A conceptual framework of sustainability in project management ...

A conceptual framework of sustainability in project management oriented to success Mauro Luiz Martens ([email protected]) Polytechnic School - University of Sao Paulo, Production Engineering Department, São Paulo/SP – Brazil. Marly Monteiro de Carvalho ([email protected]) Polytechnic School - University of Sao Paulo, Production Engineering Department, São Paulo/SP – Brazil.

Abstract This study aims at systematizing a conceptual framework of sustainability in project management oriented to success. A systematic literature review was used, merging as bibliographic and methodological approaches. The sample was extracted from the databases (ISI Web of Knowledge, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Scielo). The results present the systematization of the literature and a conceptual framework that contributes to the study of sustainability with economic, environmental and social perspectives in project management oriented to success. Keywords: Sustainability, project management, success.

Introduction Recently, social, economic and environmental challenges have become increasingly complex, forcing organizations to innovate, manage change and adopt new activities (Pope et al. 2004; Wilkins 2003). The need for sustainability has emerged in this context. The concept of corporate sustainability is linked with three dimensions: environmental, economic and social (Gimenez et al. 2012), i.e., sustainability based on the triple bottom line concept (Elkington 1998; Labuschagne et al. 2005; Savitz 2006). Under this perspective, organizations that seek to achieve a standard of excellence must develop ways of reducing their negative social and environmental impacts. Additionally, Carvalho and Rabechini Jr. (2011) argue the need for the environmental, social and economic dimensions of sustainability to be incorporated into project management. This need has prompted a discussion of how to increase sustainability in project management. According to Silvius et al. (2013), the relationship between project management and sustainable development has been gaining attention among professionals and scholars. Project management and sustainability themes have been addressed by countless studies. According to studies by Martens et al. (2013), initiatives aiming at integrating these two themes are already underway (Anning 2009; Bodea et al. 2010; Fernández-Sánchez and RodríguezLópez 2010; Jones 2006; Mulder and Brent 2006; Raven et al. 2009; Turlea et al. 2010; Vifell and Soneryd 2012), but much additional research is required to develop tools, techniques and methodologies (Singh et al. 2012; El-Haram et al. 2007; Thomson et al. 2011) that can be applied 1

in project management in order to analyze sustainability at the project level (Carvalho and Rabechini Jr. 2011; Cole 2005; Deakin et al. 2002; Thomson et al. 2011). In the same breath, Bebbington et al. (2007) highlight the importance of including variables of sustainability in activities related to phases of project as collaborate to improve the quality of the projects but, according to Shenhar and Dvir (2007), Shenhar (2011) and Shenhar et al. (2001), this new look at the project management contributes to achieving success. In this new scenario, besides the demand for sustainability in project management, concepts of success in project become relevant to the study. According to Wit (1988), the success in projects refers to the objectives and benefits of the project to the organization as a whole. It is the effectiveness of a particular initiative linked to the compliance of its initial objective, enabling stakeholders to reap the benefits provided by the project. The need for studies on the convergence of sustainability issues and project management, coupled with the increasing importance of both on the current business environment, as well as its relationship with success in projects, motivates this study which seeks to contribute to the development of the sustainability issues in project management and success in projects. Thus, this study focuses on the study of the alignment of these themes, with the aim of systematizing a theoretical framework that can evidence constructs of sustainability in project management with orientation to success in project. Following this introduction, the paper is structured into five sections. The next section presents the methodological procedures of the research succeeded by the results and discussions of the study. The penultimate section presents the conclusions and finally the bibliography of this study is pointed out. Methodological approach This study is considered to be of an exploratory research and as such, it is intended to further our understanding of a given phenomenon (Selltiz et al. 1967). The methodological approach used was of bibliographic research, which “is developed from already prepared material, consisting mainly of books and scientific articles” (Gil 2006 p. 65). The literature review is considered essential in any scientific research, as it allows the knowledge of existing theory (Martins and Theóphilo 2009). According to Fleury (2011), from an existing theoretical framework we can produce a result that is worthy and really is a contribution. Thus, for the organization of the literature, the systematic review will be used which targets at locating and synthesizing the literature on a particular subject, through organized, transparent and replicable procedures in every step of the process (Littell et al. 2008). For analysis and consolidation of key concepts the support of the Sphinx software was adopted (Freitas and Janissek 2000) as well as the techniques of content analysis (Bardin 2010). Results This section presents the concepts related to the field of sustainability study in project management, success in projects and finally the alignment of both themes by means of conceptual framework Sustainability in Project management 2

