Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Review Committee
Dr. Stephanie Lyncheski, Committee Chairperson,
Applied Management and Decision Sciences Faculty
Walden University
February 2011
Abstract
by
Doctor of Philosophy
Walden University
February 2011
Abstract
project deliverables, and stakeholder satisfaction. As a result, the demand for increased
project management effectiveness in the early phase of the project process to enhance the
project success rates and decrease project failure rates is increasing among project
professionals. The purpose of this quantitative, correlational study was to evaluate the
relationship between project management effectiveness and project success based upon
responses from a sample comprised of 110 project managers from the Project
was informed by the scientific management and strategic management theory, used 2
existing valid and reliable survey instruments, the Project Management Effectiveness
Construct and the Project Success Assessment Questionnaire, to collect the data. Pearson
project management effectiveness and project success. Statistically significant (p < .001)
and strong positive correlations (Pearson’s r ranging from 0.51 to 0.72) were found
between both measures of project management effectiveness and all four measures of
project success. This study provides strong evidence that among project managers who
with greater project success. From a positive social change perspective, these findings
may help to advance project management knowledge. The results also may assist
management.
The Correlation Between Project Management Effectiveness and Project Success
by
Doctor of Philosophy
Walden University
February 2011
UMI Number: 3434599
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3434599
Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
Dedication
Jehovah – Shammah
Thank You.
Acknowledgments
This journey would have been practically impossible without the encouragement
and kind support of many people. I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr.
Levasseur and Dr. Robert Huassmann, for the time they invested reading through and
My special thanks goes to my boss, Dr. Michael Hamlet, and my colleagues, Dr.
Patrick Udeh, Dr. Anita Specter, Dr. Jude Lamur, and Dr. Frank Owarish, for their wise
counsel and encouragement. I also want to thank my friends, Elliott, Stephanie, Rasaq,
Hilary, Tejan, Yahya, Wilson, Ome, Seun, Wole, Charles, Rev Azuka, Dr. Oludotun, and
Dr. Akin, for their encouragement. Thank you, Barb Elwert, Steve Creech, and Vipin
Sharma, for your advice and support, and all members of PMI-CCoP for your time in
To my brothers and sisters, Blessing, Chika, Sam, Isioma, and Joy, thank you all.
My father- and mother-in-law, Dr. and Mrs. John Offiong, and my brothers- and sisters-
in-law, Emmanuel, John, and Udeme, I appreciate all your kind support all through this
journey. Above all, to my love, my crown, and my wife, Elizabeth, who stood with me,
supported me, and encouraged me to fight on to the end. Thank you, my sweetheart, for
your love, prayers, and endless support. Finally, to my children, Grace and Joshua, you
are worth more than gold, and your future is bright and blessed.
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
Assumptions................................................................................................................ 15
Limitations .................................................................................................................. 16
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 19
Stakeholders .......................................................................................................... 30
Project Sponsors.................................................................................................... 31
Project Teams........................................................................................................ 34
Organizational Type.............................................................................................. 37
Technology ........................................................................................................... 38
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 53
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 66
Findings....................................................................................................................... 68
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 77
Introduction ................................................................................................................. 79
Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 89
References ......................................................................................................................... 90
Appendix F: Descriptive Statistics for Independent and Dependent Variables .............. 124
Appendix G: Cronbach’s Alpha for Independent and Dependent Variables .................. 125
iv
List of Tables
Table D5. Frequency Table: Length of Time With Company ........................................ 116
Table E1. Frequency Table: Project Was Completed on Time or Earlier ...................... 117
Table E2. Frequency Table: Project Was Completed Within or Below Budget ............ 117
Table E4. Frequency Table: Product Met Customer’s Requirements ............................ 118
Table E6. Frequency Table: Project Increased the Organization’s Profitability ............ 118
Table E8. Frequency Table: Project Was an Economic Business Success..................... 119
Table E9. Frequency Table: Project Outcome Will Contribute to Future Projects ........ 119
Table E10. Frequency Table: Project Developed Better Managerial Capabilities ......... 119
v
Table E11. Frequency Table: Project Estimates and Planning Are as far as Possible Done
Table E12. Frequency Table: It Is customary to Have Formal Reviews to Learn From
Table E13. Frequency Table: There Is an Emphasis on Up-Front Project Homework and
Table E14. Frequency Table: Projects Are Continually Reviewed to Reevaluate Their
Table E15. Frequency Table: Care Is Taken To Ensure That There Is Market or End-User
Table E16. Frequency Table: Projects Are Not Subject to Unrealistic Deadlines and
Targets..................................................................................................................... 121
Table E17. Frequency Table: Project Priorities Do Not Change Too Frequently .......... 122
Table E18. Frequency Table: Project Goals Are Clearly Defined at Start-Up ............... 122
Table E19. Frequency Table: Project Goals Are Made Clear to All Participants .......... 122
Table E21. Frequency Table: Project Team Members Take Ownership of Project
Table E22. Frequency Table: Team Members Actively Participate in Decision Making
vi
Table F1. Descriptive Statistics for Project Management Effectiveness and Project
Table G1. Cronbach’s Alpha for Independent and Dependent Variables ...................... 125
vii
List of Figures
Figure 2. Impact on the customer versus rational project decision making. ..................... 70
Figure 3. Business and direct organizational success versus rational project decision
making....................................................................................................................... 71
Figure 4. Preparing for the future versus rational project decision making. ..................... 72
Figure 6. Impact on the customer versus goal clarity and alignment. .............................. 75
Figure 7. Business and direct organizational success versus goal clarity and alignment. 76
Figure 8. Preparing for the future versus goal clarity and alignment. .............................. 77
viii
1
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Introduction
The need to integrate effective measures to decrease project failure has become
recalls, such as the 8 million Toyota vehicles recalled for problems related to gas pedals
and brakes, have highlighted the lack of clear business ideas from the conceptual stage,
inadequate top-level support, and the failure of the stakeholders to adapt their
management styles and appreciate the extent of uncertainty and complexity involved in
Researchers (e.g., Axson, 2007; Besner & Hobbs, 2006; Drucker, 1954; Kerzner,
2004; Project Management Institute [PMI], 2004) in the field of project management
have argued that the major reason projects fail is the inadequate attention that project
project activities involved at the conceptual stage of projects is similar to building a high
tower without first laying a solid foundation with which to sustain the entire building.
involved within the initializing phase of a project life cycle provided the rationale for this
from the front-end phase of the project life cycle and project success. The population for
this study comprises project managers who are members of the Project Management
Institute Consulting Community of Practice (PMI-CCoP). The participants for this study
2
were taken from the PMI-CCoP, a member-driven virtual community within the PMI, a
were invited via e-mail, and two surveys were administered to the individuals who agreed
to participate and sign the informed consent. Follow-up reminder e-mails were sent to the
participants to encourage a higher response rate. For the purpose of this study, project
management effectiveness was defined as achieving the project goals through best
practices (Crawford, 2006; Drucker, 1985, 1986; Kerzner, 2006b). Crawford asserted that
doing the right thing means conducting the right activities and applying the best strategies
in meeting organizational objectives; the extent to which the objectives are met (Brown,
2008); and a match between stated goals and their achievement (Pinto, 2005). Project
goal clarity. These constructs are further defined later in this chapter and also in chapter
3.
According to Gregory, Harris, Armenakis, and Shook (2009), over the past 5
(a) rational goal model of effectiveness, which delineates the scope to which performing
organizations achieve their desired goals; (b) open system model of effectiveness, which
refers to the extent to which organizations acquire input to achieve output from their
environment; (c) internal process model of effectiveness, which focuses on the internal
development; and (e) competing values model of effectiveness, which demands that
models. For this study, however, the focus was on the rational goal model of
organizational effectiveness. Apart from the fact that this model has been tested and
validated more than the other models in academic research (Locke & Latham, 2002), the
rational goal model shows that effectiveness determinants such as goal clarity and
rational project decision making are fundamental factors that may positively impact
project success. Campbell (1977) and Yukl (2008) claimed that organizational
is to identify its goals and develop the means of achieving these goals. Management by
1985). However, Vigoda-Gadot and Angert (2007) argued that the MBO demands that
overstated. For an organization to survive, succeed in the long term, and accomplish its
project management demands sound decision making, goal setting via prioritization, and
with support departments, and providing the opportunity for personal and professional
growth within the project team. In addition, the direct results of increased effectiveness
are happier customers, improved sales, increase in market share and intellectual capacity,
(Wysocki, 2007). On the other hand, Wysocki argued that a lack of effectiveness could
decreased market share, a backlog in redoing completed work, rejected output, and late
output.
budget, and customers are satisfied (Gido & Clements, 2006; Hedeman, Heemst, &
Fredriksz, 2005; Hughes, Tippett, & Thomas, 2004; Kerzner, 2006a; Mescon et al., 1985;
Phillips, 2009; PMI, 2004). Although this definition delineates the traditional approach to
project management success concept, a new dimension to defining overall project success
has emerged. The new dimension to project success, according to Shenhar, Milosevic,
Dvir, and Thamhain (2007), takes into consideration the need to link project management
meeting the project constraints of scope, time, and cost; rather, it is a strategic link that
connects the final product to the end-user’s satisfaction (Kenneth, 2007; Milosevic &
Srivannaboon, 2006; Shenhar et al., 2007) targeted at achieving overall project goal
(project success). This new approach to project success, according to Shenhar and Dvir
5
(2007), refers to business-related processes that are intended to deliver business outcomes
projects succeed, the customers, performing organizations, project managers, and their
teams win (Gido & Clements, 2006; Rosenfeld, 2005; Sue, 2005). Thus, project success
is a positive situation for all of the project stakeholders. However, the paths to project
success are identified by internal and external factors (Kerzner, 2004; Morrison &
Brown, 2004) that are entrenched within the project management life cycle.
execution, control or monitoring, and closing phases (PMI, 2004) in order to get tasks
organizations often are so preoccupied with the result that they pay little or no attention
to the conceptual stage of defining the right metrics and planning the means to getting the
job done (Besner & Hobbs, 2008). Simply put, most organizations often fail to ascertain
Emphasizing the conceptual phase in this study indicates its importance in project
the project objectives are developed, including the reasons a specific project is chosen
from among other projects (PMI, 2004). According to Gido and Clements (2006), success
(PSAQ; see Appendix A): project efficiency, impact on customer/user, business and
direct organizational success, and preparation for the future. These constructs are further
knowledge areas, tools, and techniques is presented in chapter 2. Common factors related
to the project management effectiveness variable that are key determinants of project
success also are analyzed, synthesized, and encapsulated in the literature review.
The general problem is that there is an unacceptably high failure rate of projects
among project professionals. The tasks of keeping projects on track (scope), on time
(schedule), and within budget (cost) to satisfy customers are increasing, despite
technological breakthroughs (Gelbard & Carmeli, 2009). The failure rates of projects can
range from 18% to a high of 50% (Gelbard & Carmeli, 2009; Schachter, 2004). Research
has shown that 70% of information systems implementation projects (Pan, Hackney, &
Pan, 2008) and 80% of computerized maintenance management system projects failed in
the past (Bagadia, 2009). Failure rates of this magnitude, as indicated by Gelbard and
Carmeli (2009), as well as Pan et al. (2008) and Schachter (2004), have highlighted the
reason that the subject of increased effectiveness continues to be an area of research and
understand the enormous challenges of ensuring that projects satisfy the customers. As a
result, they are constantly under pressure from individuals within and outside of the
projects to ensure that the projects are on target, within budget, and on schedule. With
these challenges comes an increase risk of project failure (Sanchez, Robert, Bourgault, &
effectiveness integrated in the early phase of the project life cycle. The researcher
examined the correlation between project management effectiveness from the front-end
phase of the project life cycle, which includes rational decision making and goal
The specific problem addressed in this study was that it is not known whether
there is a relationship between the rational project decision making and goal clarity
aspects of project management effectiveness (i.e., the independent variable) and the
and preparation for the future aspects of project success (i.e., the dependent variable).
Without this information, the research community and organizational leaders may not
have all the information they need to maximize project success rates.
8
Nature of the Study
the relationship between the rational project decision making and goal clarity aspects of
project management effectiveness (i.e., the independent variable) and the project
preparation for the future aspects of project success (i.e., the dependent variable). The
study involved the collection of data at one point in time from a sample comprised of 110
members of the PMI-CCoP. The results of the analysis of the collected data may help to
clarity, rational project decision making, and project success by studying the perceptions
The data were obtained by using two existing valid and reliable survey
instruments: the PSAQ, originally designed by Shenhar, Dvir, Levy, and Maltz (2001), to
measure the dependent variable of project success, and the PMEC, designed by Morrison
and Brown (2004), to measure the independent variable of project management. The
PSAQ utilizes a 4-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to
4 (strongly agree), with the option of selecting N/A, which was treated as missing data.
