Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
To cite this article: Riaz Ahmed & Noor Azmi bin Mohamad (2016) Exploring the Relationship
Between Multi-Dimensional Top Management Support and Project Success: An International
Study, Engineering Management Journal, 28:1, 54-67, DOI: 10.1080/10429247.2015.1136525
Article views: 18
Download by: [Kraft Foods/ GT&Q], [mounika indupriyal] Date: 12 April 2016, At: 01:36
Exploring the Relationship Between Multi-Dimensional Top
Management Support and Project Success: An International Study
Riaz Ahmed, Bahria University
Noor Azmi bin Mohamad, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Abstract: The role of top management support in achieving (2013) suggested that such relationships should be explored
project success has gained much attention in research and with quantitative research. The aim of this study is to include
practice. A number of studies on single dimensional top man- dierent project stakeholders as respondents to address the
agement support have been conducted. In the engineering man- limitations of previous studies, such as Karlsen and Gottschalk
agement literature, top management support has rarely been (2004), and to further investigate the relationship between mul-
studied as a multi-dimensional construct. This research exam- tiple dimensions of top management support and determinants
ines the relationship between multiple dimensions of top man- of project success, as suggested by Boonstra (2013).
agement support and project success. Dierent data analysis The goal of this work is to signicantly contribute to the
methods were employed to test the research hypotheses and to existing body of knowledge and to provide a guide for future
Downloaded by [Kraft Foods/ GT&Q], [mounika indupriyal] at 01:36 12 April 2016
validate the multi-dimensionality of top management support. research on multi-dimensional top management support. A
Findings indicate a signicant and positive relationship between number of studies used top management support as a single
multi-dimensional top management support and project success. dimensional construct starting from Pinto and Slevin (1987) to
Manfreda and temberger (2014). Boonstras (2013) study of
Keywords: Top Management Support, Project Success, Multi- multi-dimensional top management support was limited to
Dimensional, Relationship, Engineering Management only identication and classication of multi-dimensional top
management support. Literature reveals that no substantial
EMJ Focus Areas: Program & Project Management eorts have been made to develop or validate top management
support as a multi-dimensional construct. Further, studies using
quantitative research methods to examine the relationship
P
rojects are often used as a means to implement strategies between multi-dimensional top management support and pro-
in organizations. Research has brought insight into the ject success have rarely been conducted, especially in the engi-
management of projects over the last 60 years (Jugdev & neering management literature. Therefore, strong empirical
Mller, 2005), but still only a limited number of projects are evidence is required to demonstrate the relationship between
completed successfully (Muller, Geraldi, & Turner, 2012). The top management support and project success (Young & Poon,
basic determinant of project failure or abandonment is lack of 2013). This study addresses these research gaps by adapting a
support from top management (Anantatmula, 2010; Edwards, multi-dimensional framework of top management support
1989; Lyytinen & Hirschheim, 1988; Pinto & Slevin, 1987; Sauer, based on Boonstra (2013) and a multifaceted project success
1993). Top management support is a critical factor for successful model from Shenhar and Dvir (2007). This quantitative study
completion of projects (Li, Chen, Lee, & Rao, 2013), but little aims to address the following research question: Does multi-
attention has been paid to the essence of top management dimensional top management support have a signicant rela-
support (Dong, Neufeld, & Higgins, 2009; Staehr, 2010). Boon- tionship with project success?
