Walden University

COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY

This is to certify that the doctoral dissertation by

Derrick Chukwuemeke Nwagbogwu

has been found to be complete and satisfactory in all respects,

and that any and all revisions required by
the review committee have been made.

Review Committee
Dr. Stephanie Lyncheski, Committee Chairperson,
Applied Management and Decision Sciences Faculty

Dr. Robert Levasseur, Committee Member,

Applied Management and Decision Sciences Faculty

Dr. Robert Haussmann, University Reviewer

Applied Management and Decision Sciences Faculty

Chief Academic Officer

David Clinefelter, Ph.D.

Walden University
February 2011
 Abstract

The Correlation Between Project Management Effectiveness and Project Success

by

Derrick Chukwuemeke Nwagbogwu

MBA, University of Lagos, 2004

BEng, University of Benin, 1998

Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Applied Management and Decision Sciences

Walden University

February 2011
 Abstract

Project management is driven by cost minimization, on-time project delivery, quality

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

Management Institute Consulting Community of Practice (PMI-CCoP). The study, which

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

product-moment correlation coefficient was used to evaluate the correlation between

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

are members of the PMI-CCoP, greater project management effectiveness is correlated

with greater project success. From a positive social change perspective, these findings

may help to advance project management knowledge. The results also may assist

organizational leaders to achieve greater project success through improvements in project

management.
The Correlation Between Project Management Effectiveness and Project Success

by

Derrick Chukwuemeke Nwagbogwu

MBA, University of Lagos, 2004

BEng, University of Benin, 1998

Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Applied Management and Decision Sciences

Walden University

February 2011
 UMI Number: 3434599

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

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

He has always been there for me.

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.

Stephanie Lyncheski, and other members of my dissertation committee, Dr. Robert

Levasseur and Dr. Robert Huassmann, for the time they invested reading through and

making constructive suggestions about my research. Again, thanks to all Walden

University faculty and staff for their professional support.

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

participating for the survey.

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

List of Tables ...................................................................................................................... v

List of Figures .................................................................................................................. viii

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study................................................................................... 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 6

Nature of the Study ....................................................................................................... 8

Research Questions and Hypotheses ............................................................................ 9

Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 9

Theoretical Foundation ............................................................................................... 10

Definitions of Terms ................................................................................................... 11

Assumptions................................................................................................................ 15

Limitations .................................................................................................................. 16

Scope and Delimitation ............................................................................................... 16

Significance of the Study ............................................................................................ 17

Chapter Summary and Organization of the Study ...................................................... 18

Chapter 2: Literature Review ............................................................................................ 19

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 19

Management: Theoretical Perspective ........................................................................ 20

Emergence of Modern Project Management .............................................................. 22

Projects and Project Management ......................................................................... 23

Significance of Project Management .................................................................... 24

i
 Project Management Effectiveness ............................................................................. 25

Project Management Effectiveness Driven by Best Practices .............................. 29

Stakeholders .......................................................................................................... 30

Project Sponsors.................................................................................................... 31

Performing Organization ...................................................................................... 32

Project Managers .................................................................................................. 33

Project Teams........................................................................................................ 34

Organizational Type.............................................................................................. 37

Technology ........................................................................................................... 38

Knowledge Management ...................................................................................... 39

Building a Team of Knowledge Experts Through Training and Development .... 40

Project Management Effectiveness From a Process Standpoint ................................. 42

Project Initiation Phase ......................................................................................... 44

Project Planning Phase .......................................................................................... 45

Project Execution Phase ........................................................................................ 47

Controlling or Monitoring Phase .......................................................................... 47

Project Closeout Phase .......................................................................................... 48

Project Success and Reasons for Failure .................................................................... 49

Summary of the Literature Review ............................................................................. 52

Chapter 3: Research Method ............................................................................................. 53

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 53

Research Design and Approach .................................................................................. 53

ii
 Sampling Techniques .................................................................................................. 54

Instrumentation and Materials .................................................................................... 56

Validity and Reliability ............................................................................................... 57

Operationalization of the Variables ............................................................................ 58

Four Main Factors of Project Success ........................................................................ 59

Data Collection ........................................................................................................... 60

Research Questions and Hypotheses .......................................................................... 62

Data Analysis .............................................................................................................. 63

Ethical Considerations ................................................................................................ 64

Summary of the Research Methodology..................................................................... 65

Chapter 4: Results ............................................................................................................. 66

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 66

Data Collection and Analysis...................................................................................... 66

Demographic Statistics ............................................................................................... 67

Findings....................................................................................................................... 68

Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 77

Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations ............................................. 79

Introduction ................................................................................................................. 79

Interpretation of the Findings...................................................................................... 80

Hypotheses for Research Question 1 .................................................................... 80

Hypotheses for Research Question 2 .................................................................... 83

Implications for Social Change ................................................................................... 85

iii
 Recommendations for Action ..................................................................................... 86

Recommendations for Further Study .......................................................................... 87

Conclusion .................................................................................................................. 89

References ......................................................................................................................... 90

Appendix A: Project Success Assessment Questionnaire .............................................. 110

Appendix B: Project Management Effectiveness Construct ........................................... 111

Appendix C: Demographic Information ......................................................................... 113

Appendix D: Frequency Tables for Demographic Variables ......................................... 115

Appendix E: Frequency Tables for Project Management Effectiveness and Project

Success Survey Questions ....................................................................................... 117

Appendix F: Descriptive Statistics for Independent and Dependent Variables .............. 124

Appendix G: Cronbach’s Alpha for Independent and Dependent Variables .................. 125

Curriculum Vitae ............................................................................................................ 126

iv
 List of Tables

Table 1. Nine Schools of Project Management Thought .................................................. 23

Table 2. Success Dimensions ............................................................................................ 51

Table A1. Project Success Assessment ........................................................................... 110

Table B1. Dimension 1: Rational Project Decision Making........................................... 111

Table B2. Dimension 2: Goal Clarity ............................................................................. 112

Table D1. Frequency Table: PMP Certification ............................................................. 115

Table D2. Frequency Table: Study Participant Age ....................................................... 115

Table D3. Frequency Table: Level of Education ............................................................ 115

Table D4. Frequency Table: Industry Classification ...................................................... 116

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 E3. Frequency Table: Customer Was Satisfied .................................................... 117

Table E4. Frequency Table: Product Met Customer’s Requirements ............................ 118

Table E5. Frequency Table: Customer Is Using the Product.......................................... 118

Table E6. Frequency Table: Project Increased the Organization’s Profitability ............ 118

Table E7. Frequency Table: Project Contributed to Organization’s Direct

Performance ............................................................................................................ 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

on Factual and Reliable Information....................................................................... 120

Table E12. Frequency Table: It Is customary to Have Formal Reviews to Learn From

Project Failures and/or Successes ........................................................................... 120

Table E13. Frequency Table: There Is an Emphasis on Up-Front Project Homework and