The PMEC utilizes a 7-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree)
employed to examine the strength and direction of the relationship between project
The following research questions were answered based upon the results of the
statistical analysis:
1. What, if any, relationship is there between rational decision making during the
early phase of the project life cycle, as measured by the PMEC, and project
2. What, if any, relationship is there between goal clarity during the early phase
of the project life cycle, as measured by the PMEC, and project success, as
The following hypotheses were tested in order to answer the research questions:
H01: No relationship exists between rational decision making during the early
Ha1: A positive relationship does exist between rational decision making during
H02: No relationship exists between goal clarity during the early phase of the
Ha2: A positive relationship does exist between goal clarity during the early
by a sample comprised of members from the PMI-CCoP. In addition, the study sought
10
effective ways of enhancing quality project deliverables aimed at reducing the rate of
project failure and maintaining competitive edge in the global marketplace. To achieve
this purpose, the researcher sought to measure the internal and external variables of
project management effectiveness that influence the front-end phase of the project life
satisfactions.
Theoretical Foundation
and Drucker’s (1954) theory of strategic management to capture the variables that have
success in various organizational systems. As Taylor (1998, 2007) argued, the theory of
scientific management is based upon four principles: (a) Discover the one right way to
implement job activities, (b) clearly define the roles and responsibilities of each staff
member, (c) personally direct personnel and motivate the workforce through the
mechanism of reward and punishment, and (d) manage activities through effective
planning and control systems. Drucker’s (1954, 1985) theory, which is concerned with
the discipline of modern management practices, has five proven management practices
that can effectively enhance project success: effective time management, strategic
knowledge and understanding of where and how to mobilize strength for the best results,
11
the right priorities, and linkage of all of the management variables together with effective
decision making.
Both theories have been used widely to study the correlation between project
success and such other variables as leadership, ethics, and justice in strategic decision
making; top management support; best practices for the public sector; and the
organizational culture (Elmes & Wilemon, 1988; LaBrosse, 2007; Tatum & Eberlin,
2007; Young & Jordan, 2008). In addition, prior research that clearly has linked project
management effectiveness and success factors (Morrison & Brown, 2004); project
management and business strategies (Eschenbach, 2010; Kerzner, 2004, 2006a, 2006b;
Kozak, Beerbower, & Plummer, 2003; Pinto, 2005; Wallman, 2010); project
management best practices and project success from the process phase perspective
(Besner & Hobbs, 2006; Buunk & Gibbons, 2007; Cooper & Taylor, 2000; Hough &
White,2001; Khang & Moe, 2008); and project management best practices and new
success dimension (Shenhar et al., 2001, 2007) was used to investigate the perceptions of
110 registered project managers of the PMI-CCoP about the relationship between project
management effectiveness from the front-end phase of the project life cycle and project
success. Each of these theories and prior studies on general management and project
Definitions of Terms
Business success: Business success addresses the immediate impact of the project
on the performing organization. For instance, did the project increase the commercial
12
success of the organization and help to increase the organization’s profitability? This is an
important question to ask when investigating the impact of a project on the overall
success. This is one of the four measures of the dependent variable, project success.
locates the project team members close to one another to improve communication,
result, or item that must be produced to complete a project or part of a project” (Newell,
Delphi technique: The Delphi technique is a tool that uses rounds of anonymous
surveys to build consensus on issues, risks, and objectives within a program (Phillips,
2009).
Goal clarity: This factor addresses the importance of goal setting. Project
management effectiveness demands that project goals be clearly defined at the initiation
phase, be made clear to all stakeholders, and project team members be fully committed to
achieving the project objectives. This is one of the two measures of the independent
Gorillas: Gorillas are “products or services that dominate a market and place the
Impact on the customer/user: Customers are the reason projects exist. As such,
they represent major stakeholders whose perceptions are critical to the assessment of
project success. From Shenhar et al.’s (2001) perspective, this factor consists of fulfilling
13
the customers’ needs, solving the customers’ problem, and understanding not only the
extent to which the customers are using the products but also overall customer
satisfaction. This is one of the four measures of the dependent variable, project success.
whose employees are the most directly involved in managing the project activities
Preparation for the future: This factor addresses the long-term benefits of a
project (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; Shenhar et al., 2001) and reflects how well the project
can help the organization to prepare its infrastructure for the future in terms of creating
new opportunities, new markets, and new product line, and developing new technology.
This is one of the four measures of the dependent variable, project success.
incremental process (Axson, 2007; Gido & Clements, 2006; Kerzner, 2006a, 2006b;
Project baselines: Cost baseline represents all of the costs that will be incurred in
the project. Scope baseline represents all of the work that has to be done in the project.
Schedule baseline represents all of the time that will be required to do the project
preliminary project scope statement and preliminary budget; authorizes the project kick-
off; and authorizes the project manager, who will oversee the entire project planning,
14
execution, monitoring and closing phase of the project (Kerzner, 2006a, 2006b; Phillips,
restriction or limitation to the project that will affect the performance of the project or
Project life cycle: This term refers to total life cycle of a project from start to
finish, that is, the initiation, planning, execution, monitoring or controlling, and closeout
phases (Hedeman et al., 2005; Phillips, 2004, 2009; PMI, 2004; Watson, 2009).
project objective, that is, whether the project satisfies the project constraints of meeting
the delivery date and budget guidelines. As Shenhar and Dvir (2007) argued, meeting
resource constraints probably indicates a well-managed project, but it does not guarantee
the ultimate success and benefit to the organization in the long term. This is one of the
Project managers: Project managers are the chief architects and executives in
charge of overseeing the day-to-day project operations; they secure the appropriate
resources to perform the project; and provide leadership to the project team (Gido &
on target, on time, within budget with the ultimate goal of satisfying the customer (Gido
& Clements, 2006; Kerzner, 2006a, 2006b; Phillips, 2004; PMI, 2004).
projects at any one time and do not produce standard products (Gido & Clements, 2006;
Kerzner, 2006a).
addresses the need to ensure that projects are not subject to unrealistic deadlines and
targets, personal interests and political considerations do not dictate project decisions,
and projects are continually reviewed to reevaluate their viability and potential success.
This is one of the two measures of the independent variable, project management
effectiveness.
Assumptions
management effectiveness from the front-end phase of the project life cycle and project
success among registered project managers of the PMI-CCoP, the researcher assumed
that the results would apply only to the PMI-CCoP. Other assumptions were that the day-
to-day project tasks and goals addressed as part of this study were generic among the
project managers of the PMI-CCoP and that the respondents would complete the surveys
The findings of this study are limited to project professionals of the PMI-CCoP
who agree to participate in the study and sign the informed consent. Thus, the findings
will not be used to generalize project management effectiveness and project success in
other project management chapters or interest groups within the United States or other
nations. Again, the time required to complete the surveys, the unwillingness of most
project managers of the PMI-CCoP to reveal information that could further enhance the
quality of the research data, bias in the information volunteered by the respondents, and
bias in the questions that were used as a measure of the analysis also could have been
limiting factors.
project management effectiveness from the front-end phase of the project life cycle and
project success among project managers who are registered members of the PMI-CCoP.
Other variables that may influence project success are job satisfaction among employees,
work environment, and project sponsors (Gido & Clements, 2006; Kerzner, 2004; Wood,
2008). However, the variables in this study were limited to project management
The scope was limited to project management managers of the PMI-CCoP, not to
effectiveness from the front-end phase of the project life cycle and project success. The
17
researcher considered only the project effectiveness factors that are common to
This research may enhance the current understanding of how project management
effectiveness from the front-end phase of the project life cycle relates to project success
professionals, specifically project managers who are members of the PMI-CCoP, may
help to bridge the gap between theory and practice, the latter of which has resulted in
high rates of project failure (Gelbard & Carmeli, 2009; Schachter, 2004). This study
could help to effectively link project management and operations, reduce project failure
From the social change perspective, the study may add value to the current body
management effectiveness and project success. As a result, some organizations may wish
(increase in market share, a specific niche, etc.); and social competitive advantages
(effects on customers, suppliers and the public at large), with a resulting increase in
stakeholder satisfaction.
18
Chapter Summary and Organization of the Study
management effectiveness from the front-end phase of the project life cycle and project
limitations, scope, and delimitations; and the significance of the study. Following this
introduction, a literature review selected from peer-reviewed journals and books that
including the research method, sample size, survey instruments, and data collection and
analysis processes. The findings structured around the research questions and hypotheses
addressed in this study are addressed in chapter 4. The chapter also includes descriptive
statistics for the demographic variables. Finally, chapter 5 provides a discussion of the
implications for social change, recommendations for action and further study, and
Introduction
project effectiveness model and identify success factors that clearly link project
on management effectiveness. The aim of the literature view was to (a) link the findings
effectiveness and success variables that will enhance the quality, validity, and reliability
of the survey instruments; (c) establish basic definitions that will foster an understanding
of this study; and (d) evaluate significant ways these theorists have helped to hone the
the purpose of clarity and proper organization, this chapter is divided into five main
sections: (a) management from the theoretical perspectives, (b) emergence of modern
project management, (c) project management effectiveness, (d) project management from
a process standpoint, and (e) project success. The common variables that are widely
employed as effective tools from the initiation phase to close out of a project also are
Various strategies were adopted to locate the appropriate literature. The literature
search included current peer-reviewed journals selected from ProQuest, Academic Search
previous works of authors in published books and professional magazines that were
The key words used to search for relevant literature included project management and
The subject of management is not new. However, the pursuit through processes,
tools, and techniques of effective ways of managing businesses and projects remains
ongoing in the private and public sectors. The search for a better approach of managing
management), to shape and chart the course of management history and the emergence of
Taylor (1998) asserted that the best management is a true science whose
foundation rests upon clearly defined laws, rules, and principles. Taylor argued that when
these principles are effectively applied to and integrated with systematic management
and Hobbs (2006) contended, proven principles and an emphasis on the benefits of
standard processes and measured performance have spawned project management’s most
used tool. The theory of scientific management, as Taylor (1998, 2007) asserted, is to
21
(a) discover the one right way to implement job activities, (b) define clearly the roles and
responsibilities for each member of staff, (c) personally direct personnel and motivate the
workforce through the mechanism of reward and punishment, and (d) manage activities
through effective planning and control system. Cooper and Taylor (2000) and Hough and
White (2001) argued that the principal objective of management should be to secure
maximum prosperity for the employer and each employee through effective management
practices.
Although Taylor’s (1998, 2007) theory is true from the human element
practice rather than a science that is based on knowledge and responsibility. Drucker’s
five management practices can effectively enhance project success: effective time
organization; knowledge and understanding of where and how to mobilize strength for
best results; the right priorities; and linkage of all of the management variables to
effective decision making. Project practitioners have entrenched the core principles of
scientific management (Buunk & Gibbons, 2007), namely, bench marking, process
design, and work out; Drucker’s modern management principles of effective knowledge
modern project management also can be viewed from a historical standpoint. For
instance, the pyramids of Egypt, the Great Wall of China, the Pantheon of the Greeks
gods, and the iconic stone monument of Stonehenge have been indicative of the
importance of projects to civilization (Shenhar et al., 2007) and have wielded a far-
began in the early 1950s (Stretton, 2007) as an offshoot of operation research (Bredillet,
2008a, 2008b; Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006). Programs like the intercontinental ballistic
missile, developed by the U.S. Air Force; major construction projects by DuPont; and
building projects by Civil & Civic exemplified the integration of the project evaluation
review technique (PERT) and the critical path method (CPM) in the early 1950s (Shenhar
et al., 2007). The PERT and CPM are scientific tools that are commonly employed in the
since its inception. The main objectives of this school, according to Bredillet (2008c), are
to define project objectives; guarantee the accurate planning, scheduling, estimating, and
execution of project activities; and achieve optimal outcomes. The nine schools of project
sequence of unique, complex, and connected activities having one goal that must be
accomplish a specific objective through a unique set of interrelated tasks and the effective
utilization of resources (Gido & Clements, 2006). Project resources in this context could
The aforementioned definitions suggest that no projects are the same. They vary
in terms of purpose, objectives, time of delivery, location, cost, and customers. However,
effective project management demands that every project have a well-defined objective; a
(Gido & Clements, 2006); and inherent levels of risks and uncertainty (Söderholm,
2008). The management of these interdependent tasks that demands supervision of the
2004). Project management is a specialized field within the area of management (Besner
& Hobbs, 2008) and incorporates general management functions of planning, organizing,
directing, and controlling of company resources for a relatively short-term objective that
has been established to complete specific goals and objectives (Kerzner, 2006a).