stra (2013) conducted a descriptive exploratory study to identify This study contributes to the engineering management and
and categorize potential top management supportive behaviors. the project management literature in terms of theory, empirical
According to Boonstra (2013), more research is required to knowledge, and management practices. Karlsen and Gottschalk
examine the appropriateness of dierent kinds of support pro- (2004) distributed a survey in Norway by using a 5-point Likert
vided by top management, in order to ensure apt assistance to Scale (5 = high to 1 = low), which had limited generalizability due
project managers. to the small sample size (71 respondents). This study follows the
According to Karlsen and Gottschalk (2004), support pro- methodology employed by Karlsen and Gottschalk (2004), but
vided by top management is an important factor for project utilizes a larger sample size (208 participants) in order to provide
success but little attention has been given to identifying the a broader sample and potentially greater generalizability. Thus,
relationship between multiple dimensions of top management this study addresses calls from previous research in the engineer-
support and project success . The study conducted by Karlsen ing management and project management literature (Boonstra,
and Gottschalk (2004) was limited to project managers or 2013; Chollet, Brion, Chauvet, Mothe, & Graudel, 2012; Karlsen
members of the project management group. The opinions of & Gottschalk, 2004; Patanakul, 2011). This study presents a
other stakeholders, including top management, middle manage- comprehensive framework and partially extends the research of
ment, lower management, consultants, or entrepreneurs, may be Boonstra (2013) and Karlsen and Gottschalk (2004), exploring the
dierent based on whether or not projects were completed relationship between multi-dimensional top management support
successfully. As highlighted by Boonstra (2013), exploratory and project success. This study provides an opportunity for
research has left a number of questions unanswered regarding researchers and practitioners to formulate a comprehensive policy
the extent that top management supportive behaviors are inter- for eective and ecient accomplishment of strategies through
related and/or complementary for project success. Boonstra successful delivery of projects.
provided to a team for successful completion of a project. link between the strategic or executive levels of the organiza-
Involvement or participation of top-level management in pro- tion and project managers in successful projects (Too & Wea-
ject or organizational activities is referred to as top manage- ver, 2014). To improve the chances of project success,
ment support (Tan & Noor, 2013). Top management support organizations need to choose senior management with an
is one of the most frequently-identied barriers to project interest in the outcome to act as the projects sponsors
success and is also considered as a root cause for other barriers (Tesch & Kloppenborg, 2015). A project sponsor performs a
(Ali & Kidd, 2014). A number of studies show that lack of variety of roles and engages in dierent ways over the duration
upper management support is a major concern in the perfor- of the project as an important link between the project man-
mance of projects (Burgess, McKee, & Kidd, 2005; Gonzalez, ager and top management (Kloppenborg, Tesch, & Manolis,
1997) and inadequate support from top management is a major 2014). Based on Boonstras (2013) framework, ve dimensions
concern for many projects and in many business processes (Da of top management support included in this study are as
Silva, Damian, & De Pdua, 2012). follows.
The signicance of top management support in projects
has been recognized by theories of project management and Provide Resources. Top management provides adequate
engineering management (McComb, Kennedy, Green, Comp- nancial, material, and human resources to ensure successful
ton, & McComb, 2008; Rodgers, Hunter, & Rogers, 1993). completion of the project. Top management plays a critical role
According to Zwikael (2008), top management support is one in achieving project objectives where the project champion is the
of the most critical success factors in project management. top management. Top management working directly in an
However, the literature does not provide a list of eective top organizational structure can share resources more eectively
management support practices. Karlsen and Gottschalk (2004) for projects than a matrix or pure project matrix (Dwivedi
argued that people believe that systems and projects failed et al., 2013).
because top management did not really support them. Zwi-
kael (2008) introduced a detailed list of critical top manage- Structural Arrangements. Senior management establishes and
ment processes for multiple industries and countries that ensures that appropriate procedures, processes, and project
contribute to project success. Although it is important for structures are adapted to implement organizational change.
project managers to receive support from senior management Top management needs to improve organizational ecacy,
in the organization (Anantatmula, 2010), it is challenging for strengthen stakeholders support, and establish eective
project managers to obtain such support in traditional orga- control mechanisms for successful completion of a project
nizations, as resources are controlled by functional managers. (Boonstra, 2013).
