Project management in small to mediumsized enterprises

tailoring the practices to the size of the company

CONFERENCE PAPER Methodology , Business Analysis 2010

By Turner, J. Rodney | Ledwith, Ann. | Kelly, John F.

How to cite this article:

Turner, J. R., Ledwith, A., & Kelly, J. F. (2010). Project management in small to mediumsized enterprises: tailoring the practices to the size of the
company. Paper presented at PMI Research Conference: Dening the Future of Project Management, Washington, DC. Newtown Square,
PA: Project Management Institute.

Abstract
Small to medium enterprises (SMEs) make a key contribution to the economy in terms of employment, innovation, and growth. In the European
Union, they generate 60% of GDP, provide 70% of employment, and 25% of their turnover comes from new products. Project management
plays a signicant role in facilitating this contribution. Projects represent about one third of the turnover of SMEs, about 20% of total economic
activity. However, in small and micro companies (companies with less than 50 and 15 employees, respectively) projects account for more than
40% of turnover, and microsized companies includes almost all rms in the rst ve years of their lives. At a critical stage of its development,
projects represent a signicant proportion of a company's activity. We propose that SMEs need less bureaucratic, more peoplefocused forms of
project management than traditional forms used by larger organizations. Smaller companies are less likely to employ dedicated project
managers, so in SMEs, particularly microsized companies, projects will be managed by people for whom project management is not their main
skill. At a critical stage of their development, companies undertake a signicant number of projects managed by amateurs. Thus, it is critical they
are provided with project management approaches that are quick to learn and simple to use, but provide for the effective management of
projects. We have undertaken this research to identify to what extent SMEs use project management both in their mainline business and to
manage innovation and growth, what are the barriers to the adoption of project management, and what are the key components of project
management used. Our ultimate aim is to develop a lite version of project management for SMEs. In this paper, we report the results of a web
based questionnaire. We found that SMEs do need to use project management to deliver products and services to customers and to manage their
innovation and growth, and usually the form of project management needs to be much simpler than the methods readily available. A simplied
version should have requirements denition at its core, and then methods for dening the work required, managing the time over which it should
be done, and the cost and resources used. Peoplefocused methods that seek team member commitment are preferred.

Key words: Size of company, size of project, project management procedures

Introduction
Small to medium enterprises (SMEs), make a signicant contribution to economic activity, including development and growth (Hallberg, 1999;
Floyd & McManus, 2005). In the European Union, SMEs account for 99.8% of companies, generate 60% of GDP and employ 70% of private
sector workers (European Commission, 2005, 2008). SMEs undertake projects both in operations, to deliver tailored or bespoke products to
customers, and in innovation and growth. In Ireland, 25% of the turnover of SMEs is accounted for by new and improved products and to achieve
this development, SMEs spend three percent of their turnover on innovation (Ledwith, 2004). Thus, it is important to future economic growth
that this money is spent in an efcient and effective way, so that SMEs can achieve their development objectives. Turner, Ledwith, and Kelly
(2009a) showed that projects account on average for one third of the turnover of SMEs, and thus projects in SMEs account for almost one fth
of the economy. This is more than is spent on large infrastructure projects in the Western economies (Anbari, Bredillet, & Turner, 2009; World
Bank, 2007), and yet large infrastructure projects received far more attention (Hartog, Baker, StallOng, & Westerweld, 2008). Global GDP is
US$50 trillion (World Bank, 2007), and so if we extrapolate these gures to the global economy, US$10 trillion is spent on projects in SMEs
annually. A 10% improvement in performance through reduced costs, shorter duration, or improved functionality of the projects outputs would
save US$1 trillion, the amount of money made available by the G20 nations at their meeting of April 2009 to save the global economy. We
should not doubt the importance of projects in SMEs to the global economy, yet the management community in general and the project
management community in particular does little to provide SMEs with guidance on managing their projects. In our sample, only one company
younger than six years old was not microsized (fewer than 15 people), and projects in microsized companies are mainly managed by people for
whom project management is not their main skill. Thus at a critical stage of their development, young companies are undertaking a signicant
number of projects managed by amateurs, and receiving no guidance from the general management and project management communities.