Young & Samson, 2008; Shenhar et al., 2007). Project management facilitates the
process of change and creates value (Bredillet, 2010; Clarke, 1999); it is a key driver of
advantage (Shenhar et al., 2007) and improve project culture, effectiveness, and
efficiency (Martinsuo, Hensman, Artto, Kujala, & Jaafari, 2006). These changes range
25
from integration to the reorganization of major businesses, developing new initiatives
between a company, its customers, suppliers, and strategic partners (Clarke, 1999).
quality and a means of solving problems, provides a better control of scope changes,
fosters relationship among all project stakeholders, reduces power struggles among key
players, enhances the rapid delivery of projects, and ultimately leads to profitability
(Sauser, Reilly, & Shenhar, 2009). These outcomes notwithstanding, organizations must
effectiveness has focused strongly on the abilities of individuals, groups, and the entire
organization to align promptly and then realign continually with changes in approaches
necessitated by unstable environments (Jaques, 2010; Yilmaz & Ergun, 2008); global
needed to manage these changes to ensure the consistency and sustainability of project
delivery among project professionals is what Morrison and Brown (2004) termed
effectiveness.
Effectiveness is centered on doing the right thing (Zheng, Yang, & McLean,
2010; Drucker, 1954), and doing the right thing in a project implies adopting innovative
strategies (Kerzner, 2004; Olsson, 2006) that support the achievement of organizational
goals and effective practices in the form of processes, standards, and technological tools
26
that enhance product, service, or project delivery. Effectiveness also is how well the
output of the process meets the input constraints of the internal stakeholders and how
well the inputs from the providers meet the constraints of the process (Wysocki, 2007).
degree of achievement of organizational goals (Belout, 1998; Elmes & Wilemon, 1988;
Iversen & Ngwenyama, 2006); Westerman, McFarlan, & Iansiti, 2006; Willis, Guinote,
& Bailon, 2010); the degree to which an organization achieves its purpose (Brausch,
2010; Fey & Denison, 2003); the capability of an institution to accomplish its task
achieving success (Hsiu-Fen, 2006; Parhizgari & Gilbert, 2004) and the pathway to
achieving the purpose of the whole organization (Scholefield, 1968; Vloeberghs &
Berghman, 2003). According to Gregory et al. (2009) and Olsson (2006), organizational
the industrial setting and academic institutions (Brown, 2008; Campbell, 1977; Drucker,
1985; Gregory et al., 2009; Katzenbach & Smith, 1993; Kwantes & Boglarsky, 2007;
Locke & Latham, 2002). As Gregory et al. (2009) argued, effectiveness from an
organizational perspective has been explained from five main areas: (a) rational goal
achieve their desired goals; (b) open system model of effectiveness, which refers to the
extent to which organizations acquire input to achieve output from their environment;
27
(c) internal process model of effectiveness, which focuses on the internal transformation
(e) competing values model of effectiveness, which demands that organizations examine
accomplishment of certain end products or goals (Kraft, Jauch, & Boatwright, 1996;
Westerman et al., 2006). The goal model of effectiveness has been tested and validated
more than the other models in academic research (Locke & Latham, 2002). The rational
goal model of effectiveness is concerned with productivity, growth, quality, high returns,
and efficiency (Axson, 2007; Morrison & Brown, 2004; Yukl, 2008). This model
recognizes goal clarity and rational project decision making as fundamental determinants
2004; Phillips, 2009; Pinto, 2005, 2007; Willis et al., 2010; Young et al., 2010) as
underestimated. Kerzner (2004), Mescon et al. (1985), and Morrison and Brown (2004)
unanimously asserted that for an organization to survive, succeed in the long term, and
accomplish its objectives, it must be effective in its approaches and techniques. Kerzner
argued that effectiveness in project management demands sound decision making, goal
setting via prioritization, and effective communication with the stakeholders involved in
28
implementing projects. According to Kerzner, this effectiveness will result in (a) defining
(c) providing the opportunity for personal and professional growth within the project
team. On the other hand, Wysocki (2007) claimed that a lack of effective practices would
lead to (a) unacceptable products or services, (b) customer complaints, (c) high warranty
costs, (d) decreased market share, (e) backlog, (f) redoing of completed work, (g) rejected
Goal clarity and rational decision making have been identified as key
determinants of effectiveness (Campbell, 1977; Locke & Latham, 2002; Zwikael &
Unger-Aviram, 2010). Locke and Latham argued that setting goals stirs up action and
energizes the team. They claimed that when the goals are clearly clarified from the onset,
the project team members tend to focus their attention and effort directly toward relevant
activities rather than extraneous activities that will not lead to success. Curtis (2000)
asserted that goal setting is an effective way of directing interest, mobilizing effort, and
enhancing the project team’s determination to achieve the client outcome goals.
However, Katzenbach and Smith (1993) asserted that goals must be specific,
success. The SMART strategy is a way of ensuring that organizational goals are clarified
from the conceptual phase and ultimately realized in the final closeout phase. The
SMART strategy suggests that until the goals are clearly clarified, decisions remain an
illusion. In line with this claim, Katzenbach and Smith argued that clearly specifying
29
what kind of work and process the project team members hope to improve would lead to
Rational decision making is the ability to devise the best solution among many
alternatives. The ultimate goal of every organization is to reach the optimal level of
decision, which is considered the most effective decision that enhances organizational
everything truly feasible with a high level of rationality, with true business knowledge,
Organizations are the sum total of the decisions they make on a daily operational
basis. Organizations are perceived by the decisions they make (Wallman, 2010). As a
result, firms that become successful in business dealings also become skillful in decision
making. As Klein (2003) and Welch (2002) argued, a decision that could profoundly
affect a firm’s prospects and its future decisions is an important one. The ability to detect
problems in organizations and devise rational decisions can be critical to the success or
Pinto (2007) asserted that there is an insatiable search for general standards of
excellence against which firms can compare their practices, gain important tips for
improvement, and continuously measure their outcomes. The search for effective
best practice is defined as something that works, something that works well, something
that works well on a repetitive basis; something that leads to a competitive advantage;
30
something that can be identified in a personal to general business; something that keeps
the company out of trouble and, if trouble occurs, the best practice that will assist in
Other project practitioners have described best practices as past experiences that
have worked well for the project manager or are known to the project manager based on
that may employ one or more techniques and tools (PMI, 2004; Qureshi, Warraich, &
Hijazi, 2009); the right way of doing things (Angelides, 1999); what makes the real work
a success (Watson, 2009); and understanding the inherent uncertainties, complexities, and
variables that predict project success (Shenhar et al., 2007). In all of these definitions,
however, is the common assertion that project best practices enhance the effectiveness
and efficiency that will ultimately lead to success (Morrison & Brown, 2004); improve
project performance; and help project management professionals to select priorities for
Stakeholders
positively or negatively by the project outcomes (PMI, 2004; Wearne, 2008); therefore,
appreciating the relevant roles and services that the stakeholders offer is essential to
project success (King & Burgess, 2008). They include project sponsors, the performing
organization, project managers, and project teams. In a project setting, the project
sponsors, performing organization, project managers, and project teams can be an asset
31
(Gido & Clements, 2006) or a liability (PMI, 2004), depending upon the ways in which
leadership handles the various interfaces (Olsson, 2006) involved in the project.
From the time a project is initiated until its termination or closure, quality
decision making is built around people (Starns & Odom, 2006) concerned with various
project phases. Whether those decisions help or hurt productivity depends on what people
do with the information they have and the purpose for which the information is being put
to use (Drucker, 1954). The following section attempts to delineate the various
stakeholders involved in project setting by discussing their roles and responsibilities with
the aim of identifying the effective practices variables that could predict project success.
Project Sponsors
& Heitkamp, 2006) have revealed that organizations are beginning to understand the
benefit of project sponsors and their impact on project outcomes. Kloppenborg et al.
argued that the usefulness of executive sponsors often is a predictor of project success.
Project sponsors refer to the people or groups that provide the financial resources in cash
or in kind for the project (PMI, 2004); the primary risk takers or the resource providers
(Bryde, 2007); the providers of guidance for the project managers and project teams
(Kerzner, 2006a, 2006b); and the identifiers of gorilla products or services (Levine, 2005)
As Helm and Remington (2005) argued, project sponsors are characterized by the
appropriate superiority and authority within the organization who have the political
knowledge, efficiency, ability, and willingness to tie the project and the organization
32
together; the courage and willingness to go to battle with others on behalf of the project;
the ability to motivate the team and provide ad hoc support to the team; the willingness to
collaborate with the project team and project manager; excellent communications skills
and interpersonal skills that influence other project key players; and ability and
However, regardless of where they are situated, they pay for the project (Phillips, 2004);
take delivery of projects at completion (Bryde, 2007); and have the ability to determine,
if appropriate, when the project can or should be terminated (Bryde, 2007) or move from
According to Young and Jordan (2008), top management support is the most
important critical success factor for predicting project success. Although they set the
course and provide the roadmap that the rest of the organization should follow
(Angelides, 1999), it is very important that the role and responsibilities of project sponsor
and project manager be clearly defined (Bryde, 2007) to avoid any conflict that may
Performing Organization
those individuals who review the progress of the project and give the necessary approval
or rejections for recommendations (Kerzner, 2006b); the employees of the enterprise are
the most directly involved in managing project activities (PMI, 2004). These employees
33
are project managers and the project team members who are primarily concerned with the
planning and implementation phases (Gido & Clements, 2006; Phillips, 2009; PMI, 2004)
of the project life cycle. As Finch (2009) argued, the success of a project and the
effectively.
Project Managers
Project managers occupy a central position in every project. The PMI (2004)
described project managers as the chief architects and executives in charge of overseeing
the day-to-day project operations. Kerzner (2006b) claimed that the project managers
lead the project execution plan development from gathering the necessary resources
(financial, human, equipment, etc.) to ensuring deliverables across all project phases.
the project team. For instance, in the area of planning, project managers spearhead the
development of a plan with the project team and review the plan with the customer; in the
area of organizing, they secure the appropriate resources to perform the project; and in
the area of controlling, they track actual progress and compare it with planned progress.
Hutka (2009) argued that every project, irrespective of its size, needs a single project
Project managers also are responsible for managing the stakeholders’ expectations
(Gido & Clements, 2006; Hedeman et al., 2005; Phillips, 2009; PMI, 2004). Wood
(2008) asserted that a well-informed and experienced project manager is an asset in terms
of minimizing costs by utilizing the best practices suitable for the project, improving
34
quality by reducing delays by preordering materials and equipment, and reducing risk
communicate unforeseen developments accurately to the team members and also listen to
Aside from the central role and responsibilities that project managers occupy in
every project, they also require the necessary skills to effectively integrate effective
practices within the project phases and achieve successful deliverables. For example,
project managers must be effective communicators (Gido & Clements, 2006). The PMI
(2004) claimed that 90% project managers’ time is spent communicating the project
objectives to the team and presenting progress, technical design, and project status reports
(Gido & Clements, 2006; Phillips, 2004) to the stakeholders involved in the project.
Equally important, Gido and Clements claimed that project managers must possess good
leadership and interpersonal skills, be able to handle stress, have a good sense of humor,
and be good delegators. Effective delegation, however, necessitates that the project team
responsibility on the job and be accountable for their actions (Phillips, 2009).
Project Teams
Another important stakeholder in the project is the project team. As Adam (2009)
asserted, building high-quality teams does not happen by accident. It often needs to be
awareness. Project teams refer to people who are working alongside project managers to
deliver the actual work (Huemann, 2010); a group of interdependent individuals working
35
cooperatively to achieve the project objective (Gido & Clements, 2006); a collection of
individuals who will work together to ensure the success of the project (Phillips, 2004);
the group that is performing the work of the project (PMI 2004); or the group of people
processes and new technologies but also appropriate skilled and trained practitioners who
will make the right decisions; integrate, implement and transform data and information
into knowledge (Heffner & Sharif, 2008); and take steps to ensure the achievement of the
project goals. The important of the project team, therefore, should not be taken slightly in
any given project. As O’Dell, Grayson, and Essaides (1998) claimed, with technology,
organizational problems are half solved, but the other half is not technology; rather, it is
(1954) argued that all organizations say routinely that people are their greatest asset, yet
few practice what they preach, let alone truly believe it.
