It is not enough with just three indicators. What about classical KPIs?

http://management-stari.fon.bg.ac.rs/management/e_management_68_english_05.pdf

Chapter Project Quality Management

Project Quality should be measured using both external and internal indicators. You have mentioned external factors but they are not variables but outcomes. C Sat is a result of different variables being satisfied and so is timely delivery and user acceptance. Along with these you need to consider internal outcomes and related variables. Project profitability, Team satisfaction, Assets/ innovations/ re-usable components developed by project are a few. Hope this helps. One final suggestion is not to treat quality as something related to features and customer satisfaction but look at it as a business driver.

I spent several years in the corporate world (Global 500’s) with much time designing and building the HR components of large scale capital projects (new plant start-ups, etc). We used the CSP approach for evaluating all project-based work. All projects were evaluated on 1) Cost— was it within the budget? 2) Schedule— was it completed on time? And 3) Performance— Did it meet the (internal) customers performance expectations?

we used to measure the project success with 3 factors, schedule, cost and quality.

Thank you all Andy Chen , Joseph Thomas Martelli , Sridhar Mulakaluri and Olga Rauhut Kompaniets . You have all assisted greatly with your points. I appreciate you all. As a new researcher trying to proffer solutions problems been faced by companies undertaking Software development projects. I am having tough time settling for a research area. I know of problems like (1) incessant resignation of Developers/Programmers. (2) Technology Knowledge Gap. (3) None documentation of coding processes or following of coding standards. Those are the few that I can remember as problems. Can you please assist me in a direction to go ? P

I am thinking of this area too. ----->> " EFFECTS OF PROJECT CONTROL MANAGEMENT ON THE SUCCESS OF SOFTWARE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT" .

Kindly evaluate the performance base ie the output of the project (Quality) and the ingredient with an expectation of the customers (perception expectation gap and expectation -performance gap). Service quality is essential in project success bcos it evaluate the discrepancy between customers' expectations and perception which determines customer retention and feedback.

Parasuraman, Valarie A. Zeithaml, Leonard L Berry (1988) ServQual: Reconciling performance-based and perceptions-minus-expectations measurement of service quality. Journal of Retailing 64(1):12-37

YOU CAN ADOPT OR ADAPT THE INSTRUMENT

Takim & Adnan (2008). Analysis of Effectiveness Measures of Construction PROJECT SUCCESS in Malaysia.Asian Social Science. 4(7)

Roshana Takim . Tel: 603-5521-1567 E-mail: [email protected]

Hamimah Adnan Tel: 603-5544-4306 E-mail: [email protected]

Hashmi,S., Shahzad,K., & Izhar,M. (2020). Proposing Total Quality Management as a buffer between global software development challenges and project success. The TQM Journal. Doi 10.1108/TQM-08-2020-0192

Singh, P., & Smith, A. (2006). An empirically validated Quality Management measurement instrument.Benchmarking: An International Journal. 13( 4), 493-522. DOI 10.1108/14635770610676317

Ismail Ahmodu-Tijani , Can you please give me link to get this ----->>>>> Hashmi,S., Shahzad,K., & Izhar,M. (2020). Proposing Total Quality Management as a buffer between global software development challenges and project success. The TQM Journal. Doi 10.1108/TQM-08-2020-0192

Your email or WhatsApp number bcos it's emerald paper and you need to subscribe for access. I download it for you

Proposing total quality management as a buffer between global software development challenges and project success.

Syed Danial Hashmi, Khurram Shahzad and Muhammad Izhar

Riphah International University, Islamabad, Pakistan

Abstract

Purpose – This study aims to empirically investigate the relationship between different global software development (GSD) challenges (management, process, social, technical and environmental challenges) and software project success. Further, the study examines the moderating role of total quality management (TQM) between the relationship of GSD challenges and success of software projects.

Design/methodology/approach – Using two field studies, the authors collected data form software developers working in globally distributed teams. In study 1 (n 5 194), relationship of different dimensions of GSD challenges (management, process, social, technical and environmental challenges) and project success was examined. In study 2 (n 5 138), moderating role of TQM was examined on the relationship of GSD challenges and project success.

Findings – The results of study 1 indicate that there is a negative relationship between all dimensions of GSD challenges and project success. Findings of study 2 confirmed that TQM practices moderate the negative relationship between GSD challenges and project success.

Practical implications – The findings of the study provide guidelines to the project managers of software industry to mitigate GSD challenges using TQM practices.

Originality/value – Study adds in the literature of TQM, GSD challenges and project success by (1) empirically investigating the relationship between different GSD challenges and software project success and (2) by examining the moderating role of TQM practices on relationship of GSD challenges and project success in global software development industry.

Keywords Global software development challenges, Project success, Total quality management