Sustainability is increasingly perceived as a necessary tool for understanding the social, economic and environmental consequences associated with the way that projects and their support systems are designed, constructed, operated, maintained and eliminated (El-Haram et al. 2007; Thomson et al. 2011). However, the lack of a common structure and language for analyzing sustainability, i.e., the absence of a tool for integrated analysis leads to the lack of a useful and applicable method to projects (Cole 2005; Deakin et al. 2002; Thomson et al. 2011; Bebbington et al. 2007; Singh et al. 2012; Welsch 2005; Labuschagne et al. 2005). The motivations that drive companies to develop sustainability projects are not solely based on solidarity. Studies have demonstrated that sustainability is not only confined to environmental and social benefits, but also enhances the economic value of organizations (Fiksel et al. 1999). Furthermore, in the modern era it is impossible to think of economic development without the parallel construct of protecting the environment and the mutual benefits to society. According to Schwarz et al. (2002) and Araújo (2010), a central premise of sustainability is that economic well-being is inextricably linked to conservation of the environment and the welfare of human population. Therefore, the more competitive companies are not those that exploit lower-priced resources but the ones that better manage their resources, employ more advanced technologies and use the best methods to control their resources (Porter and Linde 1995). The need to work towards sustainability by introducing the three dimensions of sustainability (environmental, social and economic) into project management level is clear (Singh et al. 2012; Labuschagne et al. 2005; Carvalho and Rabechini Jr. 2011; Silvius et al. 2013). These authors report that the social and environmental dimensions of sustainability are sometimes neglected, but especially the social dimension. According to Shenhar and Dvir (2007), the economic dimension of sustainability is important as it compensates and reward the investor’s capital however, in this context the environmental and social dimensions should also be promoted. For instance, in terms of project efficiency, better purchases, effective use of resources, employment of clean technologies and renewable energy, reduction of fossil fuels consumption, just to name a few. When project management involves sustainability, it results in the production of goods and services that suit the reality of stakeholders (Carvalho and Rabechini Jr. 2011). After having evidenced in the literature several initial models of sustainability in project management, these samples were found scattered in different areas such as engineering, administration and the like. To systematize the economic dimension a total of 158 different constructs were taken into account, along with variables from the 140 scientific papers of the sample studied. One might confirm that in this dimension the main concerns pinpoint the organization’s own survivability, cost management, relationship with stakeholders and welfare of the employees. The synthesis of the environmental dimension had a total of 248 different constructs and variables from the sample studied. It is worth highlighting that the majority of the studies consider variables pertaining to water, energy, land, waste generation and the consumption of resources. These variables are fundamental to sustainability in project management. Social dimension had a total of 270 different constructs and variables from the articles studied. This dimension has the highest number of constructs and variables apart from requiring more attention by researchers (Singh et al. 2012; Labuschagne et al. 2005). In social dimension, it is verified that the main preoccupations are targeted to adequate labor practices concerning employees and outsources, engagement of stakeholders, relationship with the neighboring 3

community, and child labor among others. In conclusion, it is presented here (Table 01) a conceptual framework with constructs and variables of sustainability with TBL focus in project management.