This domain presents a rich eld for further research due to
human complexity associated with the role of project manager Communication. Senior management should frequently
or a top manager. communicate with various stakeholders to explain potential
Zwikael (2008) conducted a study on top management system changes and organizational implications. Top
involvement by considering dierent project scenarios and management provides support to the project team by
examining the relationship between single dimensional top communicating with visible enthusiasm and by communicating
management support and project success measures. Bonner, support when there is a need to adapt the system, the
Ruekert, and Walker (2002) explored the relationship between organization, and/or the relationships among stakeholders
top management control of new product development and (Boonstra, 2013).
project performance. Chollet et al. (2012) conducted a study
on new product development projects in search of top man- Expertise. Top management needs to possess sucient
agement support, to investigate the relationship between new knowledge and expertise in project management. Top
product development performance and single dimensional top management must have an understanding of the content,
management support. Young and Poon (2013) used fuzzy set context, and implications of the project. To ensure project
analysis of 15 cases to determine that top management sup- success, top management should be aware of the interest and
port is almost always necessary and sometimes sucient for inuence of project stakeholders. Top management must
Provide Resources H1
Project Success
H2
Structural Arrangements Project Efficiency
Impact on Customer
H3 Impact on the Team
Communication Direct organizational and
H4 business success
Preparing for the Future
Expertise
H5
Power
Hypothesis I: There is a positive relationship between top each and every activity at all levels in organizations (Singh &
Downloaded by [Kraft Foods/ GT&Q], [mounika indupriyal] at 01:36 12 April 2016
management provision of resources and project success. Kant, 2008). Some scholars recommend that top management
must be aware of, and possess, project management expertise
For successful implementation of projects, structural and skills to ensure project success and organizational success
arrangement is an essential element of top management support. (Hwang, Lin, & Lin, 2012; Liu & Seddon, 2009; Manfreda &
Top management institutes and enforces simplied procedures, temberger, 2014; Pinto & Prescott, 1988).
appropriate processes, and eective project structures. To
achieve project objectives, top management implements organi- Hypothesis IV: There is a positive relationship between top
zational change, improves organizational ecacy, and strength- management expertise and project success.
ens stakeholder support (Boonstra, 2013). A number of authors
suggest that top managers should establish adequate processes, In projects, top management with power or authority is vital
structures, and standards to ensure successful accomplishment for project success (Chander et al., 2013; Knapp, Marshall, Rainer,
of project objectives (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Bajwa et al., & Morrow, 2006). Top management possesses power and must use
1998; Manfreda & temberger, 2014; Pinto & Prescott, 1988; this power to encourage team members, provide support to the
Thite, 2000; Yap et al., 1992). project, facilitate system changes, and identify the needs and
responsibilities of project stakeholders (Boonstra, 2013). Several
Hypothesis II: There is a positive relationship between top studies emphasized that senior management should use its author-
management structural arrangements and project success. ity to develop better project management practices, and the project
team should employ best practices for increasing the likelihood of
Vaish and Varma (2010) found that top management com- project success (Belout & Gauvreau, 2004; Cragg et al., 2013; Hol-
munication is one of the most important success factors for a land & Light, 1999; Liu & Seddon, 2009; Madanayake, Gregor,
project. Top management should establish communication chan- Hayes, & Fraser, 2009; Pinto & Prescott, 1988).
nels to manage project activities. Examples of these activities
include regularly communicating support for the project, commu- Hypothesis V: There is a positive relationship between top
nications to motivate the team, communications to sell the project management power and project success.
to the rest of the organization, collaborating with various groups of
stakeholders, explaining potential system changes, and discussing
organizational implications and organizational changes (Boonstra, Methods
2013). A number of researchers suggest that top management Exhibit 2 summarizes the research design for the current study.
should communicate frequently with project teams and other Data collection methods, participants, procedures, and the oper-
project stakeholders, to meet technical requirements and achieve ationalization of research variables are discussed next.
project objectives (Bajwa et al., 1998; Cragg, Mills, & Suraweera,
2013; Hwang & Min, 2013; Kuen, Zailani, & Fernando, 2009; Data Collection
Manfreda & temberger, 2014; Mat, Jantan, Mat, & Romli; To test the proposed research model, data were collected from
Umble, Haft, & Umble, 2003; Yaghootkar & Gil, 2012). the Project Management Institute (PMI) community members.