Paper type Research paper

Introduction

With the rise in technological advancements, usage of software by individuals and organizations has increased massively. In a globalized world with possible free trade, organizations have started offshoring their operations. The impact of globalization is also visible in software industry (Bhatti and Ahsan, 2016). Software development companies/ houses have also started their offshore software development centres to facilitate their stakeholders with the remote development and shipment facilities (Nicholson and Sahay, 2008). This model of offshore software development in a distributed team structure gained extravagant popularity soon after its initiation and is known as global software development (GSD) model (Bharadwaj and Saxena, 2006). Like any other offshore operating facility, implementation of GSD model for successful software development projects is challenging (Stray and Moe, 2020). Project communication, monitoring, coordinating and controlling become a big challenge for the project managers due to difference in time zone, culture, political situations, language barrier and distance (Shafiq et al., 2018; Misra et al., 2009; Scott, 2013). Researchers have investigated the specific challenges to GSD model and have grouped such GSD challenges into five categories, namely: management-related challenges, process related challenges, social challenges, environment-related challenges and technical TQM, GSD challenges and project success challenges (see, Bhatti and Ahsan, 2016). Previous research has emphasized on understanding these challenges as basic requirement to develop strategies in order to mitigate their adverse effect on software project success in GSD model (Silva et al., 2012). Previous researchers have noted that challenges to GSD model can be hazardous for project performance/success (Mart
ınez-Costa et al., 2009; Park et al., 2012). Yet, the empirical assessment of the relationship between GSD challenges and software project success is still limited. Specifically, hardly any empirical study has taken into effect the individual challenges to GSD model while examining the success factors of software development in distributed teams. Likewise, despite the fact that GSD challenges can cause negative influence on success of software development projects, little is known about how to mitigate the GSD challenges to ensure software project success (Czekster et al., 2016). Researchers have noted the dearth of empirical studies that look for the factors which might be helpful in mitigation of the problems faced under GSD model (Zafaret al., 2011) and thus argued to look for such practices that can help in coping with the challenges to GSD model for achieving success in software projects. In line to this thought, we propose that total quality management (TQM) practices can help in effectively managing GSD challenges. Research suggests that the root cause of many problems and challenges being faced by both manufacturing and service sector organizations is predominantly quality-related, and TQM can be helpful in mitigating such problems (Zhang et al., 2020). TQM has been extensively studied in context of conventional software development (i.e. software development in co-located teams). It has been documented that TQM practices can be helpful in success of software development projects within such teams (e.g. Alhazmi et al., 2017). For instance, Khanam et al. (2020) noted that amalgamation of IT and TQM can help in enhancing the output quality of software products. Likewise, researchers have also noted that with an emphasis on socio-behavioural aspects, TQM can be helpful in success of software/IS development (Ravichandran and Rai, 2000). Quality management techniques can directly influence the quality of software development which is a basic criterion of software project success. On empirical side, Jaiswal and Garg (2019) have found that TQM approach in the form of continuous improvement and customer focus positively affects the productivity of software development organizations. TQM advocates for the systems approach and is considered as a vital tool to combat the challenges and ensure success of business (Issac et al., 2004). TQM presents a holistic approach of managing business. Previous research has shown that leadership, process management, employee and supplier relations (dimensions of TQM) are vital in improving project performance/success (e.g. Shieh and Wu, 2002). Keeping in view the importance of TQM in context of software development, we propose that TQM practices can play an important role in mitigation of GSD challenges and ensure software project success in GSD framework too. We expect this due to many reasons. Firstly, TQM focusses on process management. Research suggests that around 50% of the GSD projects face problems during the module integration phase (Van Moll and Ammerlaan, 2008). Process management ensures smooth integration of system which can help in mitigating failure during module integration. This can directly help in mitigating the technical challenges to GSD model. In fact, He et al. (1996) presented a software process improvement framework which encapsulates the 14 tools of quality management in context of software process improvement. The implementation of such a framework in GSD environment can also ensure the success of software projects. Secondly, TQM ensures and promotes effective leadership within the organization (Hoang et al., 2010; Jung and Wang, 2006). Effective leadership and top management support are a must for success of GSD. TQM framework can thus help in mitigating the management-related challenges to GSD model. Thirdly, TQM framework promotes employee engagement, involvement and empowerment (Sila and Ebrahimpour, 2003). Research suggests that success of software projects is also dependent on TQM the successful employee relations. Lastly, TQM presents complete framework for customer and supplier involvement. Customer and supplier are two important players in success of software development (Issac et al., 2004) specifically in GSD model. Under GSD model, there can be certain geographic challenges from customers and supplier side. The TQM framework can directly influence in mitigating such GSD challenges. On the empirical side, Tanner and Dauane (2017) showed that Kanban system (a Japanese style of management included in TQM philosophy) can help in alleviating communication and collaboration challenges to GSD model. Keeping in view the above discussion, we present TQM as a framework that can help in mitigating the GSD challenges and ensure software project success. The specific objectives of this study are: (1) to examine the relationship between GSD challenges and software project success and (2) to examine the moderating role of TQM practices as moderator between GSD challenges and software project success. By doing so, we add to the body of knowledge in certain ways. First, we examined the relationship between GSD challenges and software project success using the framework of Bhatti and Ahsan (2016) for GSD challenges. This framework is a comprehensive framework of GSD challenges and groups the challenges in five categories mentioned previously. It is worthy to note that despite the agreement of researchers that GSD challenges can lead to project failure, empirical assessments of the said relationship are still non-existent. Thus, we empirically investigate the relationship between different challenges to GSD model and success of software development projects. Second, we examine the TQM in context of global software development/software development in distributed teams. Although some studies in past have conceptualized TQM in software industry (e.g. Issac et al., 2004), yet its conceptualization and empirical investigation in distributed team structure for software development have not been conducted previously. Lastly, the study presents TQM framework as a solution to the GSD challenges for ensuring software success in GSD model. Research in the area of GSD is still in search of such a solution that promises the success of software projects. By presenting TQM as a framework to mitigate GSD challenges, we present a solution to researchers and practitioners (software developers) for an unsolved problem till date. Literature review Global software development