We propose that the nature of project management required by SMEs is different from the traditional forms of project management developed
for larger projects (Ofce of Government Commerce, 2005; International Project Management Association, 2006; Bresner & Hobbs, 2006;
Project Management Institute [PMI], 2008). SMEs require simpler, more peoplefocused forms of project management (Turner, Ledwith, & Kelly,
2009b). Bresner and Hobbs showed that in larger organizations, the preferred project management tools are more procedural and systems
oriented, and that peoplefocused tools, such as team building, are well down the rankings. Thus traditional project management tools do not
meet the needs of SMEs. We have undertaken this research to identify the project management requirements of SMEs in managing both their
operational work in providing bespoke or tailored products and services for clients, and their innovation and growth. We aim to answer the
following questions:

1. To what extent do SMEs use project management both in their operations and to manage innovation and growth?
2. Are there any differences between the nature of project management used by SMEs in different sizes of company, different industries, and
different countries?

3. What are the barriers to the adoption of project management by SMEs?

4. What is the nature of the forms of project management required by SMEs and what are their key components?

In this paper, we review what has previously been written about the nature of project management in SMEs. We then describe our research
methodology and explain our results.

Project Management in SMEs

To date, very little has been written about project management in SMEs (Turner et al, 2009a, 2009b).

The Nature of SMEs

Several different denitions of SMEs have been proposed (McAdam & Reid, 2005). The European Commission (2005, 2008) dened medium,
small, and micro enterprises as follows:

Medium: with fewer than 250 employees and, and turnover of less than 50 million;

Small: with fewer than 50 employees, and turnover of less than 10 million; and
Micro: with fewer than 10 employees, and turnover of less than 2 million.

Of course, these ranges do not exactly correspond. Turner et al. (2009b) found that the norm for turnover per employee in their sample was
about 150,000, although it ranged from about 30,000 to about 600,000 per employee. They also found that the transition from micro to
small companies occurred not at 10 employees, but somewhere between 15 and 20 employees. The cause of the transition was the move from
one to two business units, and so the founding entrepreneur was supported by one or more other directors (Table 1). In their sample, one
company had 16 people and had the nature of a small company, and one had 18 and had the nature of a microcompany, and so the transition
was not precise. However, there was a very clear transition from small to medium companies at 50 employees, and indeed this was something of
a crisis of growth. Several of their sample companies had approached 50 people, only to pull back. The transition that occurs at 50 people is
caused by the need for people to begin to specialize, and the increasing number of staff requiring the creation of middle managers. There is also
the need for the adoption of more formal processes to manage the larger numbers of specialist staff. There are more interfaces between the
specialist staff and so people must adhere to the formal processes to coordinate their work.

Table 1. Features of Different Size of Company (Turner et al., 2009b)

Size of Company Number of Employees Number of Management Nature of Work Nature of

Business Units Structure Procedures

Micro Less than 15 to 20 One Founding Multitasking People focused

entrepreneur

Small Less than 50 Several Several directors Multitasking People focused

Medium More than 50 Several Middle managers Specialists Formal

Ghobadian and Gallear (1997) described differences between SMEs and larger organizations. In particular, they identied the following:

Processes: SMEs require simple planning and control systems, and informal reporting;
Procedures: SMEs have a low degree of standardization, with idealistic decision making;

Structure: SMEs have a low degree of specialization, with multitasking, but a high degree of innovativeness; and
People: Because of the high consequence of failure, people prefer tested techniques.

The rst two of these suggest that SMEs require less bureaucratic methods of management, with greater exibility. The second two imply a
strong focus on people.

Project Management
The methodologies and components of project management are well documented (Ofce of Government Commerce, 2005; International
Project Management Association, 2006; Turner, 2007; Project Management Institute, 2008; Turner, 2009). Bresner and Hobbs (2006) assessed
the value of project management tools and determined the extent to which different tools were used in traditional project management
contexts. They identied a strong systems focus, and tools associated with team building were used less frequently than mathematically based
planning and control tools. Thus traditional project management, which is very Taylorian in its approach, fails SMEs as described by Ghobadian
and Gallear (1997) on two counts, both because it is too bureaucratic and because it fails to treat people as social animals. This leads to our rst
proposition:
Proposition 1: Smaller companies require less bureaucratic, more peoplefocused forms of project management than those traditionally
available.