Social Dimension

Environmental Dimension

Economic Dimension

Table 01: Conceptual framework of sustainability in project management: constucts and variables. Financial performance Financial benefits of good practices Business ethics Cost management Management of relationship with customers Participation and involvement of stakeholders Innovation management Economic performance Culture of the organization and its management Environmental accounting and economy Management of intangibles Internationalization Investments and improvements in services and installations Natural resources Energy Water Biodiversity Management of environmental policies system Management of impacts on the environment and the life cycle of products and services Eco-efficiency Environmental justice Environmental education and training High risk projects, climate strategy and governance Environmental reports Labor practices and working conditions Labor practices and relations with employees Relationships with the local community Engagement of stakeholders Financing and construction of social action Society, competition and pricing policies Concepts of social justice Relationships with suppliers and contractors Products and services Human rights Social reports Fonte: Based on Fiksel et al. (1999); Labuschagne ete al. (2005); VDI 4070 (2006); ICHEME (2002); Veleva and Ellenbecker (2001); Azapagic (2004); Spangenberg and Bonniot (1998); Spangenberg et al. (2002); Leurs et al. (2008); Ustinovichius et al. (2010), Ustinovichius and kochin (2003); Fellows and Liu (2008); Fernández-Sánchez and Rodríguez-López (2010); Bernhardi et al. (2000); Corder et al. (2010); Silvius et al. (2013); Araújo (2010); Pulaski and Horman (2005); Mulder and Brent (2006); Carvalho and Rabechini Jr. (2011); Buson et al. (2009); Sarkis et al. (2012); Xing et al. (2009); Liu et al. (2013).

Following, the alignment of project management and success in projects is shown. 4

Project management and success in projects It is of relevancy that many scholars have been highlighting the benefits of the utilization of projects management such as Kerzner (2001). The success for a project oriented company is directly tied to results gained in each of its projects, since these projects constitute the crucial business and the essential skills of the organization (Kerzner 2006). Conceptually, it is important to draw a distinction between success on projects management and success in projects. According to Wit (1988), success in project management is mainly attached to the success of the direct conduct of project manager, to applying specific tools of the discipline as well as to cost, scope and time of any project. However, success in projects refers to goals and benefits foreseen by the project for the organization as a whole. In other words, it refers to the effectiveness of a determined initiative linked to the achievement of the initial goal, enabling the company to enjoy the benefits planned by projects. As mentioned, the classic metrics used to assess success in projects include the triple restriction or the iron triangle knew as scope, time and cost (Adnan 2013; Larson and Gobeli 1989). However, as literature evolved, other dimensions of success were incorporated. Shenhar and Dvir (2007), Shenhar (2011) and Shenhar et al. (2001) display criteria to assess success in five dimensions: efficiency, impact to the costumer, impact to the team, business success and finally, preparation for the future. Success of the project is characterized by ambiguity, but according to Ika et al. (2012), there is consensus that the criteria of success in developing international projects include relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. According to these authors, the relevance refers to the measure to which the project meets the expectations of the project stakeholders; the efficiency refers to the extension to which the project uses the least costly resources to achieve desired results; the effectiveness refers to the measure to which the project meets its objectives, the impact refers to the positive and negative changes produced by the project, whether they be direct or indirect, intentional or not, and sustainability refers to the fact that the benefits of the project should endure after lenders withdraw from the project. In previous studies, this idea of sustainability criteria had already been worked on, such as the study by Atkinson (1999), which exposes the social and environmental impact besides the economic impact to the community. Elattar (2009) argues that success criteria are linked to lack of legal proceedings and social acceptability of the project. Likewise, Chan and Chan (2004) in studies of project success in the construction field listed environmental performance as criterion for project success. In addition to these criteria, Kometa et al. (1995), and Kumaraswamy and Thorpe (1996), Lim and Mohamed (1999) and Almahmoud et al. (2012), indicate the criteria of success in projects such as health and safety. Furthermore, several other authors bring contributions in their studies to the systematization of success in projects such as: Cooke-Davies (2002), Kessler and Winkellhofer (2002), Raz et al. (2002); Bizan (2003); Dvir, Raz e Shenhar (2003); Lipovetsky et al. (2005); Yu et al. (2005); Berman (2007); Diallo and Thuillier (2004), Khang and Moe (2008). With the concepts and dimensions of success in projects exposed, one might perceive that the triple restriction in projects (cost, time and scope) is broadly shared in the literature; however what may be recently observed is the addition of strategic aspects on the definition of success in projects. So the conceptual framework of success in projects can be witnessed in Table 02 bonding dimensions of success in projects, measures and respective authors. 5