Feasibility Studies ................................................................................................... 120

Table E14. Frequency Table: Projects Are Continually Reviewed to Reevaluate Their

Viability and Potential Success ............................................................................... 121

Table E15. Frequency Table: Care Is Taken To Ensure That There Is Market or End-User

Support for Proposed Project .................................................................................. 121

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 E20. Frequency Table: Project Participants Are Committed to Achievement of

Project Goals ........................................................................................................... 123

Table E21. Frequency Table: Project Team Members Take Ownership of Project

Goals ....................................................................................................................... 123

Table E22. Frequency Table: Team Members Actively Participate in Decision Making

Regarding Achievement of Project Goals............................................................... 123

vi
Table F1. Descriptive Statistics for Project Management Effectiveness and Project

Success .................................................................................................................... 124

Table G1. Cronbach’s Alpha for Independent and Dependent Variables ...................... 125

vii
 List of Figures

Figure 1. Project efficiency versus rational project decision making. .............................. 69

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 5. Project efficiency versus goal clarity and alignment. ........................................ 74

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

increasingly important among project practitioners. Media reports of recent high-profile

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

managing projects from the conceptual phase to the ending phase.

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

practitioners pay to activities in the conceptual stage of project implementation. The

aforementioned researchers have argued that failure to ascertain the effectiveness of

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.

These common mistakes of not paying adequate attention to project activities

involved within the initializing phase of a project life cycle provided the rationale for this

study, which is to evaluate the relationship between project management effectiveness

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

worldwide organization of project management professionals. The potential participants

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

for competitive advantage. Effectiveness also is a measure of the quality of achievement

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

effectiveness was operationalized as two constructs as measured by the Project

Management Effectiveness Construct questionnaire: rational project decision making and

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

decades, organizational effectiveness has been explained from five perspectives:

(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

transformation process through measurement and documentation; (d) human relations

 3
model of effectiveness, which focuses on improving morale and personnel’s

development; and (e) competing values model of effectiveness, which demands that

organizations examine the equilibrium among the aforementioned four effectiveness

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

effectiveness is a direct function of the decision-making criteria and goal-centered

activities entrenched within the working processes.

The rational goal model of effectiveness is centered on the organization’s ability

to accomplish its goals. According to Panayides (2007), the objective of an organization

is to identify its goals and develop the means of achieving these goals. Management by

objective (MBO) is a strategic means of achieving organizational objectives (Drucker,

1985). However, Vigoda-Gadot and Angert (2007) argued that the MBO demands that

the goals be aligned with the organization’s objectives.

The significance of increased effectiveness in managing projects cannot be

overstated. For an organization to survive, succeed in the long term, and accomplish its

objectives, it must be effective (Mescon, Albert, & Khedouri, 1985). Effectiveness in

project management demands sound decision making, goal setting via prioritization, and

effective communication with various stakeholders (Kerzner, 2006a). According to

 4
Kerzner, these efforts will result in defining expectations clearly, facilitating interfacing

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,

and improvement of project management practices among the project stakeholders

(Wysocki, 2007). On the other hand, Wysocki argued that a lack of effectiveness could

lead to unacceptable products or services, customer complaints, high warranty costs, a

decreased market share, a backlog in redoing completed work, rejected output, and late

output.

A project is deemed successful when projects are on target, on schedule, on

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

and the project’s final product.

In other words, project success in no longer viewed within the confines of

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

rather than a set of project activities that have to be completed on schedule.

Project success is highly celebrated by the project stakeholders. As a result, when

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.

Project success is process driven. Projects go through initiation, planning,

execution, control or monitoring, and closing phases (PMI, 2004) in order to get tasks

done effectively and to achieve a successful ending. In reality, however, most

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

the effectiveness of project activities involved at the conceptual stage of a project.

Emphasizing the conceptual phase in this study indicates its importance in project

management. The conceptual stage of project management is where clear descriptions of

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

in meeting budgets and schedules, and in satisfying customers, is tied to effectiveness

from the beginning.

 6
For the purposes of this study, project success was operationalized as four

separate constructs, as measured by the Project Success Assessment Questionnaire

(PSAQ; see Appendix A): project efficiency, impact on customer/user, business and

direct organizational success, and preparation for the future. These constructs are further

defined later in this chapter and in chapter 3.

A comprehensive literature review selected from peer-reviewed journals and

books reflective of current thinking on existing project management processes,

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.

Statement of the Problem

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

why it is important to investigate the relationship between project management

 7
effectiveness from the front-end phase of the project life cycle and project success in a

variety of project environments.

Project professionals, particularly project managers, in various organizations

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, &

Pellerin, 2009; Söderholm, 2008; Young, Brady, & Nagle, 2010).

It is necessary that professionals in various project organizations understand and

seek effective ways of enhancing quality project deliverables through increased

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

clarification, as measured by the Project Management Effectiveness Construct (PMEC;

see Appendix B), and project success, as measured by the PSAQ.

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

project efficiency, impact on customer/user, business and direct organizational success,

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

In this quantitative, correlational study, a survey technique was used to evaluate

the relationship between the rational project decision making and goal clarity aspects of

project management effectiveness (i.e., the independent variable) and the project

efficiency, impact on customer/user, business and direct organizational success and

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

increase the current understanding of project management effectiveness related to goal

clarity, rational project decision making, and project success by studying the perceptions

of registered members of the PMI-CCoP.

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)

to 7 (strongly disagree). The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient was

employed to examine the strength and direction of the relationship between project

management effectiveness and project success.

 9
Research Questions and Hypotheses

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

success, as measured by the PSAQ?

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

measured by the PSAQ?

The following hypotheses were tested in order to answer the research questions:

H01: No relationship exists between rational decision making during the early

phase of the project and project success.

Ha1: A positive relationship does exist between rational decision making during

the early phase of the project and project success.

H02: No relationship exists between goal clarity during the early phase of the

project and project success.

Ha2: A positive relationship does exist between goal clarity during the early

phase of the project and project success.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this quantitative, correlational study was to evaluate the

correlation between project management effectiveness and project success as determined

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

cycle among project practitioners of the PMI-CCoP in order to develop a framework of

effective practices that clearly links project management to overall stakeholders’

satisfactions.

Theoretical Foundation

The researcher examined Taylor’s (1998, 2007) theory of scientific management

and Drucker’s (1954) theory of strategic management to capture the variables that have

helped to hone the underlying principles of project management effectiveness and

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

decisions regarding what contribute to the growth of the practical organization,

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

management is presented in detail in chapter 2.

Definitions of Terms

This section defines the key terms used in this study.

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.

Colocation: Colocation is “an organizational placement strategy that physically

locates the project team members close to one another to improve communication,

working relationships, and productivity” (PMI, 2004, p. 354).

Deliverable: A deliverable is “any measurable, tangible, verifiable outcome,

result, or item that must be produced to complete a project or part of a project” (Newell,

2002, p. 388; Phillips, 2004; PMI, 2004).