Turner et al. (2009b) showed that what causes the transition from small to mediumsized companies with around 50 employees is that medium
sized companies are more likely to employ specialist staff, whereas employees in micro and small companies are more likely to multitask, being
more able to full several roles on a project (Table 1). Thus, mediumsized companies require more formalistic management practices to
coordinate the input of specialists to projects, whereas the practices required by microsized and small companies will be more exible and
peoplefocused, facilitating a more laissezfaire management style (Turner, 2009). This leads to our second proposition:

Proposition 2: Microsized and small companies will need simpler and less formalistic project management practices, which we will call a micro
lite version, when compared to the practices required by medium sized companies, which we call a lite version. In small and microsized
companies procedures should facilitate multitasking and engage project team members in the development of plans, whereas in mediumsized
companies they must be designed more to coordinate the input of specialists.

In a later meeting, a project manager from the one large company interviewed by Turner et al. (2009b) told us that in their company the use of
specialists on small projects does not work. It is very difcult to get 10 specialists to make a 10% commitment to a small project. It is far more
effective to have one generalist working on the project. Thus even in mediumsized and large companies it may be necessary to adopt the micro
lite version of project management on the smallest of projects to facilitate multitasking by a small team of generalists.

Projects in SMEs
Turner et al. (2009a) show that on average smaller companies undertake smaller projects. In their sample, the median size of a project for micro
companies was less than three months, for small companies was three to six months, and for mediumsized companies was six to nine months.
Similarly, larger companies had larger project team sizes. There are exceptions. In their sample, eight percent of microsized companies did
projects lasting more than 12 months and four percent had teams of over 30 people (clearly with client or contractor personnel). However, on
average, they do smaller projects. Turner et al. (2009b) reported that one of their sample, a company providing project management consulting
services, have a model for the level of project management functionality required by companies depending on several parameters, which are
correlated to the size of company and size of project. Thus, the very small number of smaller companies undertaking large projects will require
more traditional forms of project management functionality, but the majority ones will require lighter versions of project management. Payne
and Turner (1999) demonstrated quite conclusively that better results are obtained for projects if the procedures are tailored to the size of
project. Thus, these traditional approaches to project management will not meet the needs of SMEs. This leads to our third proposition:

Proposition 3: The simpler, less bureaucratic project management practices required by SMEs will have a reduced range of core project
management functionality when compared to forms that are more traditional.

Project Management in SMEs

Ledwith (2004) and Murphy and Ledwith (2007) conducted an initial investigation into project management practices in SMEs in hightech and
service industries in Ireland. They suggested that SMEs should follow a structured process for selecting their project management practices by
identifying:

Their strategic objectives,

appropriate success criteria and key performance indicators for their projects,

appropriate success factors, and

appropriate project management tools and techniques, which meet the criteria outlined previously.

Turner et al. (2009b) identied the main barrier to the adoption of project management within SMEs was lack of support or even resistance from
the founding entrepreneur. This usually happened because he or she knew little about project management and the advantages it could bring. In
companies where the founding entrepreneur shows no interest, project managers may or may not use project management practices depending
on their own commitment. However, project managers are more likely to use project management practices to manage projects for external
clients than to manage internal development projects. Companies are more likely to adopt project management if the founding entrepreneur or
CEO sees the benet of its use, and the practices are simple to adopt and apply. In microsized and small companies, project team members
want to be engaged in the development of project plans to gain their commitment to the plans. This leads to our fourth proposition:

Proposition 4: Project management practices applied in SMEs should be easy to learn and simple to apply, and clearly demonstrate benet from
their use.

Methodology
Through this research, we aim to answer the following research questions:

1. To what extent do SMEs use project management both in their operations and to manage innovation and growth?

2. Are there any differences between the nature of project management used by SMEs in different sizes of company, different industries, and
different countries?