challenges and project success The Project Management Institute (PMI) defines project success as “balancing the competing demands for project quality, scope, time, and cost, as well as meeting the varying concerns and expectations of the project stakeholders”(PMI, 2000, p. 9). Broadly, project success can be ensured if proper communication channels are defined, stakeholder are committed to plans, organizations are structured, commitments and feedback are obtained, stakeholder management is adequate, goals and objectives are clearly defined, risks and issues are identified and project team is flexible to adopt different project management approaches (Erling et al., 2006). Since, GSD is related to coordination with teams located in different geographic locations, project managers and team working under GSD model confront several challenges (Akbar et al., 2020). These challenges comprise of (1) management-related challenges which refer to challenges faced in planning, monitoring, controlling, team building, productivity, project management, coordination, role clarity, responsibilities, communication and training of project team members working in different geographic locations (Bhatti and Ahsan, 2016; Silva et al., 2012). (2) Process-related challenges, that is, challenges related to process implementation, adherence, tailoring guidelines, process modelling, quality, product and process maturity and their consistency to be executed across GSD (Mart
ınez-Costa et al., TQM, GSD challenges and project success 2009). (3) Social challenges, that is, challenges that arise because of cultural differences, language barriers, trust, information and knowledge sharing and team binding (Ajmal et al., 2009; Stankoksy et al., 2010). (4) Technical challenges, that is, challenges faced because of component integration, configuration management, synchronization and technical environment (Bhatti and Ahsan, 2016). (5) Environment-related challenges, that is, challenges in managing the team in different time zones, geopolitical situation, weather conditions and distances (Lee-Kelley and Sankey, 2008). In their systematic literature review, Niazi et al. (2016) identified organization structure, project managers’ skills, communication, requirement specification and cultural awareness as top five critical success factors in global software development. Yet, challenges to GSD model threaten the execution of all these factors which can result in project failure. GSD challenges present a threat to the success of software projects as these challenges restrict manager’s ability to properly execute his plans and limit project team members’ abilities to work on project. These challenges also directly affect the cost, quality and time of completion of projects. We thus hypothesize that: H1. GSD challenges are significantly negatively related with project success. Management-related challenges and project success. When faced with management-related challenges of GSD, manager’s ability to plan and execute project becomes worse (Bhatti and Ahsan, 2016). Poor planning and execution can lead to the failure of project. Similarly, poor communication and coordination coupled with role in-clarity make project team members unable to work properly and with full attention on project (Binder, 2009). Lack of attention to details will thus cause a delay in completion of project which ultimately means failure of project. Previous research has shown that project planning can have a significant role in making projects successful (Serrador and Turner, 2014). Similarly, research shows that hiring and training practices of project team members and communication among project team members are critical success factors for projects (Sudhakar, 2012; Wu et al., 2017). On contrary, GSD model faces these management-related challenges which makes the model unable to work well and will ultimately result in failure of project. We thus hypothesize that: H1a. Management-related challenges are significantly negatively related with project success. Process-related challenges and project success. Successful software development is based on the efficiency of the development process. In order to ensure smooth processing of software development, capability maturity model integration (CMMI) for software development was implemented in organizations and had been successful at large (Team, 2006). This model though helps in increasing the capability of organization to manage software development life cycle and support project management group to effectively manage project activities but fails in providing solutions related to processes of global software development. Organization’s inability to manage the processes of software development efficiently and effectively can result in software project failure (Deutsch, 1991). Mart
ınez-Costa et al. (2009) concluded that lack of process implementation, adherence to institutionalized process, lack of tailoring guidelines, unavailability of process modelling, acceptance criteria in terms of quality, weak product and process maturity under GSD are all the factors that are obstacles in project success. Keeping this in view, we hypothesize that: H1b. Process-related challenges are significantly negatively related with project success. Social challenges and project success. Social challenges to GSD also posit a big threat to the success of projects (Akbar et al., 2021). These challenges disable the project team members’ ability to share and transfer knowledge among one another. Knowledge management and knowledge sharing have been identified in literature as a key success driver for projects. TQM Success of cross-cultural teams like those in GSD model heavily relies on knowledge sharing between team members (Ford et al., 2010). This means that inability of knowledge sharing between team members (a social challenge to GSD model) can ultimately result in project failure. Past research also shows that IT-based organizations need to develop an environment of shared cultural values of organization’s members in order to make projects successful (Kendra and Taplin, 2004). On contrary, global distribution of work limits the ability of organization to create such an environment. Another barrier to the success of GSD projects is language barrier. Linguistics is one of the most significant forms of collaboration since visual channels are not often available when it comes to GSD (Ajmal et al., 2009). Previously, Ebert and De Neve (2001) have argued that cultural issues can be important in determining the success of GSD. This means that social challenges negatively affect project success. H1c. Social challenges are significantly negatively related with project success. Technical challenges and project success. For software development, technology and technical details are most important. If technical environment is non-supportive, success of project cannot be assured. Sudhakar (2012) noted that technical tasks as one among the ten important project success factors. Required technology and technical action plan are prerequisites for the success of projects. This becomes more important when project in itself is technology-driven, that is, the case of software development. If the components of software development are poorly integrated, improperly configured and ill-synchronized, success of projects will be affected. Previous research has shown that technical complexities are negatively related with project performance of software projects (Jun et al., 2011), whereas technical expertise is positively linked with project success (Sheffield and Lem