Success in Projects

Table 02: Success Dimenions in projects Dimensions Measures Efficiency Cost, time and scope Impact on the customer Functional performance and technical specifications; Fulfillment of customer needs; customer’s problem solving; usage of the product by the customer; Customer satisfaction; Improvement of customer’s quality of life Impact on the team Impact on the professional lives of the team members; Improvement of learning and growth; Greater satisfaction and productivity of the team Business success Improving sales and profits; Increasing in profitability; Return on investment, competitiveness and market performance Preparing for the future Creation of new markets; Creation of new products; Creation of new technologies; Capacity to contribute to continuous improvement Sustainability Perpetuation of the project benefits Source: Based on Shenhar and Dvir (2007), Shenhar (2011), Shenhar et al. (2001), Kerzner (2001), Munns and Bjeimi (1996), Bryde (2003), Ika et al. (2012), Atkinson (1999), Elattar (2009), Chan and Chan (2004), Kometa et al. (1995), Kumaraswamy and Thorpe (1996), Lim and Mohamed (1999), Almahmoud et al. (2012)

Following, the conceptual alignment of sustainability in project management and success in projects is presented. Conceptual framework of sustainability in project management oriented to success Upon literature analysis, it has been possible to evidence several frameworks of sustainability in project management, even being quite scattered in diferents areas. Likewise, frameworks of success in projects have been organized. Thus, it has been possible to structure a conceptual framework of sustainability constructs in project management oriented to success (Figure 01). As it may be testified, the conceptual framework aligns the themes of sustainability in project management and success in projects. Under reflexive format, so as not to interfere on both main constructs, the due dimensions are presented. The conceptual framework with the alignment of the constucts opens up a new gap of research which is the relatioship between sustainability in project management and success in projects. Economic Dimension

Efficiency Impact on the customer

Impact on the team Environmental Dimension

Sustainability in PM

Success in projects Business success

Preparing for the future

Social Dimension

Sustainability

Figure 1: Conceptual framework of sustainability in project management oriented to success

6

Final Considerations This study aimed to bridge a gap in the literature at the intersection between project management and sustainability. The literature review identified 149 published articles and 22 conceptual models related to the research theme, sustainability in project management. These models were scrutinized in terms of their components and relationships, resulting in a summarized model (Table 01). In the same breath this study contributes to the systematization of a dimension framework and measures of success in projects (table 02), starting from classic dimensions allied to new dimensions such as the ones given by Shenhar and Dvir (2007) and the dimension of success “sustainability”, contributing theoretically to a conceptual framework better aligned to the function of project management. One might observe that, just as Welsch (2005) and Singh et al. (2012) suggest, there is room for additional research in the area of sustainability in project management. The systematization process also revealed that in recent years the number of studies about the research topic have grown but, remain dispersed throughout different fields. This was the trigger to build a comprehensive model of constructs and variables that could be applied to project management and oriented to success. This study has sought to contribute to the development of sustainability in project management with orientation to success. As a theoretical contribution, this study gathered concepts that provide initial insights for subsequent definition of theoretical modeling of sustainability constructs and of variables for project management oriented to success, apart from informing methodologies for future research. As contribution to the practice, a bibliographic review has been attested which has displayed several constructs and variables arising from different applications in distinct sectors, which nevertheless may already be studied, parameterized or customized in the project management environment or in any diverse organizational environment, thus providing new focus, indicators and actions of sustainability. For future researches, this study suggests the validation and organization of constructs and variables of sustainability with triple-bottom line focus in project management and success in projects, plus a later research through case studies or surveys, seeking to contemplate organizations that operate with project management or even other organizations with the intention of understanding this proposed scenario. Acknowledgments This research has been supported by grants from the CNPq, and from the CAPES. Bibliography Adnan, H. N. Hashim, M. A. Marhani, M. Asri, Y. Johari. 2013. Project Management Success for Contractors. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 74: 425–429. Almahmoud, E. S., H. K. Doloi, K. Panuwatwanich. 2012. Linking project health to project performance indicators: Multiple case studies of construction projects in Saudi Arabia. International Journal of Project Management, 30(3): 296–307. Anning, H. 2009. Case Study: Bond University Mirvac School of Sustainable Development Building, Gold Coast, Australia. Journal of Green Building, 4(4): 39-54.