3. What are the barriers to the adoption of project management by SMEs?

4. What is the nature of the forms of project management required by SMEs and what are their key components?

To answer these questions we conducted a webbased questionnaire with four parts.

Part 1The Nature of the Company

The rst part asked questions about the company. To determine the size of company, we asked about the number of employees and the
turnover. We mainly use the number of employees to determine the size, and place the transition from micro to small at 15 employees, as
suggested by Turner et al. (2009b), and from small to medium at 50 as suggested by the European Commission (2005, 2008). However, we
found quite close conformity in the size as determined by number of employees and the size as determined by turnover. We asked how old the
company is and what industry they operate in. Based on the ndings of Turner et al. (2009b) for industry we offered the following options:

Construction,

manufacturing and process,

information computers and telecommunications, ICT,

food and pharmaceuticals, and

services, consulting, and nance.

We also asked the role of the respondent within the company to see if there were any differences due to the perspective of the respondent.

Part 2The Nature of Projects Within the Company

The second set of questions related to the nature of projects within the company. We asked approximately how much of their turnover is spent
on projects and the type of projects they do. The options for type of project were:

Research,
product development,

other internal such as computer systems,

bespoke products for external customers,

tailored products for external customers, and

other external projects.

We differentiated between bespoke and tailored products by saying that bespoke products were a completely new design whereas tailored
products are an existing design adapted to the requirements of this customer. We asked about the duration of the company's projects, the size of
project teams, and whether the company employs dedicated project managers.

Part 3The Use of Project Management

We asked to what extent the company uses project management. For both internal and external projects, separately we asked whether project
management is used, what support is provided by the CEO, and what the attitude of project team members is. Where project management is
used, we asked whether:

People resist its use,

people use their own methods, and

there is a formal policy for its use.

With the support of the CEO, we asked whether the CEO:

Knows little about it,

discourages its use,

provides no support,
provides support if people want to use it,

actively encourages its use, and

insists on it.

For the attitudes of people, we asked whether they:

Know little about it,

actively avoid using it,

show little interest,

use it if required to do so,

actively want to use it, and

a required to do so by company policy.

Part 4Project Management Practices Used

In the fourth part, we asked what practices the companies use and what tools and techniques. Based on the work of Turner et al. (2009b) and
Bresner and Hobbs (2006), we suggested several project management practices and asked whether the respondent thought they are:

Essential,

useful, and
 excessively bureaucratic.

We also asked whether they used the following tools:

Tracked bar charts,

milestone tracker diagrams,

earned value method, and

software support.

We also asked what sort of software support they used.

Distribution
We used a snowball approach to distribute the questionnaire. It was sent to professional associations in Ireland, the United Kingdom, and
Australia, including the Association for Project Management, the Project Management Institute, and the Australian Institute of Project
Management, who distributed it to their members. We also sent the questionnaire to master's degrees students and people attending other
courses and events at Limerick University. Copies were sent to the Chambers of Commerce in Ireland, and we distributed the questionnaire to
business contacts in Europe and the Far East. Copies were also sent to all the people interviewed by Turner et al. (2009b). To date, we have
received 87 responses: 46 from Ireland, 22 from Britain, 6 from the rest of Europe, 11 from Australia, and 2 from the Far East.

Results
Nature of Company
Table 2 shows the companies responding by country, size, and industry. Only one of the companies is less than six years old and is not a micro
sized company (based on the number of employees). This company is Australian. Thus, we concluded that (usually) it takes at least ve years for
companies to grow from initial start up to at least 15 people. All the respondents from the manufacturing industry are from Ireland. The largest
number of companies is from the services industry, 39% of the total.