An online survey instrument was developed and data were
Hypothesis III: There is a positive relationship between top collected from October 2013 to December 2013. Kie (2008)
management communication and project success. suggested that a structured survey instrument is the best
approach to collect data for cross-sectional studies. A survey
Top management needs to possess sucient knowledge and instrument was distributed through email among 300 members
expertise in project management, recognize the implications and of the PMI leadership community. The unit of analysis for the
changes associated with project implementation, and be aware study was an individual project, successfully completed or exe-
of the power and interest of project stakeholders (Boonstra, cuted as the most recent project by the respondents. Respon-
2013). Top management ensures the successful completion of dents were asked to rate top management support and project
Research Design
Literature Review
Data Analysis
Findings, Implications
Phase 3
and Conclusion
success for their last completed project. This study employed a development process for measurement of a ve-dimensional
three-wave follow-up approach for collection of data from construct of top management support included item creation,
potential respondents. A total of 208 responses were received item sorting, instrument testing, and instrument validation pro-
and used for data analysis; this corresponds to a 69% response cesses, adapted from earlier studies (Akter, DAmbra, & Ray,
rate. 2013; Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014; Schmiedel, Vom, &
Recker, 2014). Project success was also measured using a 5-
Participants point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neu-
The participants of this study were the active members of the tral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly Agree).
Project Management Institute (PMI) leadership community. In Shenhar and Dvirs (2007) Project Success Assessment
order to minimize single-informant bias, respondents had Questionnaire (PSAQ) was the most reliable scale found in the
diverse experiences in managing projects across the world. literature for measurement of ve-dimensional project success.
Respondents worked in dierent positions including top man- The PSAQ instrument was developed and validated by Shenhar
agement, middle management, or project management. and Dvir (2007) and used a 4-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly
Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; and 4 = Strongly Agree). This
Measurement Scale study used a 5-point Likert scale for measurement of project
The authors created the nal version of the survey instrument success dimensions (1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree;
using context-specic changes, based on feedback received from 3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly Agree) based on
the panel of experts and the results of the pilot study. Content previous studies (Kuen et al., 2009; Muller et al., 2012; Mller
validity was assessed by a panel of ten experts, comprised of & Turner, 2010). Summary of the instruments used and oper-
seven experts from academia (four Professors and three PhD ationalization of variables is presented in Exhibit 3.
scholars) and three industry practitioners. Out of ten experts,
ve have a PhD and all others hold Masters Degrees from the
United States, Europe, or Asia. Construct validity was assessed Pilot Study
through a pilot study after establishing content validity. Prior to this study, the authors conducted a pilot study to
A 5-point Likert scale was used for measuring the dimen- ensure appropriateness of content, wording, format and layout,
sions of top management support (ranging from Not at all to sequence, instructions, level of diculty, and scale range of the
Frequently (if not always). For this purpose, the authors devel- survey questions. A pilot study (N = 54) was conducted to
oped and validated the Top Management Support Questionnaire assess the construct validity and reliability of survey measures.
(TMSQ) as reported in Ahmed et al. (2016). The scale For the pilot study, data were collected from the members of
Top Management:
provided adequate resources for successful implementation of the project
provided adequate resources to facilitate system adaptations in the organizational setting
provided adequate resources to encourage a supportive stakeholder environment for successful project completion
ensured availability of necessary resources to support the project team during crises
established effective communication with project team members for successful implementation of the project
often communicated to sell the project to the rest of the organization
frequently communicated to discuss potential system changes with those involved in project implementation
continuously communicated to discuss implications of the project with various groups of stakeholders
effectively communicated with the stakeholders to enhance organizational efficiency
Project Success:
The project was completed on time or earlier
The project was completed within or below budget
The project had only minor changes in scope
The project achieved overall efficiency measures
The project was completed on predefined quality
The project was an economic business success
The project increased the organizations productivity
The project enhanced the organizations market value
The project contributed to organizations direct performance
three PMI Chapters in Pakistan, located in Islamabad, Lahore, of squared loadings from the ve top management support
and Karachi. components explained 71% of the total variance in the data.
Factor analysis is an eective tool to ensure construct valid- The eigenvalues of the ve factors for project success were 9.895,
ity (Bernstein & Nunnally, 1994; Gorsuch, 1983; Guilford, 1946; 2.849, 1.830, 1.286, and 1.044, after rotation. The ve compo-
Nunnally, 1978), and is a statistical technique used to either nents of project success explained 68% of the total variance in
identify or validate the hypothesized structure of latent variables the data.