In line with Drucker’s claim, Pinto (2007) argued that many companies are
focused on the management of capital assets without any real measurements to monitor
and make the most of a company’s biggest asset: its people. As a result, Pinto suggested
that effective practices demand that people be valued, measured, and developed because
they are dynamic assets that can increase in value with time; they represent the remaining
assets of a business after everything else has been eliminated, and company and
Carmeli (2009) asserted that the use of group discussion and role-playing that emphasize
critical and integrative thinking can be a crucial input that opens information possibilities
and encourages innovative ideas within the project team. Huemann (2010) and Wang
(2005) claimed that finding innovative ways to work together as a team is the best
approach to building excitement and maximizing the team members’ involvement while
(2007), decisions made in groups such as committees, task forces, review panels, and
Ideas within the project team can be generated through various techniques,
including brainstorming, the Delphi technique, nominal group technique, Crawford slip,
2004; PMI, 2004). Some of these techniques are difficult to put into action and may be
costly and time consuming (Newell, 2002), but their benefits to enhancing project
These techniques reduce risks that are inherent in the project (Söderholm, 2008);
facilitate the decision-making process (Wang, 2005); instill confidence and encourage
feedback in the team (Beitler, 2005; Kline, 2008); foster the development of highly
creative solutions to difficult challenges (Kerzner, 2006a); and are helpful when an
organization need to break out of stale, established patterns of thinking as new ways of
looking at project issues. In addition, they generate ideas within the organization,
especially when the organization needs to develop new opportunities, improve project
37
effectiveness (Argyris, 1992); and foster strategic initiatives (Olsson, 2006), especially
when existing business strategies fail to deliver the desired end result. Virine and
Trumper (2008) argued that decision making is a skill that can be improved with
Organizational Type
project - based (projectized), and matrix (PMI, 2004). Each one has distinct hierarchical
features that represent a largely internal view of the business (Axson, 2007) and set the
level of authority, autonomy, and reporting structure for the project manager within the
project (Phillips, 2004). According to Drucker (1954), people have to know and
understand the organization structure that they are supposed to work in to avoid conflict
industrial settings, especially manufacturing settings, where external projects are rarely
conducted (Gido & Clements, 2006; PMI, 2004). In this class of structure, the project
managers have little power and autonomy; instead, they report directly to functional
managers, and the project team is a part-time entity (Phillips, 2004). In contrast, the
project-based structure is used by organizations that are solely into multiple projects at
any one time and do not produce standard products (Gido & Clements, 2006; Kerzner,
managers enjoy a higher level of autonomy and responsibility over their projects, and
they work on a full-time basis with the project team. Lastly, matrix structures are an
38
amalgam of functional and project-based structures (Gido & Clements, 2006). The
project managers, as Phillips noted, have a full-time role and a reasonably high level of
power.
consistent manner, so the best practice is to focus on relationships that foster success
rather than on the organization structures. However, Phillips (2004) argued that being
management will allow performing organizations leverage and position their role as
management style to each project (Shenhar et al., 2007). Drucker (1954) suggested that
organizational structure as possible to avoid reporting conflict and to reduce diluting the
Technology
This is the era of e-business or no business (Garrett, 2007). Miles (2003) asserted
that enhancing process effectiveness could not become a reality until the development of
project managers, and team members. This assertion suggests that technology is the
vehicle that drives business success and that organization without technology face a
going to be successful, meet project deadlines, and ultimately satisfy their customers,
project management tools is on the increase (Axson, 2007; Besner & Hobbs, 2008;
Morrison & Brown, 2004). The aim is to decrease the failure rate of projects. Besner and
Hobbs investigated the use of 70 extensively recognized project management tools and
techniques and the level of support provided by organizations for their use. They noted
that the future of project management practice will become more dependent on the
effective applicability of these technological tools. Technology is not will facilitate faster
Effective practices that drive higher returns and product superiority require the
integration of technological tools and techniques (Besner & Hobbs, 2008) within the
project life cycle. According to Spender (1996), technology is the master tool that shapes
the systematic aspects of organizational systems. However, Starns and Odom (2006)
asserted that managerial ability to identify the best mix of technologies through a
appropriate, and acquiring new technologies when required will be the principal factor in
Knowledge Management
widely recognized as the key element in achieving project effectiveness (Davenport &
40
Prusak, 2000; Ingasan & Jonasson, 2009; Kerzner, 2004; Morrison & Brown, 2004;
Nonaka & Takeuchi, 1995). Davenport and Prusak defined knowledge as a fluid mix of
framed experience, values, contextual information, and expert insight that provides a
framework for evaluating and incorporating new experiences and information. For other
2006) among project stakeholders. As such, knowledge and skills are indispensable to
proficient project managers (Ingasan & Jonasson, 2009; Reich, Gemino, & Sauer, 2008).
According to Drucker (1954), the most valuable asset of a 20th-century company was its
whether business or nonbusiness, are its knowledge workers and their productivity.
Increasing the productivity of knowledge work and knowledge workers (Drucker, 1999)
is the most important contribution that management need to make in the 21st century.
Drucker asserted that what makes society postcapitalist is that knowledge has become the
that drives performance and productivity (Zwikael & Unger-Aviram, 2010), and
enhances effectiveness (Hyvari, 2005; Jordan, Streit, & Binkley, 2003). Contemporary
development.
training and development is ideal for creating a motivated team (Linzalone, 2008). Thus,
finding creative ways to work together as a team (Huemann, 2010) is a positive way to
build enthusiasm and support team participation while generating enhanced solutions and
increasing group efficiency. Building a team of knowledge experts does not without
leadership and learning as the driven forces. As Wang (2005) claimed, designing and
Equally important, project stakeholders must play a major role in ensuring that
moral principles are incorporated into and complied with in every facet of the project. For
this reason, project sponsors have to see further than the next set of quarterly returns on
investment or the immediate project cut-off date (Tatum & Eberlin, 2007). According to
Tatum and Eberlin, project sponsors should focus on the total program portfolio by laying
down a path and vision for the organization and employing diverse training models as a
employee morale, and position the organization so that it has a competitive advantage
satisfaction and morale within the project team. These apart, the benefits of training and
developing employees cannot be achieved without taking the necessary actions that
reflect and integrate what has been taught during the training.
(Argyris, 1992; Lloria, 2007). Davenport and Prusak (1998) claimed that organizational
term success. However, the importance of knowledge lies in the creativity value that it
adds to the organization’s assets and in its ability to improve the effectiveness of an
organization’s intellectual capital (Kridan & Goulding, 2006), which Sullivan (1999)
publications.
According to Dhillon and Caldeira (2008) as well as Dvir (2005), there is only a
process, but no secret, to project success. Gold (1998) argued that organizational
meaning. Process is like a road map: it is a routine that describes the way that tasks are
organized (Cicmil & Hodgson, 2006); a repeatable set of actions a team decides to
perform on a regular basis to ensure that something is done in a certain way (Wearne,
2008); and a collection of activities that create value for a customer, a transformation of
43
input/s into output/s (Angelides, 1999). The project process is iterative and
interdependent (Gido & Clements, 2006; Kerzner, 2004; Newell, 2002; Phillips, 2004;
PMI, 2004).
Effective project management practices on their own are not adequate to produce
and deliver the desired products or services promptly and at minimal cost (Angelides,
1999). Angelides argued that these practices must be integrated within the working
framework of proven processes. Process effectiveness is how well the process meets the
promotes the teams’ decision-making capabilities and aligns project management with
the business strategy (Milosevic & Srivannaboon, 2006). Olsson (2006) claimed that
advantage.
As Elbanna and Naguib (2009) emphasized, one of the most important aspects of
decision services is how often they can add value to existing systems and processes. The
process of developing effective practices can be just as important as the end result
(Axson, 2007) of the project. However, Miles (2003) argued that process reengineering
consists of dividing tasks into their smallest subcomponents, enforcing strict performance
specifications for each task, and gearing the system’s tools to support the tasks. In the
context of this research, these processes, otherwise called project phases or project life
cycles, comprise the initiation, planning, execution, control or monitoring, and project
closeout phases (PMI, 2004). Within these phases are hidden effectiveness variables that
Activities in the initiation, or the conceptualizing, phase mark the starting points
of a project. Shenhar et al. (2007) asserted that the initiation phase of a project life cycle
defines the strategic importance of the project to the enterprise. Other project experts
have described the initiation stage of a project as the stage that defines and authorizes the
project (Phillips, 2004; PMI, 2004); involves the identification of a need, problem, or
opportunity; and can result in the customer requesting a proposal from a would-be
launch the project or phase is given through a project charter (Phillips, 2004). Kerzner
(2004) argued that the approval of the project charter is a generic process that often is
omitted in organizations. Kerzner further stated that the project charter should be used to
authorize work on the project; define the authority, responsibility, and accountability of
the project team; and establish scope boundaries for the project. Other key effective
practices in this phase of the project life cycle, according to Khang and Moe (2008), are
to identify the potential beneficiaries and assess their development needs; align the
the development of needs; develop and evaluate project alternatives; and generate interest
In summary, the project charter is the final output of this phase before moving to
the planning phase in the project life cycle. A project charter is a one-page document that
contains the preliminary project scope statement and preliminary budget; authorizes the
45
project kick-off meeting; and authorizes the project manager, who will oversee the entire
If there is no plan, there is no control (Hutka, 2009). As Dai and Wells (2004)
asserted, project failure rates remain high, despite the advantages of project management
Immonen & Vanharanta, 2009; Kerzner, 2006a) based on the need for the appropriate
control and management of large-scale projects (Caughron & Mumford, 2008; Dvir,
produced; acts as an early warning system and keeps the project team focused (Gelbard &
Carmeli, 2009); and reduces risks and the time required to complete the project
information for customers to address risk and decide whether to commit resources to
maximize the likelihood of a successful project (Griffith, Gibson, Hamilton, Tortora, &
Wilson, 1999).
Other researchers in the field of project management have defined planning as the
mechanism for translating strategic objectives into tactical actions (Aramo-Immonen &
Vanharanta, 2009); an iterative process handled within the planning process group
(Phillips, 2004); the art of asking, Who, What, When, Why, How Much, and How Long?
46
and the determination of what needs to be done, by whom, and by when in order to fulfill
resources (Caughron & Mumford, 2008); determination of the details about the project
(Wysocki, 2007); and the process of defining and maturing the project scope, developing
the project management plan, and identifying and scheduling the project activities that
occur within the project (PMI, 2004). Project planning is not a one-time approach; rather,
it is an iterative process (Phillips, 2004; PMI, 2004). Phillips claimed that project
managers and their team return to the planning processes as often as needed throughout
the project. As a result, experts in managing projects have suggested that the best
known as progressive elaboration (Gido & Clements, 2006; Kerzner, 2006a, 2006b;
Phillips, 2004; PMI, 2004) until the planning baseline has been produced.
During the planning phase, the project managers and their teams meet, except
when the project is virtual, to effectively plan their execution of the project. The activities
entail planning the scope, cost, schedule, risks, quality, communication, human resources,
contract, and procurement (PMI, 2004). Planning these aforementioned knowledge area
perspectives requires the completion of a WBS to define the work necessary to produce
project management effectiveness that project planners use to make more accurate
forecasts and reduce biases in estimation and undesirable behavior effects. The WBS also
enable the work to be done better and more economically (Taylor, 1998) to avoid the
47
overlap of resources allocations and allocate sufficient time for each project activity
(Schachter, 2004) with a clear goal and objectives (Besner & Hobbs, 2006; Gido &
Clements, 2006; Kerzner, 2006a; Morrison & Brown, 2004; Schachter, 2004). Other vital
activities, as Khang and Moe (2008) stated, are to mobilize support and commitment;
negotiate for final approval from the major stakeholder/s; provide updates to other
various stakeholders, and envision an overview of how the project will be executed,
together with definite and attainable tasks and milestones (Schachter, 2004) before
The execution of a project begins after a careful planning baseline has been
produced. This process allows the project team and vendors to move forward and
complete the work outlined in the planning process (Phillips, 2004). Executing a project
also refers to implementing the project plan. This is a crucial stage of the project that
execution stage is to ensure that the individuals who were involved in the planning
process should also implement the plan (PMI, 2004). Other important activities at this
stage are to carry out the project activities as planned and manage relationships with
stakeholders effectively (Khang & Moe, 2008) to ascertain that the project is on target.
Projects should be controlled and monitored very closely by the project managers.
Controlling or monitoring the project goes hand in hand with the execution process (PMI,
48
2004). An effective project management cycle (Gido & Clements, 2006; Kerzner, 2006a;
Phillips, 2004; PMI, 2004) must integrate project control process throughout the project
life.
Khang and Moe (2008) as well as Phillips (2009) argued that at this stage of the
project, project managers must check that the deliverables of the phases are in alliance
with the project scope, cost, and schedule; constantly demand progress reports from the
project team; and constantly report project performance with top management and the
customer; and control the project budget and expenses. The key to effectively control a
project, according to Gido and Clements (2006), is to measure actual progress; compare it
to planned progress in a timely manner and on a regular basis; and take corrective action
This is the stage (Khang & Moe, 2008) to test the project outputs, complete the
final report, settle all financial transactions with all those involved with the project, hand
over the project output to the customer, document the lesson learned, reward the team,
and dissolve or reassign the team to other projects. Project completion calls for a
celebration (Phillips, 2004; Schachter, 2004). However, not all projects end successfully.
Some projects may be terminated before getting to this stage, especially when the reason
for the project is no longer warranted. In whatever form the project ends, lesson learned
during all the phases of the project life cycle must be properly documented to avoid
making the same mistakes and to act as a point of reference toward achieving future
project success.