Table 2. Companies Responding

Country No Micro Small Med Large Cons M&P ICT F&Ph Serv

Ireland 46 15 3 13 18 6 17 8 5 10

Britain 22 10 2 4 6 7 0 8 2 10

Europe 6 4 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 5

Australia 11 2 0 1 2 6

Far East 2 1 1

Nature of Projects
Table 3 shows the percentage of turnover spent on projects by country, industry, size of company, and age of company. The gures for Ireland are
similar to those obtained by Turner et al. (2009a), which were for Ireland only. The British do the most projects, followed by the Irish and other
Europeans. The Australians and companies from the Far East do the least. Turner et al. (2009a) gathered their data in Ireland, and so the gure
for Ireland conrms their result. Unsurprisingly, the construction industry has the highest proportion of projects, followed by the ICT industry.
The rest are close to the onethird observed by Turner et al. (2009a). Smaller companies have a higher proportion of projects than the larger
companies. Thus, in their rst ve years while growing, projects make a more signicant contribution to the business. The gures by age of
company conrm this. In the rst two years of their lives, more than 60% of companies are spending more than 60% of their turnover on
projects. Old, more mature companies are doing fewer projects. In fact, the last row of Table 3 suggests that it is the age of the company that
primarily determines the extent to which it uses project management. The size of company is a secondary affect because younger companies
tend to be smaller.

Table 4 shows the size of project, based on duration and team size by size of company, industry, and country. It also shows the percentage of
companies employing dedicated project managers. As expected, smaller companies have smaller projects, and in fact, unlike Turner et al.
(2009a), none of the microsized or small companies have teams with more than 10 people. In addition, as expected, construction has the largest
projects in terms of both team size and duration. Manufacturing comes next in terms of duration and ICT in terms of team size. Projects in
Ireland have larger team sizes than all the other countries.

Table 3. Percentage of Turnover Spent on Projects

Type of % Turnover Spent on Projects Average

Company
0%20% 20%60% 60%100% % Turnover
 Geography

Ireland 0.44 0.39 0.18 35%

0.26 0.26 0.47 49%

Britain
0.67 0.22 0.33 37%
Europe
0.78 0.50 14%
Australia 0.50 20%

Far East

Industry

Construction 0.33 0.57 0.67 63%

0.38 0.06 0.06 29%

Manufacturing
0.39 0.25 0.55 49%
ICT
0.50 0.45 0.26 33%
Food & 0.52 0.17 31%
Pharma

Services

Size

Micro 0.48 0.24 0.28 40%

0.38 0.13 0.49 48%

Small
0.39 0.45 0.22 31%
Medium
0.50 0.34 0.16 31%
Large

Age

Less than 2 yrs 0.25 0.13 0.62 35%

0.39 0..23 0..38 49%

3 to 5 yrs
0.33 0.33 0.34 37%
5 to 10 yrs
0.43 0.37 0.20 14%
More than 10
yrs

Table 4. Percentage of Turnover Spent on Projects

Only half of microsized companies employ dedicated project managers, so at this critical early stage of their development they use amateur
project managers even though 40% of their turnover is projectbased. In fact, if we look by age, we nd it is the age of the company that
primarily determines whether they use dedicated project managers. For companies one to two years old, only 29% use dedicated project
managers; for companies 3 to 10 years old it is 65%, and companies more than 10 years old 71%. All construction companies employ dedicated
project managers and the services industry the fewest. There is little difference by country.

Looking at the size of a company, 50% of micro companies use dedicated project managers, 88% of small companies, falling to 58% of medium
sized companies and rising again to 88% of large companies. Thus, there seems to be a loss of project management maturity as companies make
the transition to mediumsized. This is conrmed by our results for the extent to which project management is used. The only case in which
project managers resist the use of project management is in mediumsized companies for internal projects. In addition, the number of companies
using project management for external projects as company policy is for micro companies 3%, small companies 25%, mediumsized companies
15%, and large companies 34%, again showing the loss of maturity in mediumsized companies.

Use of Project Management

There is very little difference between companies in the use of project management for external projects. Eighty percent to 90% either actively
encourage project manager to use project management or have a company policy that it should be used. The remaining 10% to 20% are not
doing external projects. The CEO never actively discourages the use of project management for external projects, but it is in larger companies
where he or she is most likely to have no knowledge of it or provide no support. It is the manufacturing industry where the CEO is most likely to
know nothing about project management and the food and pharmaceutical industry where he or she is most likely to offer no support. It is in
Ireland where the CEO is likely to know nothing about project management, and also where he or she will provide no support for its use. Never
do project managers actively avoid the use of project management for external projects, but it is in mediumsized companies where they need
the most encouragement to use it. There is little difference by country industry.