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

variable, project management effectiveness.

Gorillas: Gorillas are “products or services that dominate a market and place the

company in an extraordinarily powerful position” (Levine, 2005, p. 110).

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.

Performing organization: This term refers to the governance board or enterprise

whose employees are the most directly involved in managing the project activities

(Kerzner, 2006b; PMI, 2004).

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.

Progressive elaboration: This approach allows planning to go through an

incremental process (Axson, 2007; Gido & Clements, 2006; Kerzner, 2006a, 2006b;

Phillips, 2004; PMI, 2004).

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

(Newell, 2002; Phillips, 2004; PMI, 2004).

Project charter: A project charter is a one-page document that contains the

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,

2004; PMI, 2004).

Project constraint: A project constraint is “an applicable internal or external

restriction or limitation to the project that will affect the performance of the project or

process” (PMI, 2004, p. 355).

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 Management Institute (PMI): The PMI is a nonprofit professional

organization dedicated to advancing state-of-art project management; promoting

professionalism in project management; and providing a medium for the exchange of

project management problems, solutions and applications (PMI, 2004).

Project efficiency: Project efficiency represents a short-term measure of the

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

four measures of the dependent variable, project success.

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 &

Clements, 2006; Kerzner, 2006b).

 15
Project objective: The goal of the project objective is to ensure that the project is

on target, on time, within budget with the ultimate goal of satisfying the customer (Gido

& Clements, 2006; Kerzner, 2006a, 2006b; Phillips, 2004; PMI, 2004).

Projectized structure: This term refers to organizations that work on multiple

projects at any one time and do not produce standard products (Gido & Clements, 2006;

Kerzner, 2006a).

Rational decision making: This project management effectiveness factor

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.

Work breakdown structure (WBS): The WBS is an organized collection of the

project-deliverable components to be created by project work (Phillips, 2004).

Assumptions

In this study, which sought to determine the relationship between project

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

openly and honestly.

 16
Limitations

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.

Scope and Delimitation

This study focused on the relationship, as manifested in survey data, between

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

effectiveness and success.

The scope was limited to project management managers of the PMI-CCoP, not to

a specific organization, in order to assess the relationship between project management

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

organizations involved with project implementations rather than to a specific industry.

Significance of the Study

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

by examining the perceptions of project managers. A closer examination of project

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

rates, and increase overall project success.

From the social change perspective, the study may add value to the current body

of knowledge. The findings may indicate a positive correlation between project

management effectiveness and project success. As a result, some organizations may wish

to integrate these project management effectiveness variables into their daily

management of projects in an effort to increase economic growth (productivity, cost

minimization, profit maximization, etc.); technological enhancement (development of

new products, on-time project delivery, etc.); unsurpassed commercial breakthroughs

(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

This study was conducted to examine the relationship between project

management effectiveness from the front-end phase of the project life cycle and project

success. Chapter 1 encapsulated an introduction to the study, problem statement,

theoretical base, research questions and hypotheses; definitions of terms; assumptions,

limitations, scope, and delimitations; and the significance of the study. Following this

introduction, a literature review selected from peer-reviewed journals and books that

reflect current thinking on project success and project management effectiveness is

presented in chapter 2. Included in chapter 3 is a description of the research methodology,

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

findings and includes a comparison to the literature, interpretation of the findings,

implications for social change, recommendations for action and further study, and

conclusions drawn from the study.

 19
Chapter 2: Literature Review

Introduction

The study examined current trends in project management in order to establish a

project effectiveness model and identify success factors that clearly link project

management effectiveness variables to success. To establish these trends in project

management effectiveness, the literature review includes Taylor’s (1998) theoretical

framework (scientific management) and Drucker’s (1954) theory (strategic management)

on management effectiveness. The aim of the literature view was to (a) link the findings

of these theorists to current practices in project management; (b) identify the

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

underlying principles of management effectiveness in various organizational systems. For

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

described in this chapter.

Various strategies were adopted to locate the appropriate literature. The literature

search included current peer-reviewed journals selected from ProQuest, Academic Search

Premier, EBSCO, ABI/INFORM Global database, Business Source Complete database,

 20
PMI online databases, and, professional websites. Other sources from the literature were

previous works of authors in published books and professional magazines that were

reflective of current thinking on project management effectiveness and project success.

The key words used to search for relevant literature included project management and

effectiveness, project management and success factors, project management best

practices, organizational strategy, and organizational theory.

Management: Theoretical Perspective

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

business motivated the founders of management as a discipline, including Frederick

Taylor (principles of scientific management) and Peter Drucker (inventor of modern

management), to shape and chart the course of management history and the emergence of

modern project management.

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

processes, excellent results that eradicate management inefficiencies follow. As Besner

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

perspective, Drucker (1954), from the perspective of the discipline of modern

management practices, defined management as an organized body of knowledge, a

practice rather than a science that is based on knowledge and responsibility. Drucker’s

five management practices can effectively enhance project success: effective time

management; strategic decisions as to what contributes to the growth of the practical

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

work systems (Eschenbach, 2010; Kozak et al., 2003); the development of

institutionalized innovations (Wallman, 2010); and the ability to be stakeholder focused

(Barwise & Meehan, 2010), into the practice of project management.

 22
Emergence of Modern Project Management

Aside from the theoretical perspective of project management, the practice of

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-

reaching influence on the today’s project management. Modern project management

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

contemporary management of complex projects.

Equally important, nine schools of thought in project management have evolved

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

management include optimization, modeling, governance, behavior, success, decision,

process, contingency, and marketing school (Bredillet, 2008c). A brief description of

each of these schools is provided in Table 1.

 23
Table 1

Nine Schools of Project Management Thought

School Period Description Source

Optimization 1950s The project was viewed as a machine. Bredillet (2008c)
Optimization tools such as PERT and CPM were
developed. These tools reflect the beginning of
modern project management.
Modeling 1960s The project was viewed as a mirror. This school of Bredillet (2008c)
thought is based on a hard systems approach in
which project management is broken into its main
element for study and understanding.
Governance 1970s The project was viewed as a legal entity. Bredillet (2008d)
Relationships between contract management and
project management; and the mechanisms of
governance on project were established.
Behavior Mid- The project was viewed as a social system. The Bredillet (2008d)
1970s focus was on organizational behavior, team
building, leadership, communication and human
resources
Success Mid- The project was viewed as a business objective. Bredillet (2008d)
1980s This school of thought focuses on the success and
failure of projects.
Decision 1990s The project was viewed as a computer. This school Bredillet (2008e)
of thought focuses on the application of soft
systems methodology in the process levels of
managing projects.
Process Early The project was viewed as an algorithm. The focus Bredillet (2008e)
1990s of this school of thought is on defining the
structured processes from initiation to completion
phase.
Contingency Early The project was viewed as a chameleon. This Bredillet (2008e)
1990s school of thought contends that the right approach
to project management should be used, given that
projects vary from one organization to another.
Marketing Mid- The project was viewed as a billboard. This school Bredillet (2008e)
1990s of thought focuses on the initiation phase of the
project that seeks to link managing the project and
stakeholders’ expectations.

