This article is devoted to a problem of project success and failure assessment. The purpose of the work is to analyse the existing approaches to the assessment of project results, and to identify potential benefits that an organization obtains in the process of project success or failure determination. Theoretical aspects of a project management in the field of the project result assessment are analysed to achieve the aim of the study. The concept of project success and failure is presented from the point of view of the development of a project management. The traditional and modern understanding of project success and failure is determined in the article. The traditional approach estimates project results from the point of view of triple restriction for the project: terms, budget and quality. Modern approach estimates any project according to a multiple combination of various restrictions. Two approaches to the evaluation of a project have been developed by the authors based on the scientific literature review. They are binary and flexible approaches. A binary approach estimates the project results on the basis of traditional constrains: to follow the constrains means the project success, otherwise at least one restriction is not observed the project will fail. A flexible approach takes into account both traditional and additional restrictions determined by managers and interested parties of a project. For all that the project success or failure is determined on the basis of ranged restriction according to their importance (restriction priority). Practical application of the approaches to project success or failure determination is examined in the case studies that allow demonstrate scientific and practical value of the results obtained by the authors as well as the specific character of both binary and flexible approaches in the field of project management. In particular the above mentioned approaches were applied to the building and commission of the fifth terminal at Heathrow and the project of Donald Trump’s electioneering. After the analysis of the case studies the disadvantages of the binary approach and the adaptability of the flexible one to project success and failure have been revealed, that is very important in the current environment instability. Moreover, the advantages of the flexible approach are the assessment of project results according to different restriction priorities and the ability to assess the project success and failure simultaneously. This fact allows determine the best and worst practices within a particular project. Expertise and realisation of a huge number of projects permits an organisation to gain the experience, to standardize the management processes, to decrease costs, and as a result, to become more competitive. The application of the authors’ approach in complex increases the efficiency of an organisation management. Further the authors are intended to develop a multi-factors model for a project assessment considering the interested parties and project restriction priorities conferring a value for each restriction. In future it will allow ranging the project restriction from the point of view of their importance. Keywords efficiency of the organisation activity, a project, project success, project failure, a traditional approach, a modern approach, constraints for success achievement, restriction priorities. References 1. Batalova T., Kodeikh N. Teoretiko-metodologicheskie podkhody k modelirovaniiu otsenki uspekha proektov [Theoretical and methodological approaches to modeling the assessment of project suc-cess]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Seriia «Ekonomika» [Perm University Herald. ECONOMY], 2013, no. 2 (17), pp. 24–29. (In Russian).2. Klishin А. V srok ili v ramkakh biudzheta: kak otsenit' uspeshnost' proekta? [In time or within the budget: how to estimate success of the project?]. Fundamental'nye i prikladnye issledovaniia v sov-remennom mire [Basic and Applied Researches in the Modern World.], 2016, no. 14–2, pp. 156–159. (In Russian).3. Kerzner H. Project management 2.0: leveraging tools, distributed collaboration, and metrics for project success. New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2015. 339 p.4. Аrtem'ev D., Kilina K. Osobennosti opredeleniia uspekha internet-proektov [Specifics of deter-mining the success of Internet projects]. Menedzhment i biznes-administrirovanie [Management and Business Administration], 2015, no. 1, pp. 88–109. (In Russian).5. Аrtem'ev D., Grebenshchikova E. Kriterii uspekha proektov po razrabotke novogo produkta na raznykh stadiiakh ikh zhiznennogo tsikla [Success criteria of projects for new product development at differ-ent stages of their life cycle]. Ars administrandi, 2015, no. 4, pp. 41–56. (In Russian).6. Kerzner H. Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. New York, John Wiley and Sons Inc., 2001. 1122 p.7. Burke R. Planning and Control Techniques. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2013. 384 p 8. Els M., Van der Merwe M., Hauptfleisch A. Critical success criteria and success factors in pro-ject management: A quest to enhance generic professional practice. ICEC Publ., 2012, no. 36, pp. 1–15.9. Atkinson R. Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 1999, no. 6 (17), pp. 337–342.10. Belassi W., Tukel O. A new Framework for Determining Critical Success-Failure Factors in Projects. International Journal of Project Management, 1996, no. 3, pp. 141–151.11. Cooper R. Formula for Success. Marketing Management Magazine, 2006, March-April, pp. 21–24.12. Cooper R. Kleinschmidt E. Winning Businesses in Product Development: The Critical Success Factors. Research Technology Management Industrial Research Institute Publ., 2007, no. 50, pp. 52–66.13. Shenhar A. et al. Project Success: A Multidimensional Strategic Concept. Long Range Planning, 2001, no. 6 (34), pp. 699–725.14. Koelmans R. Project success and performance evaluation. International Platinum Conference “Platinum Adding Value”. The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy Publ., 2004, pp. 229–236.15. Priemus H., Wee B. International handbook on mega-projects. Cheltenham (UK), Edward Elgar Publ., 2013. 462 p.16. Silvius G. Considering Sustainability in Project Management Processes. Handbook of Research on Sustainable Development and Economics, 2015, pp. 311–334.17. Silvius G., Schipper R., Planko J., Brink J., Kohler A. Sustainability in project management. England, Gower Publ., 2012. 164 p.18. Silvius G., Schipper P. Sustainability in project management: A literature review and impact analysis. Social Business, 2014, no. 1 (4), pp. 63–96.19. Balshoej J., Hope A. Re-imagining the Iron Triangle: Embedding Sustainability into Project Constraints. PM World Today, PM World Journal, 2013, no. 2 (3), pp. 1–19.20. Wideman R. Improving PM: Linking Success Criteria to Project Type. Symposium Creating Canadian Advantage through Project Management, May 1996, Calgary, Project Management Institute Publ., 1996, pp. 1–12.21. Gergert D., Аrtem'ev D. Sovremennye podkhody k opredeleniiu provala proekta [Modern ap-proaches to the definition of project failure]. Regional'naia promyshlennaia politika kak baza kachestvennogo neoindustrial'nogo pod"ema proizvoditel'nosti truda i innovatsionnoi konkurentosposobnosti korporatsii Materialy VII Mezhdunarodnoj nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii, 27 noiab. 2014 g. [Regional industrial policy as the basis of a qualitative neo-industrial rise in labor productivity and competitiveness of innovative corporations. Materials of VII International scientific-practical conference, 27 Nov. 2014]. Perm', Permskii gosudarstvennyi natsional'nyi issledovatel'skii universitet Publ., 2014, pp. 249–256. (In Russian).22. Clark D. Integrated Management: P5 Students Can Learn Several Valuable Lessons from Heathrow Airport's Terminal 5 Project. Financial Management, 2009, April 1. Available at: https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-205494337.html (assessed 14.11.2016).