etayer, 2013). Thus, we hypothesize that: H1d. Technical challenges are significantly negatively related with project success. Environment-related challenges and project success. Environment-related challenges, that is, challenges in managing the team in different time zones, geopolitical situation, weather conditions and distances (Bhatti and Ahsan, 2016) are of huge importance in GSD (Anwar et al., 2019). Weather can have serious implications towards on-time completion of software projects (Bhatti and Ahsan, 2016). Excess heat can be damaging for the systems and for the software development as well. Different time zones in different countries cause poor communication between project team members resulting in unsuccessful projects. Yetton et al. (2000) revealed that weak internal communication creates disagreements among stakeholders which results in delays and budget deficit. The political situation in different regions can also negatively affect the behaviour and productivity of teams working under GSD because they are geographically distributed in different regions (Misra et al., 2009). Interaction in distributed teams is complex as compared to the collocated teams because of boundaries of time and space. On the empirical side, Iriarte and Bayona (2020) identified environmental factors as critical success factors in projects. Thus, we hypothesize that: H1e. Environment-related challenges are significantly negatively related with project success. Moderating role of TQM practices on GSD challenges–project success relationship With the evolution of globally distributed teams, not only the demands of quality, time and cost have challenged but also the demand to satisfy customer has increased (Weckenmann et al., 2015). Challenges that GSD model faces in the form of management, social, processrelated, technical and environment can be serious threat to success of software projects. Software project managers thus need some management practices that can help in mitigating these challenges to ultimately ensure the success of global software development projects. TQM, GSD challenges and project success TQM practices can indeed be those practices which can help managers to combat with these challenges. TQM is a way to produce a quality product/project or service using quality assurance and quality control methods (Sharma and Kodali, 2008). We follow Jung and Wang (2006) to study dimensions of TQM which are leadership, employee relations, customer/ supplier relations and product/process management. Effective leadership and top management support, which TQM promises, can be a source of better planning and execution in globally distributed teams. Previously, different researchers have found positive relationship between different positive leadership styles and project success (e.g. Aga et al., 2016). Similarly, Misra et al. (2009) have found that leadership plays an important role in agile software development. Thus, leadership dimension of TQM can help in mitigating the challenges posed by GSD model. Process management domain of TQM can directly help in combating with the processrelated and technical challenges which GSD model faces. Process management ensures an error-free quality product within the budget of client (Kianpour et al., 2014). Process management ensures smooth handling of processes using different techniques such as CPM, PERT and so on. These processes can help in managing challenges related to process implementation, adherence, tailoring guidelines, process modelling, quality, product and process maturity and their consistency to be executed across GSD and produce a quality related product with a satisfied costumer. Employee relations can help in better management of social issues faced by teams working under GSD model. Employee relations ensure better human relations at workplace with a promised satisfied work force, proper mechanisms for training, development and retention of employees. These mechanisms can help in combating social challenges faced by global teams working under GSD model. Employee relations have also been reported as key success factor towards continuous improvement (Jung and Wang, 2006). Similarly, customer/ supplier relations dimension of TQM helps in achieving result desired by the end user which can help in overcoming the social challenges to GSD. Empirically, customer and supplier participation at development phase of software projects and project success were found positively correlated (Sheffield and Lem
etayer, 2013; Oakland, 2014). Likewise, it has also been suggested in literature that TQM helps to address the challenges of employee involvement and communication (Majstorovic et al., 2015). With the help of all these arguments, it can thus be argued that TQM practices can help project managers to combat GSD challenges and ensure project success in globally distributed software development projects. So, based on above arguments, the following is hypothesized: H2. TQM practices moderate the negative relationship between GSD challenges and success of globally distributed software development projects such that this relationship will be weak when implementation of TQM practices is high. Methodology Hypothetico-deductive research approach has been used in the study. Two field studies were conducted to test the objectives/hypotheses of the study. First field study was conducted to test the first objective/hypothesis, that is, the relationship between GSD challenges and software project success. Whereas, in the second field study, moderating role of TQM was examined between the relationships of GSD challenges and project success. For study-1, data for all GSD challenges and software project success were collected. For study-2, data for GSD challenges as an overall construct, TQM practices and software project success were collected. Owing to the different purpose/objective of both studies, study-1 treated GSD challenges as multi-dimensional construct, whereas study-2 used GSD challenges as a single construct. The same has been supported by the model fitness indices of both studies. Thus, both study-1 and study-2 are theoretically and empirically different and novel. TQM There are multiple reasons to adopt two field studies. First, as there is dearth of empirical investigation on the relationship between GSD challenges and software project success; we initially wanted to establish the relationship between GSD challenges and project success before proceeding to moderation analysis. Secondly, study-1 examines all dimensions of GSD challenges in relation to software project success. Lastly, we wanted to have results across different samples too in order to validate the results. Samples with slight differences have been used in both studies. Study 1: Dimensions of GSD challenges and project success Participants and procedures. The exact population size of software professionals working in the distributed environment around the world is still not known. Using professional contacts of one of the authors, software developers working in globally distributed environment were contacted via e-mails. Around 400 such software developers were contacted; out of these 194 responses were found to be complete in all aspects and were used for analysis purpose. So, the response rate for the first study was 48.5%. Demographic statistics of the respondents reveal that 8.7% of the respondents (i.e. 17) were females, whereas rest of the respondents, that is, 177 (91.3%) were males. In total, 47.9% of the respondents had an experience of 1–5 years, 34.5% had an experience of 5–10 years, whereas 17.6% had an experience of more than 10 years. In total, 32.4% of the respondents were working on managerial positions, whereas 67.6% were working on non-managerial positions. The geographic data of the respondents show that 20% of the respondents were Indians, 34% Pakistani, 17% Americans, 11% Canadians and 18% were Australians. Measures. The survey questionnaire used in study 1 consisted of all five dimensions of global software development challenges and project success. All scales were measured using five-point Likert scale. A cover letter was added in the questionnaire which assured respondents the anonymity of responses and confidentiality of data. Global Software Development Challenges: We used five-dimensional scale of Bhatti and Ahsan (2016) to measure global software development challenges (management related challenges, process-related, technical, social and environment-related challenges). Original 34-item scale was reduced to 32 items after confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Overall scale consists of five dimensions, which are management-related challenges (measured with 11 items, 2 items were deleted from original 13 items based on factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha 0.90), process-related challenges (measured with 7 items, Cronbach’s alpha 0.92), social challenges (measured with 6 items, Cronbach’s alpha 0.93), technical challenges (measured with 4 items, Cronbach’s alpha 0.86) and environmental-related challenges (measured with 4 