Projects and Project Management

A project has a beginning, a middle, and an end (Schachter, 2004); it is a

sequence of unique, complex, and connected activities having one goal that must be

completed by a specific time (Watson, 2009; Wysocki, 2007); it is a temporary endeavor

 24
undertaken to create a unique product or service (PMI, 2004); and it is an endeavor to

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

be in form of financial support, human resources, machinery, and computer software.

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

customer to pay for the services, as accomplished by a series of interdependent tasks

(Gido & Clements, 2006); and inherent levels of risks and uncertainty (Söderholm,

2008). The management of these interdependent tasks that demands supervision of the

tasks necessary to complete project objectives is termed project management (Phillips,

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).

Significance of Project Management

No organization can survive without successful project management input (Scott-

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

business innovation and change that positions organizations to gain competitive

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).

In addition, project management delivers desired outcomes, enhances project

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

be committed to a culture of effective practices (Reed, 2008) by creating an enabling

working environment that encourages team cohesiveness.

Project Management Effectiveness

The world is constantly in need of change. As such, recent research on

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

challenges; economic turmoil; and competitive business opportunities. However, what is

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).

Other researchers in the management field have defined effectiveness as the

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

through a balance of sound management, change control, and a relentless rededication to

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

effectiveness has always measured how productively organizations accomplish their

objectives through their strategic practices.

Organizational effectiveness has attracted an enormous amount of interest from

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

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;
 27
(c) internal process model of effectiveness, which focuses on the internal transformation

process through measurement and documentation; (d) human relations model of

effectiveness, which focuses on improving morale and personnel development; and

(e) competing values model of effectiveness, which demands that organizations examine

the equilibrium among the aforementioned four effectiveness models.

Early studies on organizational effectiveness credited huge importance to the

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

of organizational effectiveness (Campbell, 1977; Kerzner, 2006b; Morrison & Brown,

2004; Phillips, 2009; Pinto, 2005, 2007; Willis et al., 2010; Young et al., 2010) as

fundamental variables that can foster project success.

The significance of increased effectiveness in managing projects cannot be

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

expectations clearly, (b) facilitating interfacing with support departments, and

(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

output, and (h) late output of product or service delivery.

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,

measurable, aggressive yet achievable, relevant and time-bound (SMART) to achieve

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

effective decision making.

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

performance (Bastons, 2008). However, Bastons argued that organizations should do

everything truly feasible with a high level of rationality, with true business knowledge,

and with good intentions to achieve success.

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

failure of a plan or a program.

Project Management Effectiveness Driven by Best Practices

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

practices in management clearly is an ongoing process. According to Kerzner (2006b),

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

getting the company out of trouble.

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

the experiences of others in similar situation (Wysocki, 2007); a specific type of

professional or management activity that contributes to the execution of a process and

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

future development (Besner & Hobbs, 2006).

Stakeholders

Stakeholders in this context refer to any individuals who may be affected

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

Recent studies on project sponsors (Bryde, 2007; Kloppenborg, Tesch, Manolis,

& 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)

inherent in the project.

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

willingness to challenge the project and provide objectivity.

Project sponsors may be external or internal senior management who are

representative of the performing organization (Bryde, 2007) to the organization.

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

one phase of deliverables to another phase in the project life cycle.

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

ultimately jeopardize the project.

Performing Organization

Equally important, the performing organization or the governance board refers to

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

company depends upon the performing organization’s ability to manage personnel

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.

According to Gido and Clements (2006), project managers provide leadership to

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

manager to lead the project team toward the project’s goals.

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

through ongoing reviews and documentation. As a result, project managers must

communicate unforeseen developments accurately to the team members and also listen to

their suggestions (Hutka, 2009; Shenhar et al., 2007).

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

members or supervisors being delegated to act must be empowered to accept full

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

encouraged by a determined, goal-orientated involvement that fosters greater self-

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

working towards a common objective (Dvir, 2005) to achieve success.

According to Axson (2007), ensuring effectiveness requires not only redesigned

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

people. Methodologies do not manage projects; people do (Kerzner, 2006a). Drucker

(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

shareholder values often suffer when human capital is mismanaged.

 36
To make the most of a company’s biggest asset, the project team, Gelbard 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

generating better solutions and increasing group efficiency. According to Hansson

(2007), decisions made in groups such as committees, task forces, review panels, and

study teams have an across-the-board impact on organizational activities and workforce.

Ideas within the project team can be generated through various techniques,

including brainstorming, the Delphi technique, nominal group technique, Crawford slip,

expert interviews, checklists, analogy techniques and diagramming techniques (Phillips,

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

effectiveness outweigh their disadvantages.

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

experience and training.

Organizational Type

In project management, there are three basic organizational types: functional,

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

in the reporting process.

The functional based organization is typically the type of structure used in

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,

2006a). In project-based (projectized) structures, according to Phillips, the project

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.

Axson (2007) stressed that because organizational structure tends to change

frequently, it is difficult to report information that cuts across the organization in a

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

able to recognize the impact of the organizational structure in regard to project

management will allow performing organizations leverage and position their role as

project stakeholders effectively. In addition, there is a need to adapt the right

management style to each project (Shenhar et al., 2007). Drucker (1954) suggested that

organizations, as a matter of structural principles, should have as few layers of

organizational structure as possible to avoid reporting conflict and to reduce diluting the

importance of the message.

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

the Internet. E-business, according to Garrett, describes technology-enabled business that

focuses on the seamless integration of the key stakeholders, performing organizations,

project managers, and team members. This assertion suggests that technology is the

vehicle that drives business success and that organization without technology face a

higher risk of business failure. According to Schachter (2004), technology-related

 39
projects sometime fail to meet project deadlines. Thus, if performing organizations are

going to be successful, meet project deadlines, and ultimately satisfy their customers,

they need technological tools (Thomas & Fernández, 2008).

Research on better ways of performing projects effectively through the use of

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

project delivery (Unruh, 1997).

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

combination of using current technologies, upgrading existing technologies where

appropriate, and acquiring new technologies when required will be the principal factor in

achieving project success.

Knowledge Management

In regard to the hidden driver of effectiveness, knowledge management has been

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

knowledge management experts like Nonaka and Takeuchi, organizational knowledge

describes the capability of an organization to generate and distribute new knowledge

throughout the organization exemplified in its products, services, and systems.

Project management effectiveness increases through knowledge transfer (Kerzner,

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

production equipment, whereas the most valuable assets of a 21st-century institution,

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

primary driver of effectiveness.