(Pison, Rousseeuw, Filzmoser, & Croux, 2003). Exploratory fac-
tor analysis was performed by using the varimax rotation. To Results and Discussion
evaluate the appropriateness of the factor analysis, Kaiser The current study was undertaken to investigate the relationship
MeyerOlkin (KMO) and Bartletts test of sphericity were per- between multiple dimensions of top management support and
formed. Factor loadings for top management support items project success because previous studies have treated top man-
ranged from 0.453 to 0.891, and factor loadings for project agement support as a single dimensional construct. This study
success items ranged from 0.520 to 0.809, which are well adopted a multi-dimensional framework of top management
above the cuto value of 0.40 and reported in Appendix 1. In support from Boonstra (2013) and multi-dimensional project
agreement with Conway and Hucutt (2003), all items above a success model from Shenhar and Dvir (2007). The demographic
cuto value of 0.40 were loaded. No item was dropped from the prole of respondents and projects for this study are summar-
survey instrument, and the pilot study resulted in only minor ized in Exhibit 4.
adjustments to the survey instrument.
The pilot study also used the eigenvalue-greater-than-one Reliability and Validity
rule (Kaiser, 1960), Bartlett (1950) Test of Sphericity, and Scree In agreement with Roberts, Priest, and Traynor (2006), Cron-
test methods (Cattell, 1966) to identify a preferred solution for bachs alpha coecient of 0.70 was used as the cuto value in
factor retention. Five factors for top management support with selecting survey items for multiple dimensions of top manage-
eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted. The eigenvalues were ment support and project success. Following Conway and Hu-
12.966, 1.806, 1.474, 1.193, and 1.082, after rotation. The sums cutt (2003), all items were loaded above a cuto value of 0.40
during exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The Cronbachs alpha the regression analysis procedure suggested by Hair et al. (2010)
of each factor exceeded the cuto value of 0.70. Hair, Black, and Huselid (1995), each dimension of top management support
Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2010) suggested that a minimum was entered in the regression analysis. Results indicate that each
sample size of 100 is required to run EFA. This studys sample dimension of top management support signicantly correlate
size (N = 208) fullls the requirement of EFA to test construct with project success.
validity as recommended by Hair et al. (2010). The Pearson correlation results (see Exhibit 7) indicate a
Hair et al. (2010) recommend evaluating the appropriate- signicant positive correlation between the various dimensions
ness of factor analysis by assessing KaiserMeyerOlkin (KMO) of top management support. For instance, provide resources
measure of sampling adequacy (Kaiser, 1974) and Bartlett has a signicant positive relationship with structural arrange-
(1950) Test of Sphericity for factorability of the exploratory ments (r = 0.799, p = 0.000), communication (r = 0.743,
factor analysis. A KMO test revealed a value of 0.832 for top p = 0.000), expertise (r = 0.723, p = 0.000), and power
management support, which is above the suggested cuto value (r = 0.700, p = 0.000). The dimension of structural arrange-
of 0.60, and Bartletts Test of Sphericity [2 (1091.429), N = 54, ments has a signicant positive relationship with communica-
df = 325, p < .001] yielded signicant results (Tabachnick & tion (r = 827, p = 0.000), expertise (r = 0.790, p = 0.000), and
Fidell, 2007). Similarly, a KMO test revealed a value of 0.806 for power (r = 0.798, p = 0.000). Communication has a signicant
project success, which is above the suggested cuto value of 0.60, positive relationship with expertise (r = 0.852, p = 0.000) and
and the Bartletts test yielded a signicant result [2 = 856.852, power (r = 0.840, p = 0.000). Finally, expertise has a signicant
N = 208, df = 300, p < .001]. The details of factor loadings for positive relationship with power (r = 0.843, p = 0.000).