items, Cronbach’s alpha 0.96). One sample item of management-related challenges is “I often face difficulties to monitor and control the tasks of distributed teams”, sample item of process-related challenges is “I often feel that the implementation of processes in distributed teams environment is difficult”, sample item of social challenges is “I often feel that the distributed teams exhibit loose social bindings with each other”, sample item of technical challenges is “I often face problems when I integrate components developed by other distributed teams” and sample item of environmental-related challenges is “In our organization, different distributed teams belong to different time-zones”. Project Success: Project success was measured using six-item scale developed by PapkeShields et al. (2010). The Cronbach alpha value of this scale was 0.78. Respondents were asked to report the completion of project goals on the following criteria: cost targets, time targets, technical performance specifications, required quality standard, satisfied clients or end users and business objective. TQM, GSD challenges and project success Study 2: Moderation of TQM practices on relationship of GSD challenges and project success Participants and procedures. For study 2, we contacted 375 software developers including those whose responses were used in study 1. A total of 138 responses were found to be useful in all aspects. Thus, the response rate for study 2 was 36.8%. Demographic statistics of the respondents reveal that 8.7% of the respondents (i.e. 12) were females, whereas rest of the respondents, that is, 126 (91.3%) were males. In total, 53.6% of the respondents had an experience of 1–5 years, 27.5% had an experience of 5–10 years, whereas 18.9% had an experience of more than 10 years. In total, 34% of the respondents were working on managerial positions, whereas 66% were working on non-managerial positions; 9% respondents belonged to India, 47% to Pakistan, 15% to the USA, 10% to Canada and 19% to Australia. Measures. The survey questionnaire used in study 2 consisted of all five dimensions of global software development challenges, four dimensions of TQM and project success. All scales were measured using five-point Likert scale. Anonymity and confidentiality of responses were assured to the respondents through cover letter in the start of questionnaire. GSD Challenges: In study 2, the same five-dimensional scale of Bhatti and Ahsan (2016) was used to measure GSD challenges for which Cronbach’s alpha value was 0.93. TQM Practices: TQM practices were measured using 14-item scale of Jung and Wang (2006). This scale consists of four dimensions. Results of CFA as discussed later provided support for considering this variable unidimensional latent construct. The dimensions include leadership (measured with 4 items), customer/supplier relations (measured with 3 items), employee relations (measured with 4 items) and product/process management (measured with 2 items). Overall TQM practices scales consisting 13 items had Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.90. Sample item of leadership was “our top management is committed to quality”, sample item of customer/supplier relations was “our firm supports customer/ supplier involvement”, sample item of employee relations was “our firm supports employee empowerment/involvement” and sample item of product/process management was “our firm supports use of quality improvement measurement system”. Project Success: In study 2, the same six-item scale of Papke-Shields et al. (2010) was used to measure project success. The Cronbach alpha value of this scale was 0.82. Confirmatory factor analysis. Before proceeding towards data analysis, CFA of scales was conducted. Table 1 summarizes the results of model fit indices. In study 1, we tested our theorized 05 factor model of global software development challenges. Results provided a good model fit for our data as reported in Table 1 (χ2 /df is between 1 and 5, GFI and CFI ≥ 0.90, RMSEA ≤ 0.08, SRMR ≤ 0.08). We also conducted alternate analysis for 01 factor model of global software development challenges for which model fitness indices indicated a poor fit as compared to our theorized 05 factor model. All the χ2 Df χ2 /df CFI TLI RMSEA SRMR Study 1 GSD challenges as 1-factor model 5281.59 495 10.66 0.48 0.45 0.17 0.11 GSD challenges as 5-factor model 1530.00 440 3.47 0.90 0.88 0.07 0.06 Study 2 TQM as 4-factor model 934.00 65 14.36 0.63 0.56 0.19 0.11 TQM as 1-factor model 199.46 71 2.80 0.94 0.93 0.07 0.03 Note(s): GSD 5 Global software development, TQM 5 Total quality management, GFI 5 Goodness fit index, CFI 5 Comparative fit index, RMSEA 5 Root mean square error of approximation Table 1. Model fit indices TQM values are inside the standard limits set by Marsh and Hocevar (1985) in case of Relative/ Normal Chi-square (CMIN/DF), Byrne (2001) for CFI and GFI and Hu and Bentler (1999) in case of RMSEA. So, global software development challenges were considered as fivedimensional construct. In study 2, we tested proposed 04 factor model of TQM for which results showed poor model fitness as compared to alternate analysis for 01 factor model of TQM (where χ2 /df is between 1 and 3, GFI and CFI ≥ 0.90, RMSEA ≤ 0.08, SRMR ≤ 0.08). TQM was thus considered as unidimensional construct instead of four factor model. Results for study 1 Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis Table 2 presents the results of descriptive statistics, that is, mean, standard deviation and correlation analysis of study 1. Results as depicted in Table 2 show a significant negative correlation between management related challenges and project success (r 5
0.27, p < 0.01), process-related challenges and project success (r 5
0.22, p < 0.01), social challenges and project success (r 5
0.15, p < 0.05), technical challenges and project success (r 5
0.18, p < 0.05), environmental-related challenges and project success (r 5
0.16, p < 0.05). These results provide initial support for hypothesis H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d and H1e. Regression analysis Results as depicted in Table 3 show that there is a significant negative relationship between management related challenges and project success (β 5
0.44, p < 0.01), process\-related challenges and project success (β 5
0.38, p < 0.01), social challenges and project success (β 5
0.21, p < 0.05), technical challenges and project success (β 5
0.27, p < 0.05) and environment-related challenges and project success (β 5
0.18, p < 0.05). These results support hypotheses H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d and H1e, that is, relationship between dimensions of global software development challenges and project success. Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Management-related 4.28 0.42 (0.90) 2. Process-related 4.20 0.40 0.62** (0.92) 3. Social challenges 4.40 0.50 0.49** 0.45** (0.93) 4. Technical challenges 4.65 0.47 0.48** 0.31** 0.31** (0.86) 5. Environment-related 4.34 0.60 0.27** 0.34** 0.43** 0.12 (0.96) 6. Project success 2.33 0.68
0.27**
0.22**
0.15*
0.18*
0.16* (0.78) Note(s): **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed). n 5 194, ( ) shows Cronbach’s alpha value Project success Predictors B R2 Management-related challenges
0.44** 0.07 Process-related challenges
0.38** 0.05 Social challenges
0.21* 0.02 Technical challenges
0.27* 0.03 Environmental-related challenges
0.18* 0.02 Note(s): **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05, n 5 194 Table 2. Descriptive statistics, correlations and reliability of study 1 Table 3. Linear regression results TQM, GSD challenges and project success Based on the beta-values of the regression analysis, it can also be interpreted that management-related challenges are the most serious challenges to software project success having the highest beta value followed by process-related challenges, technical challenges, social challenges and lastly, environment-related challenges. Results for study 2 Descriptive statistics and correlation analysis Results as depicted in Table 4 show a significant negative correlation between overall global software development challenges and project success (r 5
0.37, p < 0.01) and a significant positive relationship between TQM practices and project success (r 5 0.39, p < 0.01). Regression analysis Table 5 shows that overall GSD challenges are significantly negatively related with project success (β 5