49
Project Success and Reasons for Failure
Although process defines the road map to achieving project success, success
provides the vision for the process (Bredillet, 2008f). Success is the ultimate goal of
every project and a function of skillful leadership that creates knowledge work (Zand,
2010). However, over the past 2 decades, project management practitioners have
approach) and project success (adaptive approach) for the purpose of linking projects to
ongoing operations.
success, holds that a project is a success if the project meets the technical performance
specifications and satisfies all project stakeholders (Hughes et al., 2004; Thomas &
Fernández, 2008); if the project objectives are accomplished (Mescon et al., 1985); if all
of the stakeholders are satisfied with the results (Dvir, 2005; Hedeman et al., 2005); if a
project is on target (scope), on time (schedule), and within budget (cost); and if the
customer is satisfied (Gido & Clements, 2006; Kerzner, 2006a; Phillips, 2004; 2009;
PMI, 2004; Scott-Young & Samson, 2008). The point of departure is that project success
is no longer viewed as just completing the project on time and within a budget; rather, it
also means ensuring that the product ultimately satisfies the end user (Milosevic &
Srivannaboon, 2006; Shenhar et al., 2007). Defining a project on the basis of satisfying
the triple constraints of scope, schedule, and cost without looking at the overall business
impact on the initial idea could lead to overall customer dissatisfaction. On the other
hand, the new approach to project success, according to Shenhar and Dvir (2007) refers
50
to business-related processes that are designed to deliver business results rather than a
According to Khang and Moe (2008), as well as Yu, Flett, and Bowers (2005),
overall project success is measured against the realization of the customer’s objectives
and goals, as well as the satisfaction of the end users and key stakeholders. Khang and
Moe further argued that the modern approach to project success links the traditional
project purpose to the final product and long-term goals. Dvir (2005),Gelbard and
Carmeli (2009), and Yu et al. emphasized that a productive working relationship, a focus
on the overall project goal, and consistency of the approach in managing the project from
the initiation to the closeout phase are key to success. Consistency in this perspective
methodology into the management of project within the project life cycle.
In this study, the new multidimensional model for assessing and planning project
success beyond the triple constraints (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007) was used to capture the
success variables. The unique features of this model are that (a) it takes into consideration
the strategic management as well as the tactical aspects of project performance in the
short and long term, (b) reflects the overall expectations of various stakeholders, 3) ties
project and product together, (c) aligns the project activities integrated within the entire
life cycle phases with the customer expectations, and (d) yields success stories in
academic research and corporations. Shenhar et al. (2001) asserted that defining and
assessing project success is a strategic management concept that should help to align
projects efforts with the short- and long-term goals of the performing organization. They
51
argued that the new success criteria involve four dimensions developed from two data
Table 2
Success Dimensions
According to Dai and Wells (2004) and Young et al. (2010), although the
advantages of project management have been well documented, project failure rates
remain high. These enormous challenges in project management have led project
practitioners to search for effective solutions through local and international project
implementation; and training, seminars and workshops held regularly within performing
organizations.
As Perkins (2007) asserted, projects fail because the stakeholders choose to ignore
the basic tenets of project success that they already know. Perkins argued that projects
fail because of the lack of dedicated resources, cultural conflicts, the lack of clear
project team’s time, inefficient business processes, and chaotic work environments are
factors that can hamper project success. Other practitioners have argued that the
fundamental reasons for failed projects include poor judgment expressed by all project
operations (Bagadia, 2009); inadequate planning (Dvir, 2005); and the absence of a good
working relationship among various stakeholders (Chen, Law, & Yang, 2009).
In this chapter, the researcher examined literature relevant to this study, which
sought to examine the perceptions of 549 registered project managers of the PMI-CCoP
of the relationship between project management effectiveness from the front-end phase of
the project life cycle and project success. Key effectiveness variables were captured on
both side of the dependent variable (effectiveness) and the independent variable (project
success) using the theoretical frameworks of Drucker, Taylor, and other scholar
practitioners in the field of management. The methodology used to gather the associated
Introduction
This chapter delineates the research design employed to test the hypotheses
presented in chapter 1. In addition, this chapter addresses the suitability of the research
design and approach, and provides justification for the research design. The sampling
techniques are described. The instrumentation and materials, the reliability and validity of
the instruments, data collection and analyses that explain the descriptive analysis used in
the study, and the measures that were taken to protect the participants’ rights are
discussed.
project management effectiveness from the front-end phase of the project life cycle and
project success. The participants were registered project managers of the PMI-CCoP.
Employing a quantitative survey design was appropriate for this study, which sought to
examine the correlation between project management effectiveness and project success.
independent variable) and project success (i.e., dependent variable). The correlation
between these variables was assessed using the Pearson correlation statistic. The Pearson
continuous measurement scale. The independent and dependent variables in this study
gathering information not available from other sources, and its standardization of
measurement, which describes the same information collected from every respondent.
The Internet and e-mail as research tools for the data collection were employed
for this study. The reason for choosing the Internet and e-mail as the online tools for data
collection was the result of the sample selected for the study (i.e., members of the PMI-
CCoP); characteristics of the sample being studied; types of questions; response rate;
cost; and time. Again, a web-based survey was used because of the lower costs (no paper,
postage, mailing, data entry costs); ease of reaching a wider audience of project managers
in the PMI-CCoP; and need for less time. However, a potential drawback is that some
PMI-CCoP members may not have had a computer or may not have had access to the
Internet. In addition, different ISP/line speeds, computers, and software could have
limited the extent of graphics that can have been used to access Web surveys.
Sampling Techniques
The eligibility criteria for the study participants were that they had to be project
PMI. The PMI-CCoP is a branch of the global institute of the PMI, which has its
The PMI-CCoP has a total of 549 members who are project managers. The PMI-
CCoP agreed to invite all 549 members to participate in the study. The PMI-CCoP point
of contact sent an e-mail to all 549 project manager members of the PMI-CCoP to invite
them to participate in the study. The goal was to maximize the probability that the
response rate would be representative of the target population of 549 project manager
members of the PMI-CCoP (Johnson & Christensen, 2008); provide a relatively high
level of sampling efficiency or precision (Singleton & Straits, 2005); and offer each
member of the PMI-CCoP an equal likelihood of being included. The sample comprised
all of the PMI-CCoP project managers who agreed to participate and signed the informed
others. It was not known which particular professions the 549 project manager members
belonged to, let alone the professional orientation of the members who actually agreed to
The typical survey response rate is around 20% (Baruch, 2004; Bruvold & Comer,
2002; Chang & Krosnick, 2010; Rowe, Poortinga, & Pidgeon, 2006; Smither, Walker, &
Yap, 2004). Therefore, the researcher anticipated that a sample size of approximately 110
was achievable. The power calculations were performed using the PASS 2008 software
(NCSS, 2010). Hypotheses 1 and 2 were tested using Pearson’s correlation coefficient.
56
According to Cohen (1988), small, medium, and large effect sizes for hypothesis tests
about the Pearson correlation coefficient (r) are r = 0.1, r = 0.3, and r = 0.5, respectively.
A sample size of 110 produces 80% power using a one-sided hypothesis test to detect an
effect size of 0.23, which is a medium effect size. For example, if the true population
correlation between project management effectiveness and project success was 0.23 or
greater, this study would have an 80% chance of detecting (i.e., achieving statistical
The survey design was used to understand the sample being studied or observed
and to examine the relationship among the variables. Two Likert scale surveys designed
was used to measure the dependent variable of project success and the independent
effectiveness from the front-end phase of the project life cycle and project success.
The PSAQ (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007; Shenhar et al., 2001) was used to measure the
dependent variable of project success and the PMEC (Morrison & Brown, 2004) to
demographic information was included with the surveys in order to summarize the
characteristics of the sample (see Appendix C). Written permission was sought and
The PSAQ, which has been used by Sallant and Dillman (1994), Shenhar and
Dvir (2007), and Shenhar et al. (2001) to investigate project success, has four main
57
dimensions, namely, project efficiency, impact on customer/user, business and direct
organizational success, and preparation for the future. These four success dimensions are
believed to link project management to the end user’s satisfaction and to reduce the rate
of project failure. The PMEC has been used by Morrison and Brown (2004) to measure
project management effectiveness. The PMEC was designed by Morrison and Brown to
assess the multiple dimensions and levels of projects and to integrate various internal and
external factors to capture a better view of the processes and capabilities of managing
projects. For this study, project management effectiveness was operationally defined as
two constructs, rational decision making and goal clarity, as measured by the PMEC.
To ensure the reliability of this research, the PMEC showed adequate internal
consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from 0.78 to 0.93, and
the PSAQ showed sufficient reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging from
0.70 to 0.92. Based upon these facts, the PSAQ and PMEC can be considered sufficiently
reliable for performing a statistical analysis, which is consistent with Nunnally and
Bernstein’s (1994) claim that alpha scores of 0.70 and above should be considered
acceptable reliability scores for any quantitative study. To ensure the validity of the
findings, the design of the PSAQ and the PMEC was based upon the effectiveness of
project practices and project success variables described in the literature review.
Venkatraman and Grant (1986) claimed that construct validity is achieved through the
increase the quality of the research outcome and improve the soundness of the study. In
this study, the factors pertaining to the independent variable of project management
effectiveness and the dependent variable of project success were drawn from the
theoretical and current project management points of view described in chapter 2 and
were used to test the hypotheses. As indicated earlier, two project management
effectiveness factors were examined to determine their correlation to the project success
scale with a range of 1 to 7. The score was derived by calculating the average of
Questions 1 through 7 from the PMEC. Response choices on the questionnaire were
(somewhat agree), 6 (agree), and 7 (strongly agree). Thus, smaller scores indicated the
perception that rational project decision making is a less true reflection of the situation in
the project manager’s organization, and larger scores indicated the perception that
rational project decision making is a more true reflection of the situation in the project
manager’s organization.
to 7. The score was derived by calculating the average of Questions 8 to 12 from the
true reflection of the situation in the project manager’s organization, and larger scores
indicated the perception that goal clarity is a more true reflection of the situation in the
In this study, the four main factors of project success described in the literature
review included the following: project efficiency, impact on the customer, business
success, and preparation for the future. Following is a description of how each factor was
operationalized.
of 1 to 4. The score was derived by calculating the average of Questions S11 and S12 from
the PSAQ. Response choices on the questionnaire were coded as 1 (strongly disagree), 2
(disagree), 3 (agree), and 4 (strongly agree). A response choice of N/A was treated as
missing data, and the project efficiency score was treated as missing. Thus, smaller scores
indicated the perception that the project was less proficient, and larger scores indicated
scale with a range of 1 to 4. The score was derived by calculating the average of
Questions S13, S14, and S15 from the PSAQ. Response choices on the questionnaire were
response choice of N/A was treated as missing data, and the impact on customer score
was treated as missing. Thus, smaller scores indicated the perception that the impact of
60
the project on the customer was less desirable, and larger scores indicated the perception
that the impact of the project on the customer was more desirable.
scale with a range of 1 to 4. The score was derived by calculating the average of
questions S16, S17, and S18 from the PSAQ. Response choices on the questionnaire were
response choice of N/A was treated as missing data, and the business success score was
treated as missing. Thus, smaller scores indicated the perception that the project had a
less desirable effect on the business, and larger scores indicated the perception that the
measurement scale with a range of 1 to 4. The score was derived by calculating the
average of questions S19 and S20 from the PSAQ. Response choices on the questionnaire
response choice of N/A was treated as missing data, and the business success score was
treated as missing. Thus, smaller scores indicated the perception that the project had a
less desirable effect on the organization’s preparation for future projects, and larger
scores indicated the perception that the project had a more desirable effect on the
Data Collection
Prior to the collection of data, permission to conduct the study was sought from
effective, reduced the amount of time required to collect data, and ensured that each
participant was asked the same question and in the same order. The participants were
provided with instructions and were informed that the surveys would take 10 to 15
minutes to complete. A total of 549 project managers of the PMI-CCoP were invited via
e-mail to participate in the study by clicking a link in the e-mail that took them to the
online survey hosted on the SurveyMonkey website. A follow-up e-mail was sent to
encourage a rapid response from the participants and to maximize the sample size.
