## 1 Introduction  
Project management has different characteristics in the public and the private sector, not just due to a clear and on occasion opposite focus, but also practices, tools, resources, stakeholders, expertise, to name a few [1]. In companies, the incentives to bring a project to fruition are based on the measurable commercial results of the businesses, while for universities, it is the maximization of measurable results derived from research in the form of articles, theses, or patents [1]. Nevertheless, when collaboration between the two sectors is pursued, in the management of common Research and Development (R&D) projects carried out in intermediate Knowledge and Technology Transfer Organizations (KTTOs) close to the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) 5 to 7, a series of endemic problems tend to appear [2]. Sometimes, those problems result in a low success rate of the projects and waste of available resources for R&D in companies and at universities. However, these intermediate KTTOs are instruments far too fundamental and essential within the innovation process to be dismissed [3]. Therefore, new ways in which to manage, measure, and analyze before, during, and after these projects, but also to know the projects' success factors and to conduct them under these premises, are required [4]. KTTOs have proved to be a satisfactory means to enclose the public and private sector and in this way help local economies [5]. The Advanced Manufacturing Center for Aeronautics (CFAA, by its initials in Spanish) is a prominent example of the university-company model, which implements R&D projects and innovative projects to generate knowledge, new methods, and technology for their partners, mainly in aero-engine system sectors, which benefit from the priceless experience achieved throughout the development of more than 300 projects and more than 200 scientific contributions in the last 4 years [6], to increase the future opportunities of the CFAA and its partners [7]. In addition, working on TRL 5-7 [8] guarantees quick knowledge transfer, which promotes mutual benefits to companies and universities from a micro- up to a macro-economic point of view, so that universities obtain funding to conduct their research and to train their staff that enables them to respond positively to the demands of the labor market [9]. The success of the projects at the CFAA has a significant effect on future opportunities of the organization and the improvement of aeronautic technology in the region [10]. However, the lack of control, measurements, and research about evaluation of project success can be identified as an improvement opportunity in this Center. It is worth mentioning that the success criteria by which the CFAA has been used up to now was that a project was considered successful if it could be delivered to the customer and the customer was satisfied with the outcome, mostly because the involvement of the project owner was high during the project development. This way of measuring project success can be improved, according to [PERSON] and [PERSON] [11], as the measurement of project success is only conducted at the end of the project life cycle, when project management outcomes are available and it is convenient to measure. It also goes hand in hand with [PERSON]'s definition [12] mentioned as \"Effectiveness\" or \"doing the right things\". In the context of the definition, projects are not judged by their efficient use of resources but by the way in which the organization asks itself the question: \"Does it work?\". This, however, leaves out success criteria that are aimed at ensuring the sustainability of the system, making the best use of available resources, emphasizing the most important aspects for the stakeholder and for the organization [13]. However, a safeguard can be made in that the organization that owns the project is the one who must have previously studied the different success criteria of the project they are commanding.