Building a Team of Knowledge Experts Through Training and Development

Team development is not a luxury. Team development is an essential commodity

that drives performance and productivity (Zwikael & Unger-Aviram, 2010), and

enhances effectiveness (Hyvari, 2005; Jordan, Streit, & Binkley, 2003). Contemporary

organizations are increasingly employing corporate in-house and outdoor training,

 41
workshops, seminars, and conferences as strategic tools for team and leadership

development.

A workplace environment that promotes encouragement and growth through

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

implementing an effective business strategy is a multifaceted task that requires a team of

knowledge experts and supportive leadership that can incorporate knowledge

management as a success dynamic in achieving organizational competence.

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

means of motivating organizational growth.

Training and development improve performance, increase profitability, enhance

employee morale, and position the organization so that it has a competitive advantage

(Kerzner, 2006a). As Lloria (2007) as well as Zwikael and Unger-Aviram (2010)

emphasized, training and development lead to increased employee motivation,

 42
efficiencies in processes, the capacity to adopt new technologies and methods, and job

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.

In summary, the ability to create new knowledge is key to organizational success

(Puddicombe, 2006). Success in the marketplace increasingly depends on learning

(Argyris, 1992; Lloria, 2007). Davenport and Prusak (1998) claimed that organizational

knowledge will make an important contribution to understanding the sources of long-

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)

described as the sum of an organization’s ideas, inventions, technologies, general

knowledge, computer programs, designs, data skills, processes, creativity, and

publications.

Project Management Effectiveness From a Process Standpoint

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

meanings of effectiveness may have no meaning without a mutual process of constructing

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

requirements of the end customer (Wysocki, 2007). A process that is understood

promotes the teams’ decision-making capabilities and aligns project management with

the business strategy (Milosevic & Srivannaboon, 2006). Olsson (2006) claimed that

organizations that reengineer their business processes gain sustainable competitive

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

are generic in the practice of project management.

 44
Project Initiation Phase

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

performing organization (Gido & Clements, 2006).

This stage is characterized by the approval of a project charter. The power to

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

development priorities of donors, the capacities of potential implementing agencies, and

the development of needs; develop and evaluate project alternatives; and generate interest

and support of key stakeholders.

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

project’s planning, execution, monitoring and closing phases of the project.

Project Planning Phase

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

methodology. As a result, planning techniques have received enormous attention (Aramo-

Immonen & Vanharanta, 2009; Kerzner, 2006a) based on the need for the appropriate

control and management of large-scale projects (Caughron & Mumford, 2008; Dvir,

2005) to curb this failure rate.

Effective planning contributes to the implementation of innovative ideas and

influences the creative problem-solving process at much earlier stages of project

development (Caughron & Mumford, 2008); enables accurate cost estimates to be

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

(Söderholm, 2008). Effective planning can help in the development of strategic

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

one’s assigned responsibility (Kerzner, 2006a); preparation for the commitment of

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

approach is to allow planning to go through incremental or continuous process, otherwise

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

the deliverables (Aramo-Immonen & Vanharanta, 2009).

The breakdown of major tasks into smaller tasks is a fundamental measure of

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

commencing the execution phase of the project life cycle.

Project Execution Phase

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

requires a total commitment of resources and time.

Consequently, one of the most significant measures of effectiveness in the

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.

Controlling or Monitoring Phase

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

without delay, if necessary, before closing out the project.

Project Closeout Phase

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

succeeded in differentiating between traditional project management success (traditional

approach) and project success (adaptive approach) for the purpose of linking projects to

ongoing operations.

The traditional definition of project success, also called project management

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

collection of project activities that have to be completed on time.

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

applies to the incorporation of standardized tools and technology, proven project

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

sets of 127 projects (see Table 2).

Table 2

Success Dimensions

Success dimensions Measures

Project efficiency Meeting schedule goal
Meeting budget goal
Impact on the customer Meeting functional performance
Meeting technical performance
Fulfilling customers’ needs
Solving customers’ problem
The customer is using the product
Customer satisfaction
Business success Commercial success
Creating a large market share
Preparing for the future Creating a new market
Creating a new product line
Developing a new technology

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

management conferences; documentation of lesson learned during 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

deliverables and a contingency plan, as well as unnecessary complexity in the system.

 52
LaBrosse (2007) and Viratkapan and Perera (2006) also claimed that feature creep,

project agreement changes, poor team dynamics, multitasking, overscheduling of the

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

stakeholders (Sauser et al., 2009); breakdowns in the chain of communication (Waxman,

2005); organization’s oversight toward monitoring and improving maintenance

operations (Bagadia, 2009); inadequate planning (Dvir, 2005); and the absence of a good

working relationship among various stakeholders (Chen, Law, & Yang, 2009).

Summary of the Literature Review

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

data and analyze these variables is discussed in chapter 3.

 53
Chapter 3: Research Method

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.

Research Design and Approach

A quantitative survey design was used to examine the relationship between

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.

This study involved the measurement of project management effectiveness (i.e.,

independent variable) and project success (i.e., dependent variable). The correlation

between these variables was assessed using the Pearson correlation statistic. The Pearson

correlation statistic requires quantitative data in the form of variables measured on a

continuous measurement scale. The independent and dependent variables in this study

were measured on a continuous measurement scale, making a quantitative, correlational

study design suitable.

 54
Other reasons for a survey research design were its uniqueness, which involves

gathering information not available from other sources, and its standardization of

measurement, which describes the same information collected from every respondent.

Consistent standardized measurement across all respondents ensures that comparable

information was obtained about everyone who participated in the study.

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

manager members of the PMI-CCoP, a member-driven virtual community within the

PMI. The PMI-CCoP is a branch of the global institute of the PMI, which has its

headquarters in Pennsylvania. The PMI is a nonprofit professional organization dedicated

to advancing state-of-the-art in project management; promoting professionalism in

 55
project management; and providing a medium for the exchange of project management

problems, solutions, and applications (PMI, 2004).

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

consent. Members of the PMI-CCoP belong to a variety of different professions, such as

project professionals in the field of information technology, business and financial

services, engineering and construction, telecommunications, industrial processes, and

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

participate and complete the surveys.

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

significance) this correlation at the 0.05 level of statistical significance.

Instrumentation and Materials

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

variable of project management effectiveness. The Pearson product-moment correlation

coefficient was employed to examine the relationship between project management

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

measure the independent variable of project management effectiveness. Appropriate

demographic information was included with the surveys in order to summarize the

characteristics of the sample (see Appendix C). Written permission was sought and

granted by the originators of these instruments for this study.

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.

Validity and Reliability

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

internal consistency of the operationalization of the variables.

 58
Operationalization of the Variables

Operationalization of the variables delineates the measurable factors, which will

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

factors. Following is description of how each factor was operationalized.

Rational project decision making was measured on a continuous measurement

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

coded as 1 (strongly disagree), 2 (disagree), 3 (somewhat disagree), 4 (neutral), 5

(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.