The PMEC, PSAQ, and the demographic questionnaire were used to gather data
effectiveness from the front-end phase of the project life cycle and project success. The
PMEC addressed the project management effectiveness factors. Each item was scored on
a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly agree) to 7 (strongly disagree) to aid in
collecting and categorizing the survey responses, and facilitates the extraction and
tabulation of data for final statistical analysis. Respondents were presented with a
statement and asked to indicate the extent of agreement in a manner that did not coerce
the respondents to answer positively or negatively should they have had reasons to stand
The PSAQ focused on project success. The success measures were scored on a 4-
point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), with an
optional choice of N/A, which was treated as missing data. The demographic survey
asked for information on gender, age range, years of experience as project practitioners,
62
size of organization respondent was currently working in, and project management
certification status. The raw data from this study were stored on the researcher’s personal
The following research questions were answered based upon the results of the
statistical analysis:
1. What, if any, relationship is there between rational decision making during the
early phase of the project life cycle, as measured by the PMEC, and project
2. What, if any, relationship is there between goal clarity during the early phase
of the project life cycle, as measured by the PMEC, and project success, as
The following hypotheses were tested in order to answer the research questions:
H01: No relationship exists between rational decision making during the early
Ha1: A positive relationship does exist between rational decision making during
H02: No relationship exists between goal clarity during the early phase of the
Ha2: A positive relationship does exist between goal clarity during the early
All statistical analyses were performed using PASW v.18.0, formerly SPSS, for
Windows. All of the analyses were one-sided with a 5% alpha level. Demographic
variables were summarized using the mean, standard deviation, and range for continuous
scaled variables, and frequency and percent for categorical scaled variables. Cronbach’s
alpha was used to measure the internal consistency reliability of the project management
correlation coefficient was statistically significantly greater than zero, then the null
hypothesis was rejected, and it was concluded that there is a positive correlation between
the rational decision making aspect of project management effectiveness and project
success. The strength of the relationship was reported and interpreted. This analysis was
correlation coefficient was statistically significantly greater than zero, then the null
hypothesis was rejected, and it was concluded that there is a positive correlation between
the goal clarity aspect of project management effectiveness and project success. The
strength of the relationship was reported and interpreted. This analysis was repeated for
E X X Y Y
Cov X , Y
XY
Where X and Y are the means for X (effectiveness) and Y (success); and X and Y
As previously mentioned, the aim of this study was to evaluate the relationship
between project management effectiveness from the front-end phase of the project life
cycle and project success. Thus, the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was
Ethical Considerations
the governing principles of research ethics were followed to ensure the protection of the
participants’ rights and to meet ethical standards of Walden University’s IRB. None of
the participants was forced or coerced into being in the study. Participation was
voluntary. The researcher ensured that all of the participants received an overview of the
study and signed an informed consent before completing the surveys. Although
participation in this study did not pose any risks to the participants, this principle of
informed consent required that the prospective participants be fully informed about the
that they shared was not made available to anyone who was not directly involved in the
65
study. The participants were assured that their responses would remain anonymous.
These ethical procedures were designed to safeguard the participants and minimize
confirmation bias and other sources of invalidity (Golfashani, 2003; Johnson &
The research methods and designs for this study were explained in chapter 3. The
web-based tools to collect the data and conduct the Pearson correlation analysis of the
variables described in the literature review. A total of 549 registered project managers of
the PMI-CCoP were invited to participate. The study sample comprised project managers
who agreed to participate and who signed the informed consent. The link to the surveys
was e-mailed to the participants whose contact information was available through the
PMI-CCoP membership directory. Chapter 4 reports the findings structured around the
research questions and hypotheses addressed in this study. The chapter also includes
Introduction
by the survey responses from a sample of project managers from the PMI-CCoP.
Effectiveness was built around goal clarity and rational project decision making. The
aforementioned factors of goal clarity and rational project decision making were
measured utilizing the PMEC. The success dimension aspect of this study was measured
utilizing the PSAQ. The PSAQ produces four measures of project success: project
preparation for the future. The correlation between project management effectiveness, the
independent variable, and project success, the dependent variable, were evaluated using a
The target population comprised project managers who are registered members of
the PMI-CCoP, a group of project management consultant professionals who share the
challenges of delivering solutions and providing results in their consulting work through
and who are at “the forefront of implementing new technology, practices, and policies
SurveyMonkey website for 10 business days. The participants were provided with
instructions and were informed that the surveys would take 5 to 10 minutes to complete.
Follow-up e-mails were sent to encourage a rapid response from the participants and to
maximize the sample size. A total of 132 project managers attempted to complete the
online survey (20% of 549). However, only 110 answered all of the questions relating to
the independent and dependent variables. Thus, the final sample size for the study was
110.
Demographic Statistics
including being PMP certified, age, industry affiliations, level of education, and number
of years with their current employer. Of the 110 participants who responded to the
survey, result showed that a total of 100 (91%) of the study participants were PMP
certified. Most (80%) were 50 years of age or younger, and most (95%) had a bachelor’s
common were information technology (37%), construction (19%), and finance and
banking (15%). A total of 37 (34%) study participants had been with their current
employer less than 5 years while 65 (59%) had been with their current employer between
5 and 20 years. Appendix D shows detailed frequency tables (Tables D1-D5) for all of
the demographic variables. Appendix E shows frequency tables for the project
management effectiveness and project success survey questions (see Tables E1-E22).
68
Appendix F shows descriptive statistics for the independent and dependent variables (see
Table F1).
Findings
Cronbach’s alphas were between 0.79 and 0.96 for the project management
effectiveness and project success scores; (see Appendix G). Thus, each of the
independent and dependent variables had acceptable internal consistency reliability (see
Table G1). There were four measures of project success: project efficiency, impact on the
customer, business success, and preparation for the future. As such, Research Question 1
was broken down into four separate questions: 1a to 1d. Similarly, Research Question 2
decision making during the early phase of the project life cycle, as measured by the
H01a: No relationship exists between rational decision making during the early
Ha1a: A positive relationship does exist between rational decision making during
Figure 1 depicts the relationship between the project efficiency and rational
correlation between project efficiency and rational project decision making, r(110) =
0.72; p < .001. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected, and it was concluded that there
69
is a strong positive correlation between project efficiency and rational project decision
decision making during the early phase of the project life cycle, as measured by the
H01b: No relationship exists between rational decision making during the early
Ha1b: A positive relationship does exist between rational decision making during
Figure 2 depicts the relationship between the impact on the customer and the
making, r(110) = 0.51; p < .001. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected, and it was
concluded there is a strong positive correlation between the impact on the customer and
rational project decision making among project managers who are members of the PMI-
CCoP.
decision making during the early phase of the project life cycle, as measured by the
PMEC, and project success, as measured by business and direct organizational success.
H01c: No relationship exists between rational decision making during the early
the early phase of the project and Business and direct organizational success.
Figure 3 depicts the relationship between the business success and rational project
between business success and rational project decision making, r(110) = 0.64; p < .001.
Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected, and it was concluded there is a strong
positive correlation between business success and rational project decision making
Figure 3. Business and direct organizational success versus rational project decision
making.
decision making during the early phase of the project life cycle, as measured by the
Ha1d: A positive relationship does exist between rational decision making during
the early phase of the project and preparing for the future.
Figure 1 depicts the relationship between the preparation for the future and
positive correlation between preparation for the future and rational project decision
making, r(110) = 0.55; p < .001. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected, and it was
concluded that there is a strong positive correlation between preparation for the future
and rational project decision making among project managers who are members of the
PMI-CCoP.
Figure 4. Preparing for the future versus rational project decision making.
73
Research Question 2a: What, if any, relationship is there between goal clarity
during the early phase of the project life cycle, as measured by the PMEC, and project
H02a: No relationship exists between goal clarity during the early phase of the
Ha2a: A positive relationship does exist between goal clarity during the early phase
Figure 5 depicts the relationship between the project efficiency and goal clarity
and alignment scores. There was a statistically significant strong positive correlation
between project efficiency and goal clarity and alignment, r(110) = 0.70; p < .001.
Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected, and it was concluded there is a strong
positive correlation between project efficiency and goal clarity and alignment among
Research Question 2b: What, if any, relationship is there between goal clarity
during the early phase of the project life cycle, as measured by the PMEC, and project
H02b: No relationship exists between goal clarity during the early phase of the
Ha2b: A positive relationship does exist between goal clarity during the early
Figure 6 depicts the relationship between the impact on the customer and goal
clarity and alignment scores. There was a statistically significant strong positive
correlation between impact on the customer and goal clarity and alignment,
75
r(110) = 0.55; p < .001. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected, and it was concluded
there was a strong positive correlation between impact on the customer and goal clarity
and alignment among project managers who are members of the PMI-CCoP.
Research Question 2c: What, if any, relationship is there between goal clarity
during the early phase of the project life cycle, as measured by the PMEC, and project
H02: No relationship exists between goal clarity during the early phase of the
Ha2c: A positive relationship does exist between goal clarity during the early phase
Figure 7 depicts the relationship between the business success and goal clarity and
alignment scores. There was a statistically significant strong positive correlation between
76
business success and goal clarity and alignment, r(110) = 0.60; p < .001. Therefore, the
null hypothesis is rejected, and it was concluded there is a strong positive correlation
between business success and goal clarity and alignment among project managers who
Figure 7. Business and direct organizational success versus goal clarity and alignment.
Research Question 2d: What, if any, relationship is there between goal clarity the
early phase of the project life cycle, as measured by the PMEC, and project success, as
H02: No relationship exists between goal clarity during the early phase of the
Ha2d: A positive relationship does exist between goal clarity during the early
clarity and alignment scores. There was a statistically significant strong positive
correlation between preparation for the future and goal clarity and alignment, r(110) =
0.52; p < .001. Therefore, the null hypothesis was rejected, and it was concluded that
there was a strong positive correlation between preparation for the future and goal clarity
and alignment among project managers who are members of the PMI-CCoP.
Figure 8. Prepar0ing for the future versus goal clarity and alignment.
Conclusion
This chapter encapsulated the statistical findings based upon the data gathered
from the PMI-CCoP participants. The results showed statistically significant strong
positive correlations between both measures of project management effectiveness and all
four measures of project success. Therefore, this study provides strong evidence that
among project managers who are members of the PMI-CCoP, greater project
78
management effectiveness is correlated with greater project success. Included in chapter
Introduction
(schedule), be implemented within available resources (cost), and ultimately satisfy the
understand these challenges of ensuring that projects meet these four project
between project management effectiveness from the front-end phase of the project life
The specific problem addressed by this study was that it was not known whether
there is a relationship between the rational project decision making and goal clarity
aspects of project management effectiveness (i.e., the independent variable) and the
and preparation for the future aspects of project success (i.e., the dependent variable).
Without this information, the research community and organizational leaders may not
have all the information they need to maximize project success rates and reduce project
failures.
The target population of this quantitative study was comprised of the 549
registered project managers who are members of the PMI-CCoP who share the challenges
of delivering solutions in projects and who are at the forefront of implementing new
80
technology, practices, and policies within their organizations. The focus of this research
was to determine the correlation between project management effectiveness from the
The data were collected by inviting the 549 registered project managers of the
PMI-CCoP to complete the PMEC, the PSAQ, and the demographic questionnaires. The
PMEC addressed the project management effectiveness factors (i.e., the independent
variable), and the PSAQ focused on project success (i.e., the independent variable). A
total of 132 project managers attempted to complete the online survey. A total of 110
respondents answered all of the questions relating to the independent and dependent
variables. Thus, the final sample size for the study was 110. This chapter presents
recommendations for action and for further study; and conclusion drawn from the study.
The purpose of the first research question was to determine whether a relationship
effectiveness and: (a) the project efficiency aspects of project success, (b) the
customer/user aspects of project success, (c) the business and direct organizational
success aspects of project success, and (d) preparation for the future aspects of project
success.
81
The statistical findings reported in chapter 4 indicated a strong positive
correlation between project efficiency and rational project decision making, r(110) =
0.72; p < .001.Among the 110 study participants, those with higher rational project
decision-making scores tended to have higher project efficiency scores. Although this
finding does not prove a cause-and-effect relationship, the results are consistent with the
conclusion that improving project managers’ quality of rational decision making may
improve project efficiency. This finding is consistent with Drucker’s theory that effective
decision making is key to organizational success (Drucker, 1954, 1985; Taylor, 1998,
2007). The results also lend credence to other researchers’ findings that organizational
activities entrenched within the working processes ((Bastons, 2008; Campbell, 1977;
Yukl, 2008). The results also are consistent with Morrison and Brown’s (2004) claim that
when projects are not subjected to unrealistic deadlines and targets, the likelihood of
projects being completed on time and within or below budget tends to increase.
correlation between impact on the customer and rational project decision making, r(110)
= 0.51; p < .001. In other words, there is a direct relationship between effectiveness of
rational decision making and impact on the customer. This finding supports the theories
of Taylor (1998, 2007) and Drucker (1954, 1985) that the principal objective of
management should be to secure maximum prosperity for both internal and external
customers through effective management practices. The results are similar to those of
King and Burgess (2008), Shenhar et al. (2001), and Wearne (2008) that appreciating the
82
relevant roles and services that the stakeholders offer is essential to fulfilling the
customers’ needs, solving the customers’ problem, and understanding not only the extent
to which the customers are using the products but also overall customer satisfaction.
business success and rational project decision making, r(110) = 0.64; p < .001. The
implication of this finding is that increasing rational decision making may increase
business success. This finding is consistent with the theoretical views of Drucker (1954,
1985) and Taylor (1998, 2007) that organizations can personally direct personnel and
motivate the workforce through the mechanism of reward and punishment and achieve
economic business success performance. This finding also is consistent with assertions of
Morrison and Brown (2004) and Shenhar et al. (2001) that continually reviewing projects
to reevaluate their viability and potential success can lead to increases in profits, return
preparation for the future and rational project decision making, r(110) = 0.55; p < .001.