0.55, p < 0.01). This result supports hypothesis H1. Similarly, table shows that TQM practices have a significant positive relationship with project success (β 5 0.55, p < 0.01). This result thus confirms hypothesis H2. For moderation analysis, significant interaction term as depicted in Table 5 shows that TQM practices moderate the relationship between GSD challenges and project success. This supports hypothesis H2. Discussion The current study was conducted with two specific objectives. First, to examine the relationship between global software development challenges (management, social, technical, process-related and environment) and software project success. Second, to examine the moderating role of TQM in the relationship between GSD challenges and software project success. The said objectives were accomplished using two field studies. The results of the both studies show that GSD challenges have a negative effect on global software development project success, whereas TQM practices help in reducing the negative effect of GSD challenges. The first hypothesis (and its sub-parts) was that there is a negative relationship between GSD challenges and project success. This hypothesis (and all sub parts) Mean S.D. 1 2 3 1. Global software development challenges 1.20 0.27 (0.93) 2. Total quality management practices 4.27 0.36
0.53** (0.90) 3. Project success 3.80 0.68
0.37** 0.39** (0.82) Note(s): **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed), n 5 138 Project success Predictors B R2 ΔR2 Step 1 GSD challenges
0.55** 0.19 TQM practices 0.51** Step 2 GSD challenges * TQM practices
1.64** 0.23 0.04 Note(s): n 5 138, **p < 0.01 Table 4. Descriptive statistics, correlations and reliability of study 2 Table 5. Hierarchical regression results TQM has been supported by the results. Our findings are in line with those of Jun et al. (2011) and Stankoksy et al. (2010), who found a negative relationship between GSD challenges and project success. GSD challenges are hazardous for the success of software projects. These challenges cause difficulties in communication, coordination, monitoring, planning, execution and implementation of processes and so on. These difficulties lead to project delays, compromise on quality of software, exceed in budget of the project and/or result in dissatisfied customer(s), thus leading to project failure. Second hypothesis of the study was that TQM practices moderate the negative relationship between GSD challenges and project success in a way that the relationship will be weak when implementation of TQM practices is high. This hypothesis has been supported by the results. This finding of the study is novel. Previous literature shows that TQM helps in defining a process through which software development project should be done by not compromising on quality and budget (Weckenmann et al., 2015). Our results show that TQM helps in combating the challenges to GSD model and ensures software project success. TQM helps to address the challenges of employee involvement and communication, process management, working in inclusive and diverse teams online and problems related to synchronization and integration of software modules. This in turn leads to the success of GSD projects by making of timely, error-free, reliable, cost-effective and quality software. As a result of GSD challenges, past research has indicated that the software produced under GSD framework suffers from poor quality that leads to the failure of projects (Khan et al., 2017). For instance, in their survey of GSD projects, Fitzgerald and Russo (2005) reported that 31.1% of the GSD projects had ended before completion. They also reported that only 16.2% of the projects were successfully completed. Likewise, Attarzadeh and Ow (2008) considered the quality of GSD projects as an important issue to the software industry. TQM is a management philosophy that focusses on the quality of the product being produced. Therefore, the implementation of TQM practices in global software industry will ensure the software quality while mitigating the GSD challenges. Research suggests that majority of GSD projects fail during software development process and implementation phase (Gillies, 2011; Khan et al., 2017). Process development is an important element of TQM which helps organizations to overcome process-related technical issues resulting in the success of GSD projects. With TQM practices in place, challenges faced by GSD model can be appropriately handled and success of projects can thus be ensured. Practical implications The results of this study have several useful implications for managers and executives of IT companies undertaking GSD projects. First, software project managers need to be vigilant regarding the challenges to GSD. These challenges can be detrimental towards the success of global software development projects and thus pose a serious threat towards the continuity of business. Project managers need to device mechanisms that can reduce these challenges and ensure that software projects are completed on time, within the given budget constraints, not compromising on quality and satisfy the customers. Secondly, our results empirically show that TQM can help in reducing the GSD challenges and thus ensures software project success. As a policy guideline, we propose that software project managers need to implement TQM practices in GSD projects as this can ensure the success of such projects. Project managers can use seven traditional quality (Q7) tools (cause-and-effect diagram, check sheet, control chart, histogram, pareto chart, scatter diagram and stratification) and seven contemporary quality (M7) tools (affinity diagram, relations diagram, tree diagram, matrix diagram, arrows diagram, process decision program chart and prioritization matrix-matrix data analysis). The usage of these tools can be helpful in dealing with the technical challenges to GSD. In the next section, we summarize how project managers can use the TQM tools practically to mitigate the GSD challenges to ensure project success. TQM, GSD challenges and project success To combat management-related challenges, which according to the results of this study are the most important challenges to the success of GSD projects, project managers can use tools such as CPM and PERT with international timelines viewable in local time because this can help them in better planning and execution of the projects. As GSD projects suffer from time differences across the countries, PERT can be an appropriate solution. To use PERT effectively, GSD managers need to identify activities in global software development project with input from all offshore stakeholders. After which, time for completion may be assigned to all these activities and the critical path can be determined. The use of flowcharts can make it easy for managers to communicate with a global team and thus lessen the managementrelated challenges. Besides tackling management-related challenges, these tools can also help in overcoming social challenges such as language barriers as diagrams and flowcharts are easier tools of communication. Likewise, GSD managers can use diagrams such as cause-and-effect diagrams, fish-bone diagram to better analyse the data. These tools can help in mitigating both management and technical challenges. For instance, if GSD managers need to find out the problematic area in software development, they first need to identify the main causes that might lead to the software failure/defects. These may include errors in design, errors in requirements and errors in coding or may be related to the maintenance or testing phase of the software. In order to mitigate technical and social challenges to GSD model for ensuring project success, GSD managers can also use seven contemporary quality (M7) tools. For explanation on the usage of such tools by GSD managers, we would like to explain affinity diagrams. Affinity diagrams can help gather data by GSD team members located around the world in their natural languages. In order to construct the affinity diagram, GSD manager should ask the team members to generate ideas (for instance, the manager can ask the team members to propose ways to enhance the success of software or can ask them simply