7

Araújo, J. B. 2010. Desenvolvimento de método de avaliação de desempenho de processo de manufatura considerando parâmetros de sustentabilidade. Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia da Produção). Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos da Universidade de São Paulo, São Carlos. 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. Azapagic, A. 2004. Developing a framework for sustainable development indicators for the mining and minerals industry. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12: 639-662. Bardin, L. 2010. Análise de conteúdo. Lisboa, Portugal. 5ª Ed. Bebbington, J., J. Brown, B. Frame. 2007. Accounting technologies and sustainability assessment models. Ecological Economics, 61: 224–236. Berman, J. 2007. Maximizing project value – Defining, managing and measuring for optimal return. New York: Amacom. Bernhardi, L., G. E. G. Beroggi, M. R. Moens. 2000. Sustainable Water Management through Flexible Method Management. Water Resources Management, 14(16): 473-495. Bizan, O. 2003. The determinants of success of R&D projects: Evidence from american-israeli research alliances. Research Policy, 32: 1619-1640. Bodea, C. N., C. Elmas, A. Tănăsescu, M. Dascãlu. 2010. An Ontological-Based Model for Competences in Sustainable Development Projects : A Case Study For Project’s. Economic Interferences, 12(27): 177-189. Bryde, D. J. 2003. Modeling Project Management Performance. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20(2): 229-254. Buson, M. A., R. Laurenti, H. Rozenfeld, F. A. Forcellini. 2009. Uma proposta de avaliação da sustentabilidade de projetos na fase de planejamento com base nos princípios lean: um estudo de caso no segmento de eletrônicos. In: Congresso Brasileiro de Gestão de Desenvolvimento de Produto. São José dos Campos. Carvalho, M. M., R. Rabechini Jr. 2011. Fundamentos em Gestão de Projetos: Construindo competências para gerenciar projetos: teoria e casos. 3ª ed. São Paulo: Atlas, 422p. Chan, A., A. Chan. 2004. Key performance indicators for measuring construction success. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 11(2): 203-221. Cole, R. 2005. Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles. Building Research and Information, 33(5): 455–467. Corder, G. D., B. C. Mclellan, S. Green. 2010. Incorporating sustainable development principles into minerals processing design and operation: SUSOP®. Minerals Engineering, 23(3): 175-181. Cooke-Davies, T. J. 2002. The “real” success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20: 185-190. Diallo, A., D. Thuillier. 2004. The success dimensions of international development projects: the perceptions of African project coordinators. International Journal of Project Management, 22(1): 19–31. Deakin, M., P. Huovila, S. Rao, V.R. Sunikkamand. 2002. The assessment of sustainable urban development. Building Research and Information, 30(2): 95–108. Dvir. D., T. Raz, A.Shenhar. 2003. An empirical analysis of the relationship between project planning and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 21: 89-95. Elattar, S. 2009. Towards developing an improved methodology for evaluating performance and achieving success in construction projects. Scientific Research and Essays, 4(6): 549-554. El-Haram, M., J. S. Walton, R. M. W. Horner, et al. 2007. Development of an integrated sustainability assessment toolkit. Proceedings of the International Conference on Whole Life Urban Sustainability and its Assessment, Glasgow. Available at: http://download.sue-mot.org/Conference-2007/Papers/ El-Haram.pdf. (accessed data March 11, 2013). Elkington, J. 1998. Canibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st century business. Canada: New Society Publishers. Fellows, R., A. Liu. 2008. Impact of participants’ values on construction sustainability. Proceedings of the ICE Engineering Sustainability, 161(4): 219-227. Fernández-Sánchez, G., F. Rodríguez-López. 2010. A methodology to identify sustainability indicators in construction project management - Application to infrastructure projects in Spain. Ecological Indicators, 10(6): 1193-1201. Fiksel, J., J. Mcdaniel, C. Mendenhall. 1999. Measuring Progress towards Sustainability Principles, Process and Best Practices. Ohio: Battelle Memorial Institute.