The results for the use of project management for internal projects is a little more mixed, conrming the results of Turner et al. (2009b). The
number of companies that actively encourage the use of project management for internal projects is only slightly less than for external projects
at 75% to 85%. However, there are now ve companies that actively resist the use of project management for internal projects.

Three are Irish companies, and two are from Australia, two of them are from the services industry and two from the manufacturing industry. All
are mediumsized companies. It is in larger companies where the CEO is least likely to know nothing of project management and where project
team members will resist its use. It is in the manufacturing industry were the CEO is most likely to know nothing of project management. In the
ICT industry, project managers are most likely to use actively project management, and it is the only industry where more than half of project
managers do so for internal projects. In the food and pharmaceutical industry, project managers are most likely to resist the use of project
management for internal projects. The other industries fall between these two extremes. Further, as reported by Turner et al. (2009b), it is in
Ireland that the CEO will be ignorant of project management, with Britain the only other country reporting that. Also, Ireland is the country
where project managers are most likely to resist the use of project management for internal projects, with again Britain the only other country
reporting that.

Project Management Practices

Table 5 shows the extent to which the project management tools are used and are sorted into three categories (following Bresner and Hobbs,
2006): those which are used a lot, those which are used somewhat, and those which are used rarely, There is little difference in use by country or
size of company. However, there are differences by industry. Across the board, the construction industry tends to use the tools less than the
other industries and the services industry more. We can speculate why this might be. Perhaps in the construction industry people manage
projects using much more informal tools; and the service industry, which offers consulting services, practices what they preach. Turner et al.
(2009b) interviewed one consulting company, which did as a matter of policy, ensure that their own staff used the tools that they offered as part
of the consultancy service.

Table 6 shows the extent to which the tools are used. There is little difference in the use of these tools by country, industry, or size of company.

Agile methods are thought by our sample to be very bureaucratic and earned value analysis is seldom used. We believe that this is an indication
that project management tools can appear to be bureaucratic, or even be sold as such. Turner et al. (2009b) reported that three smallsized,
Swedish companies in their sample were using a form of agile methods to great effect. It met their needs for peoplefocused project
management very well. Thus, our results may reect the perception of the tools rather than the reality and suggests the need for lite or micro
lite versions. The same may be true for earned value analysis. Turner (2009) tried to simplify the technique.

Table 5. Extent to Which the Project Management Practices Are Used

Practice Percent of Companies Rating as

Essential Use Bureaucratic

Used widely
Requirements 78% 10% 0
Work breakdown 54% 26% 03%
Milestones 58% 31% 0
Work schedule 59% 28% 03%
Status time 54% 29% 03%
Status cost 50% 33% 03%
Risk management 53% 31% 01%

Used somewhat
Level 1 plan 46% 23% 09%
Responsibility chart 39% 31% 09%
Resource schedule 35% 36% 08%
Status resources 33% 31% 11%
Team building 33% 34% 09%
Issue management 41% 30% 08%

Used rarely
Project book 15% 25% 18%
Agile methods 05% 18% 13%
Project ofce 08% 29% 30%

Table 6. Use of Tools

Tool Rate of Use

Tracked barchart 54%

Milestone tracker chart 45%

Earned value method 11%

Software support 33%

Conclusions
Use of Projects in SMEs
SMEs do make substantial use of projects in their businesses, conrming the work of Turner et al. (2009a, 2009b). It seems to be age rather than
size of company that primarily determines the extent to which projects are used, with companies making the greatest use in the rst two years
of their lives. It is also during that time that they are least likely to use dedicated project managers, meaning that during this very critical time of
their existence projects are being managed by amateurs. Those amateurs will require simplied forms of project management that they can
apply simply and effectively, conrming Proposition 4.