to give opinion regarding the project), then display those ideas, group them, make headers and finally make the diagram. In a global environment, check sheets can also help managers in assessing the progress of the software under development. These sheets can be shared by site managers at different locations with the manager at head office which will be helpful in monitoring the progress at centre. Likewise, Kanban system can be helpful in alleviating the management and social challenges. Online quality circles of team members at different geographical locations can also reduce the adverse impact of management and social challenges to the success of software projects. The contemporary quality tools can also assist managers in global software development industry to tackle the challenges and ensure project success. Strengths and limitations Like any study, our study has its own merits and demerits. Proposing and testing TQM as a mitigating strategy to GSD challenges, strong study design, ample data size and representation of global population in sample may be seen as strengths of the study. However, there are certain limitations of the study too. One of the biggest limitations of the study is its reliance on cross-sectional design for data collection. There is a possibility of common method bias in such data. Further, our goodness fit indices did not allow us to consider TQM practices as individual variables. We thus have to see TQM as a composite variable in study-2. Although, we see the use of two studies, that is, study-1 and study-2 with different sample sizes and characteristics as strength of the study, same can be seen as a limitation too. Our purpose of conducting the study in this approach was first to confirm the negative effect of all GSD challenges on software project success and then to examine TQM as a moderator on these relationships. TQM Future directions We propose that future researchers may treat TQM practices as individual variables and not as composite constructs. This can also be helpful in finding that which practice of TQM is better related with which challenge to GSD model. For instance, it might be argued that the process management domain of TQM is more related to technical challenges rather than management or social challenges to GSD. Thus, it can be useful if such a study is conducted which empirically examines the particular dimensions of TQM in relation with GSD challenges. Like TQM, certain other moderating variables may also be identified that can be helpful in reducing the GSD challenges and ensuring software project success. An important variable in the current environment can be agile practices. Agile practices and methods such as scrum and extreme programming can also be helpful in combating the GSD challenges and ensuring software project success. Lastly, future researcher may use time-lagged design for data collection and a bigger sample to replicate this study in other settings to enhance the generalizability of our findings. Conclusion GSD challenges are a threat to the success of software development in a global environment. Finding solutions to combat these challenges is a theoretical and practical question till date. Keeping in view the importance of TQM towards success of operational activities in manufacturing, retail and service sector organizations, we theorized and empirically examined TQM as a moderator between GSD challenges and software project success. Results support our assertion that TQM practices can help in combating the GSD challenges, thus ensuring software project success. These results carry important implications for the software project managers working on GSD projects. TQM as an approach has the potential to confront contemporary management challenges being faced by organizational managers and research must continue in this domain. References Aga, D.A., Noorderhaven, N. and Vallejo, B. (2016), “Transformational leadership and project success: the mediating role of team-building”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 5, pp. 806-818. Ajmal, M.M., Kek€ale, T. and Takala, J. (2009), “Cultural impacts on knowledge management and learning in project-based firms”, Vine, Vol. 39 No. 4, pp. 339-352. Akbar, M.A., Alsanad, A., Mahmood, S. and Alothaim, A. (2021), “Prioritization-based taxonomy of global software development challenges: a FAHP based analysis”, IEEE Access, Vol. 9, pp. 37961-37974. Akbar, M.A., Khan, A.A., Khan, A.W. and Mahmood, S. (2020), “Requirement change management challenges in GSD: an analytical hierarchy process approach”, Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, Vol. 32 No. 7, p. e2246. Alhazmi, E., Bajunaid, W. and Aziz, A. (2017), “Important success aspects for total quality management in software development”, International Journal of Computers and Applications, Vol. 157 No. 8, pp. 8-11. Anwar, R., Rehman, M., Wang, K.S. and Hashmani, M.A. (2019), “Systematic literature review of knowledge sharing barriers and facilitators in global software development organizations using concept maps”, IEEE Access, Vol. 7, pp. 24231-24247. Attarzadeh, I. and Ow, S.H. (2008), “Project management practices: the criteria for success or failure”, Communications of the IBIMA, Vol. 1 No. 28, pp. 234-241. Bharadwaj, S.S. and Saxena, K.B.C. (2006), “Impacting the processes of global software teams: a communication technology perspective”, Vision, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 63-75. TQM, GSD challenges and project success Bhatti, M.W. and Ahsan, A. (2016), “Global software development: an exploratory study of challenges of globalization, HRM practices and process improvement”, Review of Managerial Science, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 649-682. Binder, J. (2009), Global Project Management: Communication, Collaboration and Management across Borders, Routledge, London. Byrne, B.M. (2001), “Structural equation modeling with AMOS, EQS, and LISREL: comparative approaches to testing for the factorial validity of a measuring instrument”, International journal of Testing, Vol. 1 No. 1, pp. 55-86. Czekster, R.M., Gatti, C., Pilz, B. and Webber, T. (2016), “Requirements for designing mobile and flexible applications for online invasion detection and remote control”, International Journal of Computer Applications in Technology, Vol. 54 No. 2, pp. 138-149. Deutsch, M.S. (1991), “An exploratory analysis relating the software project management process to project success”, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 38 No. 4, pp. 365-375. Ebert, C. and De Neve, P. (2001), “Surviving global software development”, IEEE Software, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp. 62-69. Erling, S.A., David, B., Svein Arne, J. and Arthur, H.M. (2006), “Exploring project success”, Baltic Journal of Management, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 127-147. Fitzgerald, G. and Russo, N.L. (2005), “The turnaround of the London ambulance service computeraided despatch system (LASCAD)”, European Journal of Information Systems, Vol. 14 No. 3, pp. 244-257. Ford, D., Labelle, F., Popovici, F., Stokely, M., Truong, V.A., Barroso, L. and Quinlan, S. (2010), “Availability in globally distributed storage systems”, OSDI, Vol. 10, pp. 1-7. Gillies, A. (2011), Software Quality: Theory and Management, Thomson Computer Press, London. He, Z., Staples, G., Ross, M. and Court, I. (1996), “Fourteen Japanese quality tools in software process improvement”, The TQM Magazine, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 40-44, doi: 10.1108/09544789610125333. Hoang, D.T., Igel, B. and Laosirihongthong, T. (2010), “Total quality management (TQM) strategy and organisational characteristics: evidence from a recent WTO member”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 21 No. 9, pp. 931-951. Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4, p. 424. Iriarte, C. and Bayona, S. (2020), “IT projects success factors: a literature review”, International Journal of Information Systems and Project Management, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 49-78. Issac, G., Rajendran, C. and Anantharaman, R.N. (2004), “A conceptual framework for total quality management in software organizations”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 307-344. Jaiswal, K. and Garg, M. (2019), “Exploring relationship between Tqm and software productivity”, Ingenier