Goal clarity was measured on a continuous measurement scale with a range of 1

to 7. The score was derived by calculating the average of Questions 8 to 12 from the

PMEC. Response choices on the questionnaire were coded as 1 (strongly disagree), 2

(disagree), 3 (somewhat disagree), 4 (neutral), 5 (somewhat agree), 6 (agree), and 7

 59
(strongly agree). Thus, smaller scores indicated the perception that goal clarity is a less

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

project manager’s organization.

Four Main Factors of Project Success

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.

Project efficiency was measured on a continuous measurement scale with a range

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

the perception that the project was more proficient.

The impact on the customer variable was measured on a continuous measurement

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

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 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.

The variable of business success was measured on a continuous measurement

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

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 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

project had a more desirable effect on the business.

The variable of preparation for the future was measured on a continuous

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

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 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

organization’s preparation for future projects.

Data Collection

Prior to the collection of data, permission to conduct the study was sought from

Walden University’s Institutional Review Board (IRB approval #09-14-10-0382233).

 61
The research data were collected from two web-based surveys, a process that was cost

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

from members of the PMI-CCoP about their perceptions of project management

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

neutral on the selected statement.

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

computer with password-protected encryption to ensure their security.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

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

success, as measured by the PSAQ?

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

measured by the PSAQ?

The following hypotheses were tested in order to answer the research questions:

H01: No relationship exists between rational decision making during the early

phase of the project and project success.

Ha1: A positive relationship does exist between rational decision making during

the early phase of the project and project success.

H02: No relationship exists between goal clarity during the early phase of the

project and project success.

Ha2: A positive relationship does exist between goal clarity during the early

phase of the project and project success.

 63
Data Analysis

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

effectiveness and project success scale scores.

Hypothesis 1 was tested using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. If the Pearson

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

repeated for each of the four measures of project success.

Hypothesis 2 was tested using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. If the Pearson

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

each of the four measures of project success.

The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient is the most frequently used

parametric measure of the correlation between two interval variables. It is denoted by r

 64
and varies between +1 and −1. It is defined as the covariance of two variables X

(effectiveness) and Y (success) divided by their product of their standard deviation

E X   X Y  Y 
Cov X , Y  
 XY

Where  X and Y are the means for X (effectiveness) and Y (success); and  X and  Y

are the standard deviations for X (effectiveness) and Y (success) respectively.

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

the suitable statistical tool for testing the hypotheses.

Ethical Considerations

Ethical considerations cannot be ignored in social science research. As a result,

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

procedures and any possibility of risks or discomfort.

The confidentiality of the individual respondents was ensured. Any information

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 &

Onwuegbuzie, 2004) that have the potential to be in every study.

Summary of the Research Methodology

The research methods and designs for this study were explained in chapter 3. The

researcher employed a quantitative survey research design (cross-sectional survey) and

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

descriptive statistics for the demographic variables.

 66
Chapter 4: Results

Introduction

The purpose of this quantitative, correlational study was to evaluate the

correlation between project management effectiveness and project success as determined

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

efficiency, impact on customer/user, business and direct organizational success, and

preparation for the future. The correlation between project management effectiveness, the

independent variable, and project success, the dependent variable, were evaluated using a

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient.

Data Collection and Analysis

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

project management; who “bring formal frameworks or methods to identify problems or

suggest more effective or efficient ways of performing business or organizational tasks”;

and who are at “the forefront of implementing new technology, practices, and policies

within their organizations” (PMI, n.d., n.p.).

 67
Data were collected from two web-based surveys that were posted on the

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

The demographic survey covered a wide range of demographic variables,

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

degree or a higher level of education.

Study participants reported a variety of industry affiliations, although the most

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

was broken down into four separate questions: 2a to 2d.

Research Question 1a: 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 success, as measured by project efficiency?

H01a: No relationship exists between rational decision making during the early

phase of the project and project efficiency.

Ha1a: A positive relationship does exist between rational decision making during

the early phase of the project and project efficiency.

Figure 1 depicts the relationship between the project efficiency and rational

project decision-making scores. There was a statistically significant strong positive

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

making among project managers who are members of the PMI-CCoP.

Figure 1. Project efficiency versus rational project decision making.

Research Question 1b: 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 success, as measured by impact on the customer?

H01b: No relationship exists between rational decision making during the early

phase of the project and impact on the customer.

Ha1b: A positive relationship does exist between rational decision making during

the early phase of the project and impact on the customer.

Figure 2 depicts the relationship between the impact on the customer and the

rational project decision-making scores. There was a statistically significant strong

 70
positive correlation between impact on the customer and the rational project decision

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.

Figure 2. Impact on the customer versus rational project decision making.

Research Question 1c: 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 success, as measured by business and direct organizational success.

H01c: No relationship exists between rational decision making during the early

phase of the project and Business and direct organizational success.

 71
Ha1c: A positive relationship does exist between rational decision making during

the early phase of the project and Business and direct organizational success.

Figure 3 depicts the relationship between the business success and rational project

decision-making scores. There was a statistically significant strong positive correlation

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

among project managers who are members of the PMI-CCoP.

Figure 3. Business and direct organizational success versus rational project decision
making.

Research Question 1d: 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 success, as measured by preparing for the future?

 72
H01d: No relationship exists between rational decision making during the early

phase of the project and Preparing for the future.

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

rational project decision-making scores. There was a statistically significant strong

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

success, as measured by project efficiency?

H02a: No relationship exists between goal clarity during the early phase of the

project and project efficiency.

Ha2a: A positive relationship does exist between goal clarity during the early phase

of the project and project efficiency.

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

project managers who are members of the PMI-CCoP.

 74

Figure 5. Project efficiency versus goal clarity and alignment.

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

success, as measured by impact on the customer?

H02b: No relationship exists between goal clarity during the early phase of the

project and impact on the customer.

Ha2b: A positive relationship does exist between goal clarity during the early

phase of the project and impact on the customer.

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.

Figure 6. Impact on the customer versus goal clarity and alignment.

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

success, as measured by business and direct organizational success?

H02: No relationship exists between goal clarity during the early phase of the

project and business and direct organizational success.

Ha2c: A positive relationship does exist between goal clarity during the early phase

of the project and business and direct organizational success.

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

are members of the PMI-CCoP.

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

measured by preparing for the future.

H02: No relationship exists between goal clarity during the early phase of the

project and preparing for the future.

Ha2d: A positive relationship does exist between goal clarity during the early

phase of the project and preparing for the future.

 77
Figure 8 depicts the relationship between the preparation for the future and goal

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

5 is a discussion of these findings in relation to the existing literature, implications for

practice, and recommendations for further study.

 79
Chapter 5: Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

Introduction

Project management demands that projects be on target (scope), be on time

(schedule), be implemented within available resources (cost), and ultimately satisfy the

customers. Project professionals, particularly project managers, in various organizations

understand these challenges of ensuring that projects meet these four project

requirements in fulfilling project objectives. As a result, the subject of increased

effectiveness, particularly at the conceptual phase of a project life cycle, continues to be

an area of research and indicates why it is important to investigate the relationship

between project management effectiveness from the front-end phase of the project life

cycle and project success.