Use of Project Management

Our results show that project management is widely used for both internal and external projects. There is a slight tendency to use project
management less for internal projects than external projects, but this may not be signicant.

What is signicant is that there is a greater tendency to resist the use of project management for internal projects. What was unexpected is the
loss of project management maturity in mediumsized companies. There is a growth in the maturity of the use of project management from
micro to smallsized companies, but then a loss of maturity from small to mediumsized companies. It would appear that with the crisis of
growth at 50 people, with the switch from multitasking to specialist working, with the introduction of middle managers that rms have to
relearn the use of project management. It would also appear that there is some resistance among the specialists to the use of project
management especially on internal projects. Thus Proposition 2 is conrmed but in ways and for reasons that were not expected. Different forms
of project management are needed to coordinate the work of specialists, but in a way, that maintains project management maturity within the
rm. Large companies adopt project management much more as company policy, and so maturity rises again.

Barriers to the Adoption of Project Management

We found much fewer barriers to the adoption of project management than reported by Turner et al. (2009b). It is only in mediumsized
companies that the CEO discourages the use of project management, though in 6% of companies he or she shows little support and in 11%
knows little about it. In 19% of companies, project management is used as company policy for external projects, and in 38% more project
managers actively us it. The gures for internal projects are 14% and 30%. It is only in mediumsized companies for internal projects that we
found project managers actively resisting the use of project management.

Practices Adopted
SMEs use a reduced range of tools when compared to those used by larger companies, as reported by Bresner and Hobbs (2006). Requirements
management is the most important practice, and this was in fact incorporated into the A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge
(PMBOK GuideFourth Edition) (PMI, 2008) for the rst time. The peoplefocused practices, particularly team building and the use of
responsibility charts, appear in the list of those used somewhat. Thus, they do not gure in the top list, but they do gure more highly than in the
work of Bresner and Hobbs where team building appeared in the list of hardly ever used.

Thus, the rst part of Proposition 1 is conrmed. SMEs are looking for less bureaucratic forms of project management. The second part is only
conformed to an extent. The practices adopted are more peoplefocused than traditional forms of project management, but the peoplefocused
practices do not gure on the most highly used practices. Proposition 3 is also conrmed. There was little difference in the use of the practices by
size of company, contradicting Proposition 2.

As we said, some of the results we think show that project management is poorly sold rather than is inherently bureaucratic. Turner et al.
(2009b) showed that adapted agile methods could be effectively used by SMEs, but they are perceived by 13% of our sample, and 36% of people
who answered the question as being excessively bureaucratic. Also 50% of our sample, and 55% of the people who answered the question
wanted to monitor cost, but only 11% wanted to use earned value analysis to do that.

Implications and Further Work

We have shown that SMEs require two forms of project management:

1. A microlite version that will support project teams where people full multiple roles and may be managed by nonspecialist project
managers. These practices must be simple to use and easy to learn and adopt. This version will be used by micro and smallsized
companies and especially by companies in the early years of the existence. However, it may also be used by mediumsized and large
companies to manage the work of small project teams consisting of nonspecialists fullling multiple roles.
2. A lite version that will coordinate the work of specialists. This must be easy to use and clearly demonstrate benet to be adopted by
people in mediumsized companies who are more resistant to the use of project management.

Both versions will have at their core requirements management.

Once methods have been developed, their use will need to be validated with practicing project teams in SMEs.

References
Anbari, F., Bredillet, C. N., & Turner, J. R. (2008). Perspectives in research in project management. Best Paper Proceedings, American Academy of
Management Annual Conference. New York: Academy of Management.

Bresner, C., & Hobbs, J. B. (2006). The perceived value and potential contribution of project management practices to project success. Project
Management Journal, 37(3), 3748.

European Commission. (2005). The new SME denition: User guide and model declaration. Luxembourg: European Commission Publications
Ofce.

European Commission. (2008). Putting small businesses rst Europe is good for SMEs, SMEs are good for Europe. Luxembourg: European
Commission Publications Ofce.

Floyd, D., & McManus, J. (2005). The role of SMEs in improving the competitive position of the European Union. European Business Review, 17(2),
144150.