each item as well as Cronbachs alpha, Barletts Test of Spheri- Hair et al. (2010) suggested that two conditions toler-
city, KMO measure of sampling adequacy, and df values for both ance and variance ination factor should be used to deter-
top management support and project success are summarized in mine multicollinearity due to high correlation among the
Exhibit 5 and 6, respectively. dimensions of variables. The maximum cuto value suggested
for variance ination factor (VIF) is 10, and the minimum cut-
o value suggested for tolerance is 0.10 (Hair et al., 2010;
Testing of Research Hypotheses Pallant, 2010). This study examined the issue of multicollinear-
The key objective of this study was to investigate the relationship ity, due to the high correlation between dimensions of top
between the dimensions of top management support and project management support. No serious issues of multicollinearity
success. Conditions of normality, linearity, homoscedasticity, were found based on the values of tolerance and VIF, which
and multicollinearity were satised and regression analyses were well above 0.10 and well below 10, respectively (see
were completed to test all ve hypotheses of the study. Following Exhibit 8).
COM4 0.681
COM5 0.693
COM6 0.761
Expertise 0.860 548.157 10 EXP1 0.600 0.882
EXP2 0.688
EXP3 0.707
EXP4 0.634
EXP5 0.747
Power 0.888 725.162 10 PWR1 0.746 0.917
PWR2 0.795
PWR3 0.753
PWR4 0.781
PWR5 0.767
In agreement with Hair et al. (2010), demographic vari- Contributions of the Study
ables were entered concurrently in the regression model dur- The contributing role of a multi-dimensional construct of top
ing the rst step. In the next step, an independent variable management support towards project success was not well
(provide resources) was entered in the regression model. We explored previously in the literature. In response to calls from
followed the same process for testing of all ve hypotheses of multiple researchers (Boonstra, 2013; Chollet et al., 2012; Karl-
this study. As a result, top management provision of sen & Gottschalk, 2004; Patanakul, 2011), this study addresses
resources explained 22.7% variance in project success these gaps by adapting Boonstras (2013) multi-dimensional
(F = 31.44, p < .001). The standardized beta value of provide framework and Shenhar and Dvir (2007) multi-dimensional
resources was positive and signicant ( = 0.45, p < .001). project success model. This study validated the Top Manage-
Structural arrangement explained 23.6% variance in project ment Support Questionnaire (TMSQ) developed by Ahmed
success (F = 33.05, p < .001). standardized beta value was et al. (2016) as a measure of top management support for ve
positive and indicated a signicant relationship with project dimensions, namely, provide resources, structural arrangement,
success ( = 0.46, p < .001). communication, expertise, and power.
About one-fourth (23.9%) of the variance was explained The contribution to the existing body of knowledge lies in
by communication in project success (F = 33.50, p < .001). exploring top management support as a multi-dimensional con-
The standardized beta value of communication was positive struct, as well as investigating its relationship with project suc-
and indicated a signicant relationship with project success cess. Boonstras (2013) study was aimed at both mapping and
( = 0.46, p < .001). The dimension of expertise explained analyzing several behaviors of top management support but did
21% variance in project success, which was highly signicant not attempt to make assertions with respect to the causal rela-
as shown by F-value of 28.59 (p < .001). The standardized tionships between these behaviors and their relationships with
beta value indicates that a signicant and positive relationship project success. Boonstra (2013) suggested that a multi-dimen-
exists between top management expertise and project success sional framework should be used to identify possible research
( = 0.43, p < .001). The power dimension explained 24.8% gaps relating to the relationship between types and combina-
variance in project success (F = 35.11, p < .001). The tions of top management support and project success. Based on
standardized beta value of power indicated a positive and Boonstras (2013) recommendations, we empirically examined
signicant relationship with project success ( = 0.47, the relationships between multi-dimensions of top management
p < .001). A summary of the regression analysis is presented support and project success to advance the engineering and
in Exhibit 8. project management bodies of knowledge. The practical
IT4 0.667
IT5 0.521
Direct Organizational and 0.795 396.603 10 BS1 0.538 0.835
Business success
BS2 0.703
BS3 0.793
BS4 0.628
BS5 0.544
Preparing for the Future 0.797 271.723 10 PF1 0.419 0.783
PF2 0.662
PF3 0.761
PF4 0.721
PF5 0.466
Sr. Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6
1 Provide Resources 1
contribution of this quantitative, cross-sectional study is of value Naranjo-Gil, 2009), their studies fail to relate these behaviors
to both engineering managers and senior managers. to each other and do not address the development of top
management support as a multi-dimensional construct (Boon-
Implications of the Study stra, 2013). However, top management support does not reect
In the literature, top management support is often presented as a the multidimensionality and complexity as a single dimensional
single construct related to project success. Although some construct (Ragu-Nathan, Apigian, Ragu-Nathan, & Tu, 2004).