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

project efficiency, impact on customer/user, business and direct organizational success,

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

front-end phase of the project life cycle and project success.

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

interpretation and discussion of findings, implications for social change,

recommendations for action and for further study; and conclusion drawn from the study.

Interpretation of the Findings

This study was grounded in two research questions.

Hypotheses for Research Question 1

The purpose of the first research question was to determine whether a relationship

exists between the rational project decision-making aspects of project management

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

effectiveness is a direct function of the decision-making criteria and goal-centered

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.

The statistical findings reported in chapter 4 indicated a strong positive

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.

The results presented in chapter 4 showed a strong positive correlation between

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

on investment, and service quality.

The researcher found evidence of a strong positive correlation between

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

practical organization, knowledge and understanding of where and how to mobilize

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).

Hypotheses for Research Question 2

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.

The statistical findings reported in chapter 4 showed a strong positive correlation

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

integrated with systematic management processes can eradicate management

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

communication with various stakeholders whose perceptions are critical to the

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

aspect of project effectiveness is correlated with meeting project requirements and

achieving customer satisfaction, benefits, and loyalty aspects of project success.

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

clarity is directly proportional to business and organizational success. In line with

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

client outcome goals.

Implications for Social Change

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

consequences for the economy, organizations, customers, societies, and communities.

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

positive impact on society at large.

In addition, because the findings showed a positive correlation between project

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

economic growth (productivity, cost minimization, profit maximization, etc.);

technological enhancement (development of new products, on-time project delivery,

etc.); commercial breakthroughs (increase in market share, a specific niche, etc.); and

social competitive advantages (effects on customers, suppliers, improvement of human

and social conditions; and the public at large), with a resulting increase in stakeholder

satisfaction.

Recommendations for Action

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

project management effectiveness and the project efficiency, impact on customer/user,

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.

There is a potential that training project managers to be more effective in their

rational project decision making and goal clarity may result in greater project success. In

this era of technology-driven economy, where the application of state-of the-art

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.

The results of this study will be disseminated to project professionals worldwide

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

management professionals to integrate effective practices, particularly at the conceptual

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

future research fellows may have access to it for further study.

Recommendations for Further Study

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

support a cause-and-effect relationship between project management effectiveness and

project success is to conduct a randomized, controlled, experimental study. One or more

organizations could design a training program to improve project managers’ rational

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

decision making and goal clarity lead to more successful projects.

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 &

Management Development Methods, 23(1), 317-320. doi:10.1108/09513500

910933273

Angelides, D. (1999). Project management and good technical and business practices.

Journal of Management in Engineering, 15(3), 78-88. Retrieved from Business

Source Complete database. (AN 1836825)

Aramo-Immonen, H., & Vanharanta, H. (2009). Project management: The task of holistic

systems thinking. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 19(6), 582-

600. doi:10.1002/hfm.20185

Argyris, C. (1992). On organizational learning. Boston, MA: Blackwell.

Axson, D. (2007). Best practices in planning and performance measurement: From data

to decisions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Bagadia, K. (2009). CMMM: 7 steps to success. Plant Engineering, 63(10), 55. Retrieved

from Business Source Complete database. (AN 1882629131)

Bailey, K. (1994). Methods of social science (4th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Baruch, Y (2004). Response rate in academic studies: A comparative analysis.

Journal of Human Relations, 52(4), 421-438. Retrieved from ProQuest Central

database. (AN 40718531)

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

Complete database. (AN 49036678)

 91
Bastons, M. (2008). The role of virtues in the framing of decisions. Journal of Business

Ethics, 78(93), 389-400. doi:10.1007/s10551-006-9332-x

Beitler, M. (2005). Strategic organizational learning: A practical guide for managers

and consultants. Greensboro, NC: Practitioner Press International.

Belout, A. (1998). Effects of human resource management on project effectiveness and

success: Toward a new conceptual framework. International Journal of Project

Management, 16(1), 21-26. doi:10.1016/S0263(97)00011-2

Besner, C., & Hobbs, B. (2006). The perceived value and potential contribution of project

management practices to project success. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 37-

48.

Besner, C., & Hobbs, B. (2008). Project management practice, generic or contextual: A

reality check. Project Management Journal, 39(1), 16-33.

Brausch, J. (2010). Setting the right goals. Journal of Strategic Finance, 91(9), 1-6.

Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global database. (AN 1982221021)

Bredillet, C. (2008a). Exploring research in project management: Nine schools of project

management research (Part 1). Project Management Journal, 38(2), 3-4.

Bredillet, C. (2008b). Exploring research in project management: Nine schools of project

management research (Part 2). Project Management Journal, 38(3), 3-5.

Bredillet, C. (2008c). Exploring research in project management: Nine schools of project

management research (Part 3). Project Management Journal, 38(4), 2-4.

Bredillet, C. (2008d). Exploring research in project management: Nine schools of project

management research (Part 4). Project Management Journal, 39(1), 2-6.

 92
Bredillet, C. (2008e). Exploring research in project management: Nine schools of project

management research (Part 5). Project Management Journal, 39(2), 2-4.

Bredillet, C. (2008f). Exploring research in project management: Nine schools of project

management research (Part 6). Project Management Journal, 39(3), 2-5.

Bredillet, C. (2010). Blowing hot and cold on project management. Project Management

Journal, 41(3), 4-20.

Brown, C. J. (2008). A comprehensive organizational model for the effective

management of project management. South African Journal of Business

Management, 39(3), 10.

Bruvold, N., & Comer, J. (2002). A model for estimating the response rate to a mailed

survey. Journal of Business Research, 16(2), 101-116. doi:10.1016/0148-2963

(88)90036-7

Bryde, D. (2007). Perceptions of the impact of project sponsorship practices on project

success. International Journal of Project Management, 26(8), 800. doi:10.106/

j.ijproman.2007.12.001

Buunk, A., & Gibbons F. (2007). Social comparison: The end of a theory and the

emergence of a field. Journal of Organizational Behavior and Human Decision

Processes, 102(1), 3-21. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.007

Campbell, J. (1977). On the nature of organizational effectiveness. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.
 93
Caughron, J. J., & Mumford, M. D. (2008). Project planning: The effects of using formal

planning techniques on creative problem-solving. Journal of Creativity and

Innovation Management, 17(3), 204-215. doi:10.1111/j. 1467-8691.2008.00484.x

Chang, L., & Krosnick, J. (2010). Comparing oral interviewing with self-administered

computerized questionnaires: An experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74(1),

154-167. doi:10.1093/poq/nfp090

Chen, C. C., Law, C. H., & Yang, S. C. (2009). Managing ERP implementation failure: A

project management perspective. IEEE Transactions on Engineering

Management, 56(1), 157-170. doi:10.1109/TEM.2008.2009802

Cicmil, S., & Hodgson, D. (2006). New possibilities for project management theory: A

critical engagement. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 111-122.