ıa Solidaria, Vol. 15 No. 3, pp. 1-29. Jun, L., Qiuzhen, W. and Qingguo, M. (2011), “The effects of project uncertainty and risk management on IS development project performance: a vendor perspective”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 29 No. 7, pp. 923-933. Jung, J.Y. and Wang, Y.J. (2006), “Relationship between total quality management (TQM) and continuous improvement of international project management (CIIPM)”, Technovation, Vol. 26 Nos 5-6, pp. 716-722. Kendra, K. and Taplin, L.J. (2004), “Project success: a cultural framework”, Project Management Journal, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 30-45. Khan, A.A., Keung, J.W. and Abdullah-Al-Wadud, M. (2017), “SPIIMM: toward a model for software process improvement implementation and management in global software development”, IEEE Access, Vol. 5, pp. 13720-13741. TQM Khanam, S., Talib, F. and Siddiqui, J. (2020), “An instrument validation of TQM enablers and IT resources in Indian ICT organizations”, Journal of Systems and Information Technology, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 179-200. Kianpour, K., Jusoh, A. and Asghari, M. (2014), “Environmentally friendly as a new dimension of product quality”, International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, Vol. 31 No. 5, pp. 547-565. Lee-Kelley, L. and Sankey, T. (2008), “Global virtual teams for value creation and project success: a case study”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 51-62. Majstorovic, V., Weckenmann, A., Schr€oder, M., Schmitt, S. and Schmitt, R. (2015), “Design and implementation of quality control loops”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 294-302. Marsh, H.W. and Hocevar, D. (1985), “Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of selfconcept: first-and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 97 No. 3, p. 562. Mart
ınez-Costa, M., Choi, T.Y., Mart
ınez, J.A. and Mart
ınez-Lorente, A.R. (2009), “ISO 9000/1994, ISO 9001/2000 and TQM: the performance debate revisited”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 27 No. 6, pp. 495-511. Misra, S.C., Kumar, V. and Kumar, U. (2009), “Identifying some important success factors in adopting agile software development practices”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 82 No. 11, pp. 1869-1890. Niazi, M., Mahmood, S., Alshayeb, M., Qureshi, A.M., Faisal, K. and Cerpa, N. (2016), “Toward successful project management in global software development”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 34 No. 8, pp. 1553-1567. Nicholson, B. and Sahay, S. (2008), “Human resource development policy in the context of software exports: case evidence from Costa Rica”, Progress in Development Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, pp. 163-176. Oakland, J.S. (2014), Total Quality Management and Operational Excellence: Text with Cases, Routledge, London. Papke-Shields, K.E., Beise, C. and Quan, J. (2010), “Do project managers practice what they preach, and does it matter to project success?”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28 No. 7, pp. 650-662. Park, J., Lee, J., Lee, H. and Truex, D. (2012), “Exploring the impact of communication effectiveness on service quality, trust and relationship commitment in IT services”, International Journal of Information Management, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 459-468. Project Management Institute (2000), A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK Guide), Vol. 2, Project Management Inst, itute, Newtown Square, PA. Ravichandran, T. and Rai, A. (2000), “Total quality management in information systems development: key constructs and relationships”, Journal of Management Information Systems, Vol. 16 No. 3, pp. 119-155. Scott, M.E. (2013), “‘Communicate through the roof’: a case study analysis of the communicative rules and resources of an effective global virtual team”, Communication Quarterly, Vol. 61 No. 3, pp. 301-318. Serrador, P. and Turner, J.R. (2014), “The relationship between project success and project efficiency”, Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 119, pp. 75-84. Shafiq, M., Zhang, Q., Akbar, M.A., Khan, A.A., Hussain, S., Amin, F.E., Khan, A. and Soofi, A.A. (2018), “Effect of project management in requirements engineering and requirements change management processes for global software development”, IEEE Access, Vol. 6, pp. 25747-25763. Sharma, M. and Kodali, R. (2008), “TQM implementation elements for manufacturing excellence”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 20 No. 6, pp. 599-621. TQM, GSD challenges and project success Sheffield, J. and Lem
etayer, J. (2013), “Factors associated with the software development agility of successful projects”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 459-472. Shieh, H.M. and Wu, K.Y. (2002), “The relationship between total quality management and project performance in building planning phase: an empirical study of real estate industries in Taiwan”, Total Quality Management, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 133-151. Sila, I. and Ebrahimpour, M. (2003), “Examination and comparison of the critical factors of total quality management (TQM) across countries”, International Journal of Production Research, Vol. 41 No. 2, pp. 235-268. Silva, F.Q., PrikladnickiFrança, R.A.C.C., MonteiroCosta, C.V.C. and Rocha, R. (2012), “An evidencebased model of distributed software development project management: results from a systematic mapping study”, Journal of Software: Evolution and Process, Vol. 24 No. 6, pp. 625-642. Stankosky, M., Calabrese, F.A. and Anantatmula, V.S. (2010), “Impact of cultural differences on knowledge management in global projects”, Vine, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 239-253. Stray, V. and Moe, N.B. (2020), “Understanding coordination in global software engineering: a mixedmethods study on the use of meetings and slack”, Journal of Systems and Software, Vol. 170, 110717. Sudhakar, G.P. (2012), “A model of critical success factors for software projects”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 25 No. 6, pp. 537-558. Tanner, M. and Dauane, M. (2017), “The use of KANBAN to alleviate collaboration and communication challenges of global software development”, Issues in Informing Science and Information Technology, Vol. 14, pp. 177-197. Team, C.P. (2006), CMMI for Development, Version 1.2, CMMI-DEV v1. 2, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA. Van Moll, J.H. and Ammerlaan, R.W.M. (2008), “Identifying pitfalls of system integration – an exploratory study”, 2008 IEEE International Conference on Software Testing Verification and Validation Workshop, IEEE, pp. 331-338. Wu, G., Liu, C., Zhao, X. and Zuo, J. (2017), “Investigating the relationship between communicationconflict interaction and project success among construction project teams”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 1466-1482. Yetton, P., Martin, A., Sharma, R. and Johnston, K. (2000), “A model of information systems development project performance”, Information Systems Journal, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 263-289. Zafar, A., Ali, S. and Shahzad, R.K. (2011), “Investigating integration challenges and solutions in global software development”, 2011 Frontiers of Information Technology, IEEE, pp. 291-297. Zhang, C., Moreira, M.R. and Sousa, P.S. (2020), “A bibliometric view on the use of total quality management in services”, Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, pp. 1-28, doi: 10. 1080/14783363.2020.1732811. Weckenmann, A., Akkasoglu, G. and Werner, T. (2015), “Quality management ‒ history and trends”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 281-293, doi: 10.1108/TQM-11-2013-0125. Corresponding author Syed Danial Hashmi can be contacted at: [email protected] For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] TQM

yes, these two factors Customer satisfaction and timely delivery, can measure the project's success apart from scope, cost and quality. and also can measure project success and its performance by timely audits in the organization.

user acceptance is part of testing and achieves customer satisfaction.

Estimados colegas qué indicadores me permiten medir la retención del cliente??

Gracias por sus aportes.