8

Fleury, A. 2011. Planejamento do Projeto de Pesquisa e Definição do Modelo Teórico. In: Cauchick Miguel, P. A. (Org,). Metodologia de Pesquisa em Engenharia de Produção e Gestão de Operações. Ed. Campos, 2ª. Edição. Freitas, H. M. R., M. R. Janissek. 2000. Análise léxica e análise de conteúdo: técnicas complementares, sequenciais e recorrentes para exploração de dados qualitativos. Porto Alegre: Sphinx-Sagra, 176p. Gil, A. C. 2006. Métodos e técnicas de pesquisa social. São Paulo: Atlas. Gimenez, C., V. Sierra, J. Rodon. 2012. Sustainable operations: Their impact on the triple bottom line. International Journal of Production Economics, 140(1): 149-159. Ika, L. A., A. Diallo, D. Thuillier. 2012. Critical success factors for World Bank projects: An empirical investigation. International Journal of Project Management, 30(1): 105–116. Institution of Chemical Engineers. 2002. The sustainability metrics: sustainable development progress metrics recommended for use in the process industries. Available at: < www.icheme.org>. (accessed data March 15, 2013). Jones, B., 2006. Trying harder: Developing a new sustainable strategy for the UK. Natural Resources Forum, 30(2): 124-135. Khang, D. B., T. L. Moe. 2008. Success criteria and factors for international development projects: a life-cycle-based framework. Project Management Journal, 39(1): 72–84. Kerzner, H. 2006. Gestão de projetos – as melhores práticas. 2 ed. Porto Alegre: Bookman. Kerzner, H. 2001. Project management – A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Kessler, H., G. Winkellhofer. 2002. Projekt-management: Leitfaden zur steuerung und fuhrung von projekten. Heidelberg: Springer. Kometa, S., P. Olomolaiye, F. Harris. 1995. An evaluation of clients’ needs and responsibilities in the construction process. Engineering, construction and Architectural management, 2(1): 57-76. Kumaraswamy, M., A. Thorpe. 1996. Systematizing construction project evaluations. Journal of Management in Engineering, 12(1): 34-39. Labuschagne, C., A. C. Brent, R. P. G. Van Erck. 2005. Assessing the sustainability performances of industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(4): 373-385. Larson, E. W., D. H. Gobeli. 1989. Significance of project management structure on development success. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 36(2): 119-125. Lim, C., M. Mohamed. 1999. Criteria of project success: an exploratory re-examination. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4): 243-248. Leurs, M. T. W., I. M. Mur-Veeman, R. Van Der Sar, H. P. Schaalma, N. K. Vries. 2008. Diagnosis of sustainable collaboration in health promotion - a case study. Bmc Public Health, 8. Available at: . (accessed data March 20, 2013). Lipovetsky, S., A. Tishler, D. Dvir, A. Shenhar. 2005. The relative importance of project success dimensions. R&D Management, 27(2): 97-106. Littell, J. H., J. Corcoran, V. Pillai. 2008. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York: Oxford University Press. Liu, J., J. Zuo, Z. Sun, G. Zillante, X. Chen. 2013. Sustainability in hydropower development: A case study. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 19(2013): 230-237. Martens, M. L., F. Brones, M. M. Carvalho. 2013. Lacunas e tendências na literatura de sustentabilidade no gerenciamento de projetos: uma revisão sistemática mesclando bibliometria e análise de conteúdo. Revista de Gestão e Projetos, 4(1): 165-195. Martins, G. A., C. R. Theóphilo. 2009. Metodologia da investigação científica para ciências sociais aplicadas. 2ª Ed., São Paulo: Atlas. Mulder, J., A. C. Brent. 2006. Selection of Sustainable Rural Agriculture Projects in South Africa : Case Studies in the LandCare Programme. Engineering and Technology, 28(2): 55-84. Munns, A. K., B. F. Bjeirmi. 1996. The role of project management in achieving project success. International Journal of Project Management, 14(2): 81-87. Available at: . (accessed data October 10, 2013). Pope, J., D. Annandale, A. Morrison-Saunders. 2004. Conceptualising sustainability assessment. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 24(6): 595–616. Porter, M. E.; C. Linde. 1995. Green and Competitive: Ending the Stalemate. Harvard Business Review. SeptemberOctober.

