I have a question regarding the NPSS (Net Project Success Score).
How is the NPSS scale evaluated and defined?
1–6: Project was unsuccessful
7–8: Project had mixed results
9–10: Project was successful
What factors or criteria are considered when assigning scores on this scale?
For example, what differentiates a project that receives a score of 6 from one that receives a 9?
Saving Changes...
Sort By:
Luis BrancoCEO| Business Insight, Consultores de Gestão, LdªCarcavelos, Lisboa, Portugal
Very interesting question.
In my view, one of the biggest risks with metrics like NPSS is reducing project success to a simplified numerical perception without making the evaluation dimensions explicit.
The difference between a project scored as 6 versus 9 is rarely explained only by delivery performance. Two projects may meet scope, schedule, and budget targets while generating very different levels of stakeholder trust, strategic value, adoption, sustainability, or long-term business impact.
That is why NPSS becomes far more meaningful when supported by transparent evaluation criteria such as:
• Value realization • Stakeholder satisfaction • Quality of decision-making • Team sustainability • Adaptability under change • And achievement of intended outcomes, not only outputs
Hello dear Luis Branco, Thank you very much for your answer. Yes, it was not very clear how NPSS was measured in the article “Maximizing Project Success: Elevating the Impact of the Project Profession, Elevating the Impact on Our World.” I believe it is better to manage and evaluate projects using the criteria you mentioned, which are also considered in the M.O.R.E. framework. Thank you very much.
I agree with Luis to some extent. It really depends on how you define it. I would say these types of indicators are used to measure people’s perceptions, which can be totally different from reality. The intention may be to help bridge that gap. Saving Changes...
In my view, one of the biggest risks with metrics like NPSS is reducing project success to a simplified numerical perception without making the evaluation dimensions explicit.
The difference between a project scored as 6 versus 9 is rarely explained only by delivery performance. Two projects may meet scope, schedule, and budget targets while generating very different levels of stakeholder trust, strategic value, adoption, sustainability, or long-term business impact.
That is why NPSS becomes far more meaningful when supported by transparent evaluation criteria such as:
• Value realization • Stakeholder satisfaction • Quality of decision-making • Team sustainability • Adaptability under change • And achievement of intended outcomes, not only outputs
Hello dear Luis Branco, Thank you very much for your answer. Yes, it was not very clear how NPSS was measured in the article “Maximizing Project Success: Elevating the Impact of the Project Profession, Elevating the Impact on Our World.” I believe it is better to manage and evaluate projects using the criteria you mentioned, which are also considered in the M.O.R.E. framework. Thank you very much. Saving Changes...
Sergio Luis ConteHelping to create solutions for everyone| Worldwide based OrganizationsBuenos Aires, Argentina
An obvious answer but it is what I experienced from more than 40 years ago, adding that NPSS was a component of my annual bonus: it depends on your organization. Saving Changes...
Program Manager| HARPER SRLSanto Domingo / Distrito Nacional, Dominican Republic
One thing I’ve noticed with metrics like NPSS is that two projects can deliver very different business outcomes even if both were “successful” on paper. Scope, schedule, and budget are part of the picture, but stakeholder trust, adoption, and long-term value usually influence perception much more than organizations expect. Without clear evaluation criteria behind the score, this one can end up reflecting sentiment more than actual project success. Saving Changes...
Community Champion
