 2008. 39 (1) p. . \bibitem[Byrne et al. ()]{b32}\label{b32} ‘Testing for measurement and structural equivalence in large scale cross-cultural studies: Addressing the issue of nonequivalence’. B M Byrne , Van De , F J Vijver . \textit{International Journal for Testing} 2010. 10 (2) p. . \bibitem[Airman et al. ()]{b12}\label{b12} \textit{The assessment of the performance of covariance-based structural equation modeling and partial least square path}, A N Airman , S Ahmad , A Afthanorhan , Z Awang . 2017a. \bibitem[Beringer et al. ()]{b25}\label{b25} ‘The behavior of internal stakeholders in project portfolio management and its impact on success’. C Beringer , D Jonas , A Kock . \textit{Int. J. Proj. Manag} 2013. 31 p. . \bibitem[Delone and Mclean ()]{b45}\label{b45} ‘The DeLone and McLean model of information systems success: a ten-year update’. W H Delone , E R Mclean . \textit{Journal of management information systems} 2003. 19 (4) p. . \bibitem[Aimran et al. ()]{b11}\label{b11} ‘The development of the comparative bias index’. A N Aimran , S Ahmad , A Afthanorhan , Z Awang . \textit{AIP Conference Proceedings}, 2017. AIP Publishing. 1870 p. 60008. \bibitem[Ahmadabadi and Heravi ()]{b6}\label{b6} ‘The effect of critical success factors on project success in Public-Private Partnership projects: A case study of highway projects in Iran’. A A Ahmadabadi , G Heravi . \textit{Transport Policy} 2019. 73 p. . \bibitem[Afthanorhan et al. ()]{b4}\label{b4} ‘The effect of product quality, medical price, and staff skills on patient loyalty via cultural impact on medical tourism’. A Afthanorhan , Z Awang , F Salleh , P Ghazali , N Rashid . \textit{Management Science Letters} 2018. 8 (12) p. . \bibitem[Badewi ()]{b18}\label{b18} ‘The Impact of Project Management (PM) and Benefits Management (BM) Practices on Project Success: Towards developing a project benefits governance framework’. A Badewi . \textit{International Journal of Project Management} 2016. 34 (4) p. . \bibitem[Turner ()]{b97}\label{b97} \textit{The management of the project-based organization: A personal reflection}, J R Turner . 2017. \bibitem[Drucker ()]{b50}\label{b50} \textit{The practice of management}, P Drucker . 2012. (Routledge) \bibitem[Slevin and Pinto ()]{b82}\label{b82} \textit{The project implementation profile: a new tool for project managers}, D P Slevin , J K Pinto . 1986. Project Management Institute. \bibitem[Turner and Müller ()]{b96}\label{b96} ‘The project manager's leadership style as a success factor on projects’. J R Turner , R Müller . \textit{Project Management Journal} 2005. 36 (1) p. . \bibitem[Vanhoucke et al. ()]{b101}\label{b101} ‘The project scheduling game (PSG): simulating time/cost trade-offs in projects’. M Vanhoucke , A Vereecke , P Gemmel . \textit{Project Management Journal} 2005. 36 (1) p. . \bibitem[Serrador and Turner ()]{b78}\label{b78} ‘The relationship between project success and project efficiency’. P Serrador , R Turner . \textit{Project Management Journal} 2015. 46 (1) p. . \bibitem[Syed and Choi Sang ()]{b93}\label{b93} ‘Top Management Support, a Potential Moderator between Project Leadership and Project Success: A Theoretical Framework’. M Syed , L Choi Sang . \textit{Research Journal of Applied Sciences, Engineering, and Technology} 2014. 8 (11) p. . \bibitem[Chen and Popovich ()]{b35}\label{b35} \textit{Understanding customer relationship management (CRM) People, process, and technology. Business process management journal}, I J Chen , K Popovich . 2003. 9 p. . \bibitem[United Nations Development Program: National Execution Procedures Sokhna Diop Keita (2001)]{b85}\label{b85} ‘United Nations Development Program: National Execution Procedures’. \textit{Sokhna Diop Keita} September 2001. Manual NEX Guinea. \bibitem[Kerzner ()]{b68}\label{b68} \textit{Using the project management maturity model: strategic planning for project management}, H Kerzner . 2019. Wiley. \bibitem[Johnson and Mcclure ()]{b61}\label{b61} ‘Validity and Reliability of a shortened, revised version of the Constructivist Learning Environment Survey (CLES)’. B Johnson , R Mcclure . \textit{Learning Environments Research} 2012. 7 p. . \bibitem[Bourne and Walker ()]{b29}\label{b29} \textit{Visualizing and mapping stakeholders' influence. Management decision}, L Bourne , D H Walker . 2005. 43 p. . \bibitem[Uribe et al. ()]{b100}\label{b100} ‘What is going on with stakeholder theory in Project Management literature? A symbiotic relationship for sustainability’. D F Uribe , I Ortiz-Marcos , Á Uruburu . \textit{Sustainability} 2018. 10 (4) p. 1300. \end{bibitemlist} \end{document}