This finding supports the theoretical framework of Drucker (1954, 185) and Taylor
(1998, 2007) that strategic decisions regarding factors that contribute to the growth of the
strength for the best results, the right priorities, and linkage of all of the management
variables together with effective decision making are key to organizational success. This
finding also is consistent with the findings of other researchers that organizational
effectiveness, when integrated within the project phases, can contribute to future project
83
and development of better managerial capabilities (Morrison & Brown, 2004; Shenhar et
al., 2001).
The second research question for this study was designed to determine whether a
relationship exists between the goal clarity aspect of project management effectiveness
and (a) the project efficiency aspect of project success, (b) its impact on customer/user
aspect of project success, (c) the business and direct organizational success aspect of
project success, and (d) preparation for the future aspect of project success.
between project efficiency and goal clarity, r(110) = 0.70; p < .001. The implication of
this finding is that project managers who clearly define project goals from project
inception tend to complete their projects more efficiently. This finding is supported by
Taylor’s (1998) theoretical model that clearly defining task objectives is fundamental to
achieving success. In support of this finding, Panayides (2007) argued that organizations
that identify and clarify goals early enough and develop the means of achieving those
goals within work processes hold a strategic advantage in achieving higher task
efficiency.
This study found a strong positive correlation between impact on the customer
and goal clarity, r(110) = 0.55; p < .001. This finding shows that project managers with
higher goal clarity scores tended to have a higher impact on customer scores. This finding
implies that clarifying goals to all stakeholders at the initiation phase and ensuring that
project team members are fully committed to achieving the project objectives on time and
84
within budget can have a positive impact on customers and end users. This finding is
consistent with Taylor’s (1998) theoretical model that when the foundation of projects
rest upon clearly defined laws, rules, and principles that when effectively applied to and
inefficiencies and foster a strong relationship with customers. This finding also supports
the positions of Kerzner (2006a) and Shenhar et al. (2001) that effectiveness in project
management requires sound decision making, goal setting via prioritization, and effective
assessment of project success. The results of this hypothesis also are similar to the
findings of Morrison and Brown (2004) and Shenhar et al. (2001) that the goal clarity
The researcher found a strong positive correlation between business success and
goal clarity, r(110) = 0.60; p < .001. This statistical result clearly indicates that goal
Morrison and Brown (2004) and Shenhar et al.’s (2001) assertions, this finding suggests
that when project participants are committed to the achievement of project goals and
project team members takes ownership of project goals, the outcome can lead to business
results in the form of more return on investment, market share, and growth. The findings
also are similar to Sauser et al.’s (2009) findings that organizations can foster
relationships among all project stakeholders, reduce power struggles among key players
via goal clarification, enhance the rapid delivery of projects, and improve profitability.
85
The statistical findings reported in chapter 4 indicated a strong positive
correlation between preparation for the future and goal clarity, r(110) = 0.52; p < .001.
These findings are consistent with the theories of Drucker (1954, 1985) and Taylor
(1998, 2007) that stated the need to clearly define program goals, roles, and
responsibilities of each staff member, and manage activities through effective planning
and control systems. Finally, the results also support the claims of other researchers
(Campbell, 1977; Curtis, 2000; Locke & Latham, 2002; Zwikael & Unger-Aviram, 2010)
that when goals are clearly clarified from the onset, the project team members tend to
focus their attention and effort directly toward relevant activities rather than extraneous
activities that will not lead to success and that goal setting is an effective way of directing
interest, mobilizing effort, and enhancing the project team’s determination to achieve the
Projects that have failed in the past, as reported by researchers (e.g., Bagadia,
2009; Gelbard & Carmeli, 2009; Pan et al., 2008; Schachter, 2004), have had
From a positive social change perspective, this study produced findings that reinforce the
argument that project management effectiveness and project outcomes are directly related
to the overall organizational success. The social implication of these findings is that if
project managers can improve their rational project decision making and goal clarity, the
result may be more successful projects. If project success rates can be improved, the
success of the overall organization also should improve. Improved organizational success
86
can have a positive impact on the economy, and an improved economy can have a
management effectiveness and project success, some organizations may wish to integrate
these project management effectiveness practices into their daily management of projects
in an effort to increase project success rates. Improved project success can result in
etc.); commercial breakthroughs (increase in market share, a specific niche, etc.); and
and social conditions; and the public at large), with a resulting increase in stakeholder
satisfaction.
The results presented in chapter 4 provide strong evidence that strong positive
correlations exist between the rational project decision making and goal clarity aspects of
business and direct organizational success, and preparation for the future aspects of
project success. Based upon these findings, project management professionals may wish
to ensure that projects are not subjected to unrealistic deadlines and targets, personal
interests and political considerations do not dictate project decisions, and projects are
continually reviewed to reevaluate their viability and potential success. The findings
indicated the need for professionals in the field of project management to clearly define
87
project goals at the initiation phase by making them clear to all stakeholders and ensuring
that the project team members be fully committed to achieving the project objectives.
rational project decision making and goal clarity may result in greater project success. In
technology to project implementation has become the norm, organizations can develop
training strategies in the form of workshops and seminars to help project managers to be
more effective in their rational project decision making and goal clarity.
through the PMI website and local and international PMI journals. The results will be
published on the PMI-CCoP website and in monthly newsletters, particularly so that the
individuals who participated in this study can have firsthand access to the findings. This
study adds knowledge to the project management field and may stimulate project
phase of the project life cycle, that will reduce project failures. Finally, this research will
be published through the Walden University dissertation database so that current and
Employing a quantitative survey design was appropriate for this study, which
sought to examine the correlation between project management effectiveness and project
success and establish a statistical relationship between the factors of effectiveness and the
factors of success. One of the limitations of this research, however, was that correlation
88
research does not determine causation, and as a result cause and effect relationship could
not be established with this study. Therefore, further study is necessary to verify the
causes of the findings of this research. One way in which researchers could more firmly
project decision making and goal clarity skills. Then, project managers could be
randomized into two groups, with only one group receiving training. Then, the project
success rates of the two groups could be compared. If the group that received training
showed improvement in their rational project decision making, goal clarity, and project
success, the results would provide strong evidence that improvements in rational project
This study could be replicated using the same instruments (i.e., PSAQ and
PMEC) with different populations within the PMI. Replicating the study using the same
instruments (i.e., PSAQ and PMEC) is in accordance with Bailey’s (1994) claim that it is
often advisable to repeat the study to demonstrate that the findings were not an accident
or mere coincidence. Again, if the study is repeated exactly, especially with a different
sample, a second confirmation of the findings will lend further support to the findings.
Further studies that include more factors of project management effectiveness other than
the two factors used in this study might be considered to determine how they are related
to project outcomes.
89
Conclusion
The findings of this quantitative study supported the research hypotheses and
demonstrated that (a) a significant, positive relationship does exist between rational
decision making during the early phase of the project and project success, and (b) a
significant and positive relationship does exist between goal clarity during the early phase
of the project and project success. Although this study did not identify a cause-and-effect
relationship between project management effectiveness and project success, the findings
do imply that project success might be improved by improving project managers’ rational
project decision making and goal clarity. Organizational leaders could implement training
programs in an effort to improve the rational project decision making and goal clarity of
their project managers and observe whether their project success rate improves. If many
organizations can improve their project success rate through improvements in their
project managers’ rational project decision making and goal clarity, then the overall
economy also may improve. An improved economy would benefit society at large.
90
References
Adam, S. (2009). The four stages of effective team-building. Journal of Training &
910933273
Angelides, D. (1999). Project management and good technical and business practices.
Aramo-Immonen, H., & Vanharanta, H. (2009). Project management: The task of holistic
600. doi:10.1002/hfm.20185
Axson, D. (2007). Best practices in planning and performance measurement: From data
Bagadia, K. (2009). CMMM: 7 steps to success. Plant Engineering, 63(10), 55. Retrieved
Bailey, K. (1994). Methods of social science (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.
Barwise, P., & Meehan, S. (2010). Is your company as customer-focused as you think?
MIT Sloan Management Review, 5(3), 63-68. Retrieved from Business Source
Besner, C., & Hobbs, B. (2006). The perceived value and potential contribution of project
48.
Besner, C., & Hobbs, B. (2008). Project management practice, generic or contextual: A
Brausch, J. (2010). Setting the right goals. Journal of Strategic Finance, 91(9), 1-6.
Bredillet, C. (2010). Blowing hot and cold on project management. Project Management
Bruvold, N., & Comer, J. (2002). A model for estimating the response rate to a mailed
(88)90036-7
j.ijproman.2007.12.001
Buunk, A., & Gibbons F. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the
Jossey-Bass.
93
Caughron, J. J., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Project planning: The effects of using formal
Chang, L., & Krosnick, J. (2010). Comparing oral interviewing with self-administered
154-167. doi:10.1093/poq/nfp090
Chen, C. C., Law, C. H., & Yang, S. C. (2009). Managing ERP implementation failure: A
Cicmil, S., & Hodgson, D. (2006). New possibilities for project management theory: A
145. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00031-3
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Cooper, C., & Taylor, P. (2000). From Taylorism to Ms Taylor: The transformation of
doi:10.1016/S0361-3682(99)00052-5
Dai, C. X., & Wells, W. G. (2004). An exploration of project management office features
Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (2000) Working knowledge: How organizations manage
Dhillon, G., & Caldeira, M. (2008). A bumpy road to success (or not): The case of project
Drucker, P. (1954). The practices of management. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
HarperCollins.
Dvir, D. (2005). Transferring projects to their final users: The effect of planning and
Elmes, M., & Wilemon, D. (1988). Organizational culture and project leader
Eschenbach, S. (2010). From inspired teaching to effective knowledge work and back
again: A report on Peter Drucker's schoolmistress and what she can teach us about
Fey, C. F., & Denison, D. R. (2003). Organizational culture and effectiveness: Can
751)
Finch, C. (2009). Keys to effective personnel management. Ceramic Industry, 159(8), 34-
Business.
Gelbard, R. & Carmeli, A. (2009). The interactive effect of team dynamics and
Gido, J., & Clements, J. (2006). Successful project management. Mason, OH: Thomson
South-Western.
96
Golfashani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research.
Gregory, B., Harris, S., Armenakis, A., & Shook, C. (2009). Organizational culture and
Griffith, A. F., Gibson, G. E., Hamilton, M. R., Tortora, A. L., & Wilson, C. T. (1999).
(39)
Hansson, S. (2007), Social decisions about risk and risk-taking. Social Choice and
Hedeman, B., Heemst, G., & Fredriksz, H. (2005). Best practice: Project management
Heffner, M., & Sharif, N (2008). Knowledge fusion for technological innovation in
673270810859532
Helm, J., & Remington, K. (2005). Effective project sponsorship: An evaluation of the
doi:10.1016/S.0149-2063(01)00109-X
jproman.2010.02.008
Hughes, S. W., Tippett, D, D., & Thomas, W. K. (2004). Measuring project success in
Hutka, T. (2009, June). 21 tips for successful capital projects. Public Management
Journal, 91(5), 14. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global database (Document ID:
1735285331)
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.09.001
16/j.ijinfomgt.2005.10.006
Johnson, B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm
whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. Retrieved from
Jordan, G. B., Streit, D. L., & Binkley, S. J. (2003). Assessing and improving the
Katzenbach, J. R., & Smith, D. K. (1993). The discipline of teams. Harvard Business
Review, 71(2), 111-120. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database. (AN
17602399)
Khang, D. B., & Moe, T. L. (2008). Success criteria and factors for international
421-431. doi:10.106/j.indmarman.2007.02.005
Klein, G. (2003). The power of intuition: how to use your gut feelings to make better
Kline, J. (2008). Managing people and processes. Armed Force Comptroller, 53(1), 26-
Kloppenborg, T. J., Tesch, D., Manolis, C., & Heitkamp, M. (2006). An empirical
Kozak, R., Beerbower, J., & Plummer, S. (2003). Management systems workshop: Power
tools for EHS professionals. Journal of Safety and Compliance Services, 3(1),
645.
Kraft, K., Jauch, L., & Boatwright, E. (1996). Assessing organizational effectiveness in
LaBrosse, M. (2007). Project management: Best practices for the public sector. Journals
40810881180
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting
1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
Martinsuo, M., Hensman, N., Artto, K., Kujala, J., & Jaafari, A. (2006). Project-based
Management Association.