Ghobadian, A., & Gallear, D. (1997). TQM and organisation size. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 17(2), 121163.

Hallberg, K. (1999). Small and medium scale enterprises: a framework for intervention. Small Enterprise Unit, Private Sector Development
Department, The World Bank.

Hartog, M., Baker, S., StaalOng, P. L., & Westerweld, E. (2008). Managing large infrastructure projects: Research on best practice and lessons
learnt in large infrastructure projects in Europe. Utrecht, The Netherlands: AT Osborne

International Project Management Association. (2006). ICB: IPMA competence baseline, the Turnereye of competence. (3rd Ed.). Zurich, CH:
International Project Management Association.

Ledwith, A. (2004). Management of new product development in small Irish electronics rms. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Brighton.

McAdam, R., & Reid, R. S. (2005). Innovation and organizational size in Irish SMEs: An empirical study. Glasgow: Department of Economics and
Enterprise, Glasgow Caledonian University.
Murphy, A., & Ledwith, A. (2007) Project management tools and techniques in hightechnology SMEs. Management Research News, 30(2), 153
166.

Ofce of Government Commerce. (2005) Managing successful projects with PRINCE2. (4th Ed.). London: The Stationery Ofce.

Payne, J. H., & Turner, J. R. (1999). Companywide project management: The planning and control of programmes of projects of different types.
International Journal of Project Management, 17(1), 5559.

Project Management Institute. (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (4th ed.). Newtown Square, PA:
Project Management Institute.

Turner, J. R. (Ed.). (2007) The Gower handbook of project management, (4th ed.). Aldershot, UK: Gower.

Turner, J. R. (2009). The handbook of projectbased management. (3rd ed.). New York: McGrawHill.

Turner, J. R., Ledwith, A., & Kelly, J. F. (2009a). Project management in small to mediumsized enterprises: A comparison between rms by size
and industry. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(2), 282296.

Turner, J. R., Ledwith, A., & Kelly, J. F. (2009b). Project management in small to mediumsized enterprises: Matching processes to the nature of
the rm. Proceedings of IRNOP IX: the Ninth Conference of the International Research Network for Organizing by Projects. Berlin, Germany.
Gemnden, H.G., Technical University of Berlin.

World Bank. (2007). Little data book. Washington, DC: International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank, Development
Data Group.

This material has been reproduced with the permission of the copyright owner. Unauthorized reproduction of this material is strictly prohibited.
For permission to reproduce this material, please contact PMI or any listed author.
2010 Project Management Institute

Related Content
CONFERENCE PAPER Requirements Management , Methodology , Business Analysis 10 October 2015

Collaborating with stakeholders

By Haney, Victoria B. According to a variety of studies, 60 percent of software defects are linked directly
to incorrect or incomplete requirements, with most project teams spending less than 8 percent of their
time on

CONFERENCE PAPER Agile Practices , Schedule Management , Methodology , Business Analysis 2013

Deliver better, faster and leaner projects

By Leduc, GuyBruno | De Grace, Benoit In 20112012, PMC used lean project management techniques to help Ultima Foods deliver
a very ambitious project, winning the PMI Montreal Chapter's Project of the Year Award 2012 and numerous awards

CONFERENCE PAPER Change Management , Methodology , Resource Management , Business Analysis 2011

Planning as a tactile experience to improve communication

By Goebel, Clement James Many project managers have experienced spending dozens of hours preparing
estimates, status reports, and Gantt charts, only to have them ignored by key stakeholders. While this may
be frustrating

CONFERENCE PAPER Methodology , Business Analysis September 2010

Three steps forward, two steps back

By Steele, John L. Of all the project processes that project managers control, there is one dynamic process
that they cannot plan: The project team's dynamic process of creating innovative project solutions. This

CONFERENCE PAPER Agile Practices , Methodology , Business Analysis 2009

Why do agile teams focus on frequent communications and their

WBS?
By Goebel, Clement James By communicating frequently with project teams, project managers can most
effectively engage each project participant. This paper examines how project managers at Menlo
Innovations use the work
2017Project Management Institute, Inc.