9

Pulaski, M. H., M. J. Horman. 2005. Continuous Value Enhancement Process. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131(12): 1274-1282. Raven, R. P. J. M., E. Jolivet, R. M. Mourik, Y. C. F. J. Feenstra. 2009. ESTEEM: Managing societal acceptance in new energy projects. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 76(7): 963-977. Raz, T., A. J. Shenhar, D. Dvir. 2002. Risk management, project success, and technological uncertainty. R&D Management, 32(2): 101-109. Sarkis, J., L. M. Meade, A. R. Presley. 2012. Incorporating sustainability into contractor evaluation and team formation in the built environment. Journal of Cleaner Production, 31: 40-53. Schwarz, J., B. Beloff, E. Beaver. 2002. Use Sustainability Metrics to Guide Decision- Making. Chemical Engineering Progress, July. Savitz, A. W. 2006. The Triple Bottom Line: How Today's Best-Run Companies Are Achieving Economic, Social and Environmental Success - and How You Can Too. 1ª Ed. San Francisco: Ed. John Willey & Sons. Selltiz, C., M. Jahoda, M. Deutsch, S. Cook. 1967. Métodos de Pesquisa nas Relações Sociais. São Paulo: Editora Herder e Editora da Universidade de São Paulo. Shenhar, A. 2011. Meeting Time, Cost, and Moneymaking Goals with Strategic Project Leadership ® Why is Project Management Weak? The Art and Science of Project Management. PMI Global Congress Proceeding. Shenhar, A., D. Dvir. 2007. Reinventing project management: the diamond approach to successful growth and innovation. Harvard Business School Press. Shenhar, A., D. Dvir, O. Levy, A. C. Maltz. 2001. Project Success : A Multidimensional Strategic Concept. Long Range Planning Journal, 34(2001): 699–725. Silvius, A. J. G., R. Schipper, S. Nedeski. 2013. Sustainability in Project Management : Reality Bites 1. PM World Journal, 2(2): 1-14. Singh, R. K., H. R. Murty, S. K. Gupta, A. K. Dikshit. 2012. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 15(1): 281-299. Spangenberg, J.H., O. Bonniot. 1998. Sustainability indicators compass on the road towards sustainability. Wuppertal Paper, 81: February. Spangenberg, J. H., S. Pfahl, K. Deller. 2002. Towards indicators for institutional sustainability: lessons from an analysis of Agenda 21. Ecological Indicators, 2(12): 61-77. Thomson, C. S., M. A. El-Haram, R. Emmanuel. 2011. Mapping sustainability assessment with the project life cycle. Proceedings of the ICE - Engineering Sustainability, 164(2): 143-157. Turlea, C., T. D. Roman, D. G. Constantinescu. 2010. The project management and the need for sustainable development. The project management and the need for sustainable development, 15(3): 121-125. Ustinovichius, L., D. Kochin. 2003. Verbal analysis of the investment risk in construction. Journal of Business Economics and Management, 4(4): 228-234. Ustinovichius, L., et al. 2010. Feasibility of verbal analysis application to solving the problems of investment in construction. Automation in Construction, 19(3): 375-384. VDI 4070. Verein Deutscher Ingenieure. 2006. Nachaltiges Wirtschaften in kleinen und mittelständischen Unternehmen: Anleitung zum Nachhaltigen Wirtschafen. Berlin: Beuth Verlag. Veleva, V., M. Ellenbecker. 2001. Indicators of sustainable production: framework and methodology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 9: 519-549. Vifell, A.C., L. Soneryd. 2012. Organizing Matters: How “the Social Dimension” Gets Lost in Sustainability Projects. Sustainable Development, 20(1): 18-27. Xing, Y., R. M. W. Horner, M. A. El-Haram, J. Bebbington. 2009. A framework model for assessing sustainability impacts of urban development. Accounting Forum, 33(3): 209-224. Welsch, H. 2005. Constructing meaningful sustainability indices. In: Böhringer, C., Lange, A. (Eds.), Applied Research in Environmental Economics. Physica Verlag, Heidelberg. Wilkins, H. 2003. The need for subjectivity in EIA: discourse as a tool for sustainable development. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 23(4): 401–414. Wit, A. 1988. Measurement of project success. Project Management, 6(3): 164–170. Yu, A., P. Flett, J. Bowers. 2005. Developing a value-centred proposal for assessing project success. International Journal of Project Management, 23(6): 428-436.

10