authors conceptualize top management support as a set of Boonstra (2013) identied dimensions and pattern to concep-
desirable attitudes and behaviors (McComb et al., 2008; tualize top management support as a multi-dimensional
Project Success
1 Provide Resources 0.250 0.449 7.25 .000 0.485 0.235 0.227 31.44 0.000 0.34 2.95
2 Structural Arrangements 0.231 0.460 7.46 .000 0.494 0.244 0.236 33.05 0.000 0.22 4.51
3 Communication 0.234 0.459 7.518 .000 0.496 0.246 0.239 33.50 0.000 0.22 4.57
4 Expertise 0.219 0.427 6.86 .000 0.467 0.218 0.210 28.59 0.000 0.21 4.68
5 Power 0.235 0.472 7.721 .000 0.505 0.255 0.248 35.11 0.000 0.26 3.85
construct, and articulated the necessity of research to investigate with ve dimensions (i.e., provide resources, communication,
expertise, structural arrangements, and power). Findings indi-
Downloaded by [Kraft Foods/ GT&Q], [mounika indupriyal] at 01:36 12 April 2016
Kie, H. (2008). Policy and its implications to ICT innovations: Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York,
The case of e-government in Brunei Darussalam. Paper pre- NY: McGraw-Hill.
sented at the e-Government Workshop, Brunel University, Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step
London, UK, September. guide to data analysis using SPSS. Berkshire, UK:
Kloppenborg, T. J., Tesch, D., & Manolis, C. (2014). Project McGraw-Hill International.
success and executive sponsor behaviors: Empirical life Patanakul, P. (2011). Project manager assignment and its impact
cycle stage investigations. Project Management Journal, 45 on multiple project management eectiveness: An empirical
(1), 920. study of an IT organization. Engineering Management Jour-
Knapp, K. J., Marshall, T. E., Rainer Jr., R. K., & Morrow, D. W. nal, 23, 1423.
(2006). The top information security issues facing organiza- Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1988). Variations in critical success
tions: What can government do to help? Network Security, factors over the stages in the project life cycle. Journal of
1, 327. Management, 14(1), 518. doi:10.1177/014920638801400102
Kuen, C. W., Zailani, S., & Fernando, Y. (2009). Critical factors Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1990). Planning and tactical factors
inuencing the project success amongst manufacturing in the project implementation process. Journal of Manage-
companies in Malaysia. African Journal of Business Manage- ment Studies, 27(3), 305327.
ment, 3(1), 1627. Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1987). Critical factors in successful
Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Covin, J. G. (2014). Diagnosing project implementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
a rms internal environment for corporate entrepreneur- Management, 34(1), 2227.
ship. Business Horizons, 57(1), 3747. Pison, G., Rousseeuw, P. J., Filzmoser, P., & Croux, C. (2003).
Li, J. P., Chen, R., Lee, J., & Rao, H. R. (2013). A case study of Robust factor analysis. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 84
privatepublic collaboration for humanitarian free and (1), 145172.
open source disaster management software deployment. PMI. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowl-
Decision Support Systems, 55(1), 111. edge (PMBOK) (5th ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Author.
Liu, A. Z., & Seddon, P. B. (2009). Understanding how project Ragu-Nathan, B. S., Apigian, C. H., Ragu-Nathan, T., & Tu, Q.
critical success factors aect organizational benets from (2004). A path analytic study of the eect of top manage-
enterprise systems. Business Process Management Journal, ment support for information systems performance. Omega,
15(5), 716743. 32(6), 459471.