98-110.
html
Nonaka, I., & Takeuchi, H. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese
companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
O’Dell, C., Grayson, J., & Essaides, N. (1998). If only we knew what we know. New
Pan, G., Hackney, R., & Pan, S. (2008). Information systems implementation failure:
259-269. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.07.001
03.11.002
Perkins, B. (2007). 12 things you know about projects but choose to ignore. Computer
World, 41(11), 34. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database. (AN
24388939)
CA: McGraw-Hill.
2007.893984
103
Pinto, J. K. (2007). Project management logic puzzles. IEEE Transactions on
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:9(949)
Qureshi, T., Warraich, A., & Hijazi, S. (2009). Significance of project management
Reed, D. (2008). The road map to best practices requires a change of culture. Plant
Reich, B., Gemino, A., & Sauer, C. (2008). Modeling the knowledge perspective of IT
91)
104
Rowe, G., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. (2006). A comparison of responses to internet
Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. Hoboken, NJ:
Sanchez, H., Robert, B., Bourgault, M., & Pellerin, R. (2009). Risk management applied
Sauser, B., Reilly, R., & Shenhar, A. (2009). Why projects fail? How contingency theory
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.01.004
8(12), 10-12. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database. (AN 154519
06)
(AN 4553502)
Scott-Young, C., & Samson, D. (2008). Project success and project team management:
Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., & Maltz, A. (2001). Project success: A
doi:10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00097-8
Shenhar, A. J., Milosevic, D., Dvir, D., & Thamhain, H. (2007). Linking project
Singleton, R., & Straits, B. (2005). Approaches to social research. New York, NY:
Smither, J., Walker, A., & Yap, M. (2004). An examination of the equivalence of Web-
7/0013164403258429
Spender, J. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm.
Starns, J., & Odom, C. (2006). Using knowledge management principles to solve
610682997
IX(X), 18.
106
Sue, R. (2005). Setting up a project management office. Information Week, 10(58), 86-
Tatum, C., & Eberlin, R. (2007). Leadership, ethics, and justice in strategic decision
358
Taylor, F. (1998). The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Dover.
Taylor, F. (2007). Shop management. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.
roman.2008.06.003
(AN 9704042965)
71- 87. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database. (AN 4282628)
Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Angert, L. (2007). Goal setting theory, job feedback, and OCB:
doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2004.09.002
Virine, L., & Trumper, M. (2008)). Project decisions: The art and science. Vienna, VA:
Management Concepts.
40310494368
741011041300
7720510625403
Watson, P. (2009). A methodology for attaining and assessing project success for
57/jba.2008.36
Waxman, R. (2005). How to make or break your project. Security Technology & Design,
15(7), 54-55.
doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.02.002
108
Welch, D. (2002). Decisions, decisions: The art of effective decision making. New York,
NY: Prometheus.
Westerman, G., McFarlan, W., & Iansiti, M. (2006). Organization design and
Willis, G., Guinote, A., & Bailon, R. (2010). Illegitimacy improves goal pursuit in
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.009
doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2008.03.019
Young, R., & Jordan, E. (2008). Top management support: Mantra or necessity?
roman.2008.06.001
Young, R., Brady, S., & Nagle, D., Jr. (2010). How to save a failing project: Chaos or
428-436. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.01.008
Zheng, W., Yang, B., & McLean, G (2010). Linking organizational culture, structure,
res.2009.06.005
Zand, D. (2010). Drucker’s strategic thinking process: Three key techniques. Strategy &
Zwikael, O., & Unger-Aviram, E. (2010). HRM in project groups: The effect of project
Please respond to each of the following statements about your project. Indicate
the degree to which you agree or disagree with the statements by marking one response
Table A1
Please evaluate each of the following 12 statements and indicate to what extent
you agree or disagree that the statement is a true reflection of the situation in your
Table B1
This category assesses the degree to which project targets are based upon proper
analytical and homework, and project goals are realistically set. The project decision
rationale should be the pursuit of organizational interests and not the pursuit of personal
5 Care is taken to
ensure that there is
market or end-user
support for the
proposed project
6 Projects are not
subject to
unrealistic
deadlines and
targets
7 Project priorities
do not change too
frequently
Table B2
This category judges the extent to which project goals are clearly defined up front,
are articulated to the participants, and generally attain the commitment of the participants.
Table D1
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Yes 100 90.9 91.7 91.7
No 9 8.2 8.3 100.0
Total 109 99.1 100.0
Missing System 1 .9
Total 110 100.0
Table D2
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid 31-40 44 40.0 40.0 40.0
41-50 44 40.0 40.0 80.0
50 and above 22 20.0 20.0 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
Table D3
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid High school or equivalent 1 .9 .9 .9
Associate or technical degree 4 3.6 3.7 4.7
Bachelor’s degree 47 42.7 43.9 48.6
Master’s degree 48 43.6 44.9 93.5
Doctoral degree 7 6.4 6.5 100.0
Total 107 97.3 100.0
Missing System 3 2.7
Total 110 100.0
116
Table D4
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Construction 21 19.1 19.3 19.3
Finance and banking 16 14.5 14.7 33.9
Information technology 41 37.3 37.6 71.6
Manufacturing 8 7.3 7.3 78.9
Pharmaceutical 9 8.2 8.3 87.2
Retail and wholesale 3 2.7 2.8 89.9
Other 11 10.0 10.1 100.0
Total 109 99.1 100.0
Missing System 1 .9
Total 110 100.0
Table D5
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid 37 33.6 33.9 33.9
< 5 years
Between 5 and 10 years 24 21.8 22.0 56.0
11-15 years 29 26.4 26.6 82.6
16-20 years 12 10.9 11.0 93.6
> 20 years 7 6.4 6.4 100.0
Total 109 99.1 100.0
Missing System 1 .9
Total 110 100.0
117
Appendix E: Frequency Tables for Project Management Effectiveness and Project
Success Survey Questions
Table E1
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Strongly disagree 3 2.7 2.7 2.7
Disagree 10 9.1 9.1 11.8
Agree 46 41.8 41.8 53.6
Strongly agree 51 46.4 46.4 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
Table E2
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Strongly disagree 1 .9 .9 .9
Disagree 15 13.6 13.6 14.5
Agree 43 39.1 39.1 53.6
Strongly agree 51 46.4 46.4 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
Table E3
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Disagree 3 2.7 2.7 2.7
Agree 50 45.5 45.5 48.2
Strongly agree 57 51.8 51.8 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
118
Table E4
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Disagree 2 1.8 1.8 1.8
Agree 47 42.7 42.7 44.5
Strongly agree 61 55.5 55.5 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
Table E5
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Disagree 1 .9 .9 .9
Agree 49 44.5 44.5 45.5
Strongly agree 60 54.5 54.5 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
Table E6
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Strongly disagree 1 .9 .9 .9
Disagree 7 6.4 6.4 7.3
Agree 46 41.8 41.8 49.1
Strongly agree 56 50.9 50.9 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
Table E7
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Disagree 6 5.5 5.5 5.5
Agree 50 45.5 45.5 50.9
Strongly agree 54 49.1 49.1 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
119
Table E8
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Strongly disagree 2 1.8 1.8 1.8
Disagree 10 9.1 9.1 10.9
Agree 47 42.7 42.7 53.6
Strongly agree 51 46.4 46.4 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
Table E9
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Strongly disagree 1 .9 .9 .9
Disagree 4 3.6 3.6 4.5
Agree 46 41.8 41.8 46.4
Strongly agree 59 53.6 53.6 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
Table E10
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Strongly disagree 1 .9 .9 .9
Disagree 6 5.5 5.5 6.4
Agree 49 44.5 44.5 50.9
Strongly agree 54 49.1 49.1 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
120
Table E11
Frequency Table: Project Estimates and Planning Are as far as Possible Done on
Factual and Reliable Information
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Strongly disagree 1 .9 .9 .9
Disagree 3 2.7 2.7 3.6
Somewhat disagree 4 3.6 3.6 7.3
Neutral 4 3.6 3.6 10.9
Somewhat agree 10 9.1 9.1 20.0
Agree 42 38.2 38.2 58.2
Strongly agree 46 41.8 41.8 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
Table E12
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Strongly disagree 3 2.7 2.7 2.7
Disagree 3 2.7 2.7 5.5
Somewhat disagree 3 2.7 2.7 8.2
Neutral 3 2.7 2.7 10.9
Somewhat agree 5 4.5 4.5 15.5
Agree 46 41.8 41.8 57.3
Strongly agree 47 42.7 42.7 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
Table E13
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Disagree 2 1.8 1.8 1.8
Somewhat disagree 4 3.6 3.6 5.5
Neutral 8 7.3 7.3 12.7
Somewhat agree 9 8.2 8.2 20.9
Agree 42 38.2 38.2 59.1
Strongly agree 45 40.9 40.9 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
121
Table E14
Frequency Table: Projects Are Continually Reviewed to Reevaluate Their Viability and
Potential Success
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Strongly disagree 2 1.8 1.8 1.8
Disagree 3 2.7 2.7 4.5
Somewhat disagree 4 3.6 3.6 8.2
Neutral 2 1.8 1.8 10.0
Somewhat agree 10 9.1 9.1 19.1
Agree 43 39.1 39.1 58.2
Strongly agree 46 41.8 41.8 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
Table E15
Frequency Table: Care Is Taken To Ensure That There Is Market or End-User Support
for Proposed Project
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Strongly disagree 1 .9 .9 .9
Somewhat disagree 1 .9 .9 1.8
Neutral 4 3.6 3.6 5.5
Somewhat agree 4 3.6 3.6 9.1
Agree 48 43.6 43.6 52.7
Strongly agree 52 47.3 47.3 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
Table E16
Frequency Table: Projects Are Not Subject to Unrealistic Deadlines and Targets
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Strongly disagree 6 5.5 5.5 5.5
Disagree 9 8.2 8.2 13.6
Somewhat disagree 6 5.5 5.5 19.1
Neutral 2 1.8 1.8 20.9
Somewhat agree 6 5.5 5.5 26.4
Agree 39 35.5 35.5 61.8
Strongly agree 42 38.2 38.2 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
122
Table E17
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Strongly disagree 4 3.6 3.6 3.6
Disagree 5 4.5 4.5 8.2
Somewhat disagree 11 10.0 10.0 18.2
Neutral 2 1.8 1.8 20.0
Somewhat agree 5 4.5 4.5 24.5
Agree 40 36.4 36.4 60.9
Strongly agree 43 39.1 39.1 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
Table E18
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Strongly disagree 2 1.8 1.8 1.8
Disagree 3 2.7 2.7 4.5
Somewhat disagree 3 2.7 2.7 7.3
Neutral 5 4.5 4.5 11.8
Somewhat agree 11 10.0 10.0 21.8
Agree 37 33.6 33.6 55.5
Strongly agree 49 44.5 44.5 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
Table E19
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Strongly disagree 2 1.8 1.8 1.8
Disagree 3 2.7 2.7 4.5
Somewhat disagree 7 6.4 6.4 10.9
Neutral 2 1.8 1.8 12.7
Somewhat agree 6 5.5 5.5 18.2
Agree 40 36.4 36.4 54.5
Strongly agree 50 45.5 45.5 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
123
Table E20
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Strongly disagree 1 .9 .9 .9
Disagree 1 .9 .9 1.8
Somewhat disagree 3 2.7 2.7 4.5
Neutral 4 3.6 3.6 8.2
Somewhat agree 10 9.1 9.1 17.3
Agree 45 40.9 40.9 58.2
Strongly agree 46 41.8 41.8 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
Table E21
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Strongly disagree 1 .9 .9 .9
Disagree 2 1.8 1.8 2.7
Somewhat disagree 3 2.7 2.7 5.5
Neutral 4 3.6 3.6 9.1
Somewhat agree 15 13.6 13.6 22.7
Agree 39 35.5 35.5 58.2
Strongly agree 46 41.8 41.8 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
Table E22
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid percent percent
Valid Strongly disagree 3 2.7 2.7 2.7
Disagree 4 3.6 3.6 6.4
Somewhat disagree 3 2.7 2.7 9.1
Neutral 2 1.8 1.8 10.9
Somewhat agree 12 10.9 10.9 21.8
Agree 40 36.4 36.4 58.2
Strongly agree 46 41.8 41.8 100.0
Total 110 100.0 100.0
124
Appendix F: Descriptive Statistics for Independent and Dependent Variables
Table F1
N
Valid Missing M SD Minimum Maximum
Rational project decision 110 0 5.9195 1.17859 1.43 7.00
making
Goal clarity and alignment 110 0 5.9909 1.23061 1.00 7.00
Project efficiency 110 0 3.3136 .71632 1.00 4.00
Impact on the customer 110 0 3.5212 .49980 2.33 4.00
Business success 110 0 3.4000 .61048 2.00 4.00
Preparation for the future 110 0 3.4500 .57049 2.00 4.00
125
Appendix G: Cronbach’s Alpha for Independent and Dependent Variables
Table G1
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
EDUCATION
Minneapolis, MN
ADDITIONAL TRAINING