ANALYZING CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS AND RISKS IN PROJECT MANAGEMENT PRACTICES IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Project management has primarily developed within high-income countries. However, over the last 15 years, capital-intensive projects have been shifting toward developing nations where conventional frameworks often underperform. Despite this, research on the critical success factors (CSFs) and risks influencing project outcomes in developing countries remains fragmented. This paper conducts a systematic literature review of 41 peer-reviewed articles published in the Scopus database in the last decade, covering 20 developing countries and 8 cross-country studies. Following the PRISMA protocol, this study identifies CSFs and risks in project management (PM) in developing countries through inductive review and deductive coding based on two theoretical lenses, namely, institutional and contingency theory. Furthermore, this paper analyzes the mechanisms and contextual dependency of these factors. The inductive findings identify 22 CSFs and 21 risk factors. In order to report the most critical ones, 8 CSFs and 8 risks are retained based on their frequency of occurrence. The results reveal that they form systematic corresponding pairs, with six of the eight CSFs directly mapping onto six risks. Moreover, institutional theory (IT) explains the dominance of external influences through coercive, normative, and mimetic mechanisms, as well as institutional voids, while the contingency theory (CT) shows variable outcomes across different project characteristics. Overall, the findings provide practical implications for project managers, policy makers and business organizations on managing projects in emerging countries. It is noted that project strategies should be adapted to project scale, with stakeholder-focused approaches in small projects, institutional building in medium projects, and macroeconomic and political risk management in large projects.

1. Stahl, G.K., Maznevski, M.L., Voigt, A., Jonsen, K. Unraveling the effects of cultural diversity in teams: A meta-analysis of research on multicultural work groups. Journal of International Business Studies, 41 (4), 690–709 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.85

2. Joshi, A., Roh, H. The role of context in work team diversity research: A meta-analytic review. Academy of Management Journal, 52 (3), 599–627 (2009). https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2009.41331491

3. van Knippenberg, D., De Dreu, C.K.W., Homan, A.C. Work group diversity and group performance: An integrative model and research agenda. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89 (6), 1008–1022 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008

4. Kirkman, B.L., Tesluk, P.E., Rosen, B. The impact of demographic heterogeneity and team leader– team member demographic fit on team empowerment and effectiveness. Group & Organization Management, 29 (3), 334–368 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601103257412

5. Cox, T.H., Blake, S. Managing cultural diversity: Implications for organizational competitiveness. Academy of Management Executive, 5 (3), 45–56 (1991). https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.1991.4274465

6. Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. Psychology of intergroup relations / ed. by S. Worchel, W.G. Austin. Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1986. P. 7–24. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315127767

7. Mesmer-Magnus, J.R., DeChurch, L.A. Information sharing and team performance: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94 (2), 535–546 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013773

8. Williams, K.Y., O’Reilly, C.A. Demography and diversity in organizations: A review of 40 years of research // Research in Organizational Behavior, 20, 77–140 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1016/S01913085(98)20002-7

9. De Dreu, C.K.W., Weingart, L.R. Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (4), 741–749 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741

10. Beal, D.J., Cohen, R.R., Burke, M.J., McLendon, C.L. Cohesion and performance in groups: A metaanalytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (6), 989–1004 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989

11. Harrison, D.A., Price, K.H., Bell, M.P. Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of surfaceand deep-level diversity on work group cohesion. Academy of Management Journal, 41 (1), 96–107 (1998). https://doi.org/10.2307/256901

12. Jonsen, K., Maznevski, M.L., Schneider, S.C. Gender differences in leadership – believing is seeing: Implications for managing diversity. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion, 29 (6), 549–572 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1108/02610151011067504

13. Dave, B. Kazakhstan: Ethnicity, language and power. London: Routledge, 2007. 238 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203961575

14. Hofstede, G. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2001. 596 p. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840603024002082

15. Atakoziyeva, Y.Y., Moldakhmetova, S.K., Khonai, A., Charman, K.P. Using intercultural communicative competence dimensions in managing multicultural team performance. Herald of the KazakhBritish Technical University, 1 (68), 169–182 (2024). https://doi.org/10.55452/1998-6688-2024-21-1-169-182

16. Pelled, L.H., Eisenhardt, K.M., Xin, K.R. Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group diversity, conflict, and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44 (1), 1–28 (1999). https://doi.org/10.2307/2667029

17. O’Reilly, C.A., Roberts, K.H. Task group structure, communication, and effectiveness in three organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (6), 674–681 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.62.6.674

18. McAllister, D.J. Affectand cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (1), 24–59 (1995.). https://doi.org/10.2307/256727

19. Costa, A.C., Roe, R.A., Taillieu, T. Trust within teams: The relation with performance effectiveness. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10 (3), 225–244 (2001.). https://doi.org/10.1080/13594320143000654

20. Jehn, K.A. A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40 (2), 256–282 (1995). https://doi.org/10.2307/2393638

21. Carless, S.A., De Paola, C. The measurement of cohesion in work teams. Small Group Research, 31 (1), 71–88 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1177/104649640003100104

22. Hoegl, M., Gemuenden, H.G. Teamwork quality and the success of innovative projects: A theoretical concept and empirical evidence. Organization Science, 12 (4), 435–449 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.12.4.435.10635

23. Ancona, D.G., Caldwell, D.F. Demography and design: Predictors of new product team performance. Organization Science, 3 (3), 321–341 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.3.3.321

24. Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978. 701 p.

25. The jamovi project. jamovi (Version 2.6) [Computer software]. 2024. URL: https://www.jamovi.org

26. Hair J.F., Black W.C., Babin B.J., Anderson R.E. Multivariate data analysis. 8th ed. Andover: Cengage, 2019. 813 p. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119409137