Lyytinen, K., & Hirschheim, R. (1988). Information systems Roberts, P., Priest, H., & Traynor, M. (2006). Reliability and
failuresA survey and classication of the empirical litera- validity in research. Nursing Standard, 20(44), 4145.
ture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Rodgers, R., Hunter, J. E., & Rogers, D. L. (1993). Inuence of
Madanayake, O., Gregor, S., Hayes, C., & Fraser, S. (2009). What top management commitment on management program
we need: Project managers evaluation of top management success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 151155.
actions required for software development projects. Paper Sauer, C. (1993). Why information systems fail: A case study
presented at the ECIS, June, Verona, Italy. approach. Oxford, UK: Alfred Waller, Henley-on-Thames.
Manfreda, A., & temberger, M. I. (2014). Factors causing the Schmiedel, T., Vom Brocke, B. J., & Recker, J. (2014). Develop-
relationship gap between top management and IS person- ment and validation of an instrument to measure organiza-
nel. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(2), tional cultures support of business process management.
107121. Information & Management, 51(1), 4356.
Mat, N., Jantan, M., Mat, N., & Romli, R. (2012). Team factors Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project manage-
and the moderating eect of top management support on ment: The diamond approach to successful growth and inno-
product innovation performance: The Malaysian experience. vation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Singh, M., & Kant, R. (2008). Knowledge management barriers:
Business and Economic Research, 1213 March. An interpretive structural modeling approach. International
McComb, S. A., Kennedy, D. M., Green, S. G., & Compton, Journal of Management Science and Engineering Manage-
W. D. (2008). Project team eectiveness: The case for ment, 3(2), 141150.
management: A conceptual framework for project govern- versiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) in Malaysia, receiving the
ance. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8), Best Postgraduate Student Award. He has worked in higher
13821394. education institutions for the last 15 years, including COM-
Umble, E. J., Haft, R. R., & Umble, M. M. (2003). Enterprise SATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT), National
resource planning: Implementation procedures and critical University of Science & Technology (NUST) in Islamabad,
success factors. European Journal of Operational Research, and the University of Engineering & Technology (UET) in
146(2), 241257. Lahore, Pakistan. He has published a number of scholarly
Vaish, A., & Varma, S. (2010). Parameter extraction for mea- articles in journals. His areas of interest include project lea-
surement of the eective information security manage- dership, project management, top management, internationa-
mentstatistical analysis. International Journal of lization, and higher education.
Computer and Electrical Engineering, 2(4), 654659. Noor Azmi bin Mohamad, PhD is currently a Senior Lec-
Yaghootkar, K., & Gil, N. (2012). The eects of schedule- turer with the Faculty of Management at the Universiti Tekno-
driven project management in multi-project environ- logi Malaysia (UTM) in Malaysia. He has actively been involved
ments. International Journal of Project Management, 30 in teaching and research for more than 20 years. He has pub-
(1), 127140. lished a number of journal articles and conference papers. He
Yap, C., Soh, C., & Raman, K. (1992). Information systems has supervised a number of PhD and Masters students in his
success factors in small business. Omega, 20(56), academic career. His areas of interest include leadership, strate-
597609. gic management, policy research, and project management.
Yazici, H. J. (2011). Signicance of organizational culture in Contact: Riaz Ahmed, PhD, PMP, Department of Man-
perceived project and business performance. Engineering agement Sciences, Bahria University, Sector E-8, Islamabad
Management Journal, 23, 2029. 54000, Pakistan; riaz.ahmed@bui.edu.pk
Df 325
Sig. .000
POR1 .755
POR2 .836
POR3 .631
POR4 .671
POR5 .792
( = .817)
STA1 .574
STA2 .747
STA3 .891
STA4 .552
STA5 .611
( = .833)
COM1 .565
COM2 .598
COM3 .631
COM4 .474
COM5 .453
COM6 .687
( = .871)
EXP1 .767
EXP2 .483
EXP3 .543
EXP4 .692
EXP5 .630
( = .859)
PWR1 .738
PWR2 .839
PWR3 .850
PWR4 .615
PWR5 .604
( = .904)
Eigenvalues 12.966 1.806 1.474 1.193 1.082
% of variance 49.87 6.94 5.67 4.59 4.162