Clarke, A. (1999). A practical use of key success factors to improve effectiveness of

project management. International Journal of Project Management, 17(3), 139-

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

the accounting craft. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 25(6), 555-578.

doi:10.1016/S0361-3682(99)00052-5

Crawford, L. (2006). Developing organizational project management capability: Theory

and practice. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 74 - 97.

 94
Curtis, R. (2000). Using goal-setting strategies to enrich the practicum and internship

experiences of beginning counselors. Journal of Humanistic Counseling,

Education and Development, 38(4), 194-205. Retrieved from ProQuest Central

Education Journals database. (Document ID: 1372482381)

Dai, C. X., & Wells, W. G. (2004). An exploration of project management office features

and their relationship to project performance. International Journal of Project

Management, 22(7), 523-532. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.04.001

Davenport, T., & Prusak, L. (2000) Working knowledge: How organizations manage

what they know. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Dhillon, G., & Caldeira, M. (2008). A bumpy road to success (or not): The case of project

genesis at Nevada DMV. International Journal of Information Management,

28(3), 222-228. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2008.02.001

Drucker, P. (1954). The practices of management. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Drucker, P. (1985). Management: Tasks, responsibilities, practices. New York, NY:

HarperCollins.

Drucker, P. (1986). Managing for results. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

Drucker, P. (1999). Knowledge worker productivity: The biggest challenge. California

Management Review, 41(2), 79. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global database.

(Document ID: 39818809)

Dvir, D. (2005). Transferring projects to their final users: The effect of planning and

preparations for commissioning on project success. International Journal of

Project Management, 23(3), 257-265. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.10.12.003

 95
Elbanna, S. & Naguib, R. (2009). How much does performance matter in strategic

decision making? International Journal of Productivity and Performance

Management. 58(5), 437-459. doi:10.1108/17410400910965715

Elmes, M., & Wilemon, D. (1988). Organizational culture and project leader

effectiveness. Project Management Journal, 19(4), 54-63.

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

the management and education of knowledge workers. Journal of Management

Science, 48(4), 475- 484. doi:10.1108/00251741011041292

Fey, C. F., & Denison, D. R. (2003). Organizational culture and effectiveness: Can

American theory be applied in Russia? Journal of Organization Science, 14(6),

686-706. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 523481

751)

Finch, C. (2009). Keys to effective personnel management. Ceramic Industry, 159(8), 34-

35. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 1895112121)

Garrett, G. (2007). World class contracting. Riverwoods, IL: CCH-Wolters Kluwer

Business.

Gelbard, R. & Carmeli, A. (2009). The interactive effect of team dynamics and

organizational support on ICT project success. International Journal of Project

Management, 27(2), 464 -470. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.07.005

Gido, J., & Clements, J. (2006). Successful project management. Mason, OH: Thomson

South-Western.
 96
Golfashani, N. (2003). Understanding reliability and validity in qualitative research.

Qualitative Report, 8(4), 597-607.

Gold, J. (1998). Telling the story of organizational effectiveness. Career Development

International Journal, 3(3), 107. doi:10.1108/13620439810211090

Gregory, B., Harris, S., Armenakis, A., & Shook, C. (2009). Organizational culture and

effectiveness: A study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes. Journal

of Business Research, 6(7), 673-679. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2008.05.021

Griffith, A. F., Gibson, G. E., Hamilton, M. R., Tortora, A. L., & Wilson, C. T. (1999).

Project success index for capital construction projects. Journal of Performance of

Constructed Facilities, 13(1), 39-45. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0887-3828(1999)13:1

(39)

Hansson, S. (2007), Social decisions about risk and risk-taking. Social Choice and

Welfare, 29(4), 649-663. doi:10.1007.s00355-007-0249-9

Hedeman, B., Heemst, G., & Fredriksz, H. (2005). Best practice: Project management

based on prince2. San Antonio, TX: Van Haren.

Heffner, M., & Sharif, N (2008). Knowledge fusion for technological innovation in

organizations. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(2), 79-93. doi:10.1108/13

673270810859532

Helm, J., & Remington, K. (2005). Effective project sponsorship: An evaluation of the

role of the executive sponsor in complex infrastructure projects by senior project

managers. Project Management Journal, 36(3), 51-61.

 97
Hough, J., & White, M. (2001). Using stories to create change: The object lesson of

Frederick Taylor’s “pig-tale.” Journal of Management, 27(5), 585-601.

doi:10.1016/S.0149-2063(01)00109-X

Hsiu-Fen, L. (2006). Interorganizational and organizational determinants of planning

effectiveness for Internet-based interorganizational systems. Journal of

Information & Management, 43(4), 423-433. doi:10.1016/j.im.2005.10.004

Huemann, M. (2010). Considering human resource management when developing a

project-oriented company: Case study of a telecommunication company.

International Journal of Project Management, 28(4), 361-369. doi:10.1016/j.i

jproman.2010.02.008

Hughes, S. W., Tippett, D, D., & Thomas, W. K. (2004). Measuring project success in

the construction industry. Engineering Management Journal, 16(3), 31-37.

Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 725589731)

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)

Hyvari, I. (2005). Project management effectiveness in project-oriented business

organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 24(6), 216-226.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.09.001

Ingasan, H. T., & Jonasson, H. I. (2009). Contemporary knowledge and skill

requirements in project management. Project Management Journal, 40(2), 59-69.

 98
Iversen, J. & Ngwenyama, O. (2006). Problems in measuring effectiveness in software

process improvement: A longitudinal study of organizational change at Danske

Data. International Journal of Information Management, 26(1), 30-43. doi:10.10

16/j.ijinfomgt.2005.10.006

Jaques, T. (2010). Reshaping crisis management: The challenge for organizational

design. Organization Development Journal, 28(1), 9-17. Retrieved from Business

Source Complete database. (AN 48056245)

Johnson, B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm

whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26. Retrieved from

ProQuest Psychology Journals database. (Document ID: 738091191)

Jordan, G. B., Streit, D. L., & Binkley, S. J. (2003). Assessing and improving the

effectiveness of national research laboratories. IEEE Transactions on Engineering

Management, 50(2), 228-235. doi:10.1109/TEM.2003.810820

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)

Kenneth, R. (2007). Linking project management to business strategy. Project

Management Journal, 38(3), 93.

Kerzner, H. (2004). Advanced project management: Best practices on implementation.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Kerzner, H. (2006a). Project management best practices: Achieving global excellence.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

 99
Kerzner, H. (2006b). Project management: A system approach to planning, scheduling,

and controlling. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Khang, D. B., & Moe, T. L. (2008). Success criteria and factors for international

development projects: A life-cycle-based framework. Project Management

Journal, 39(1), 72-84.

King, S. & Burgess, T. (2008). Understanding success and failure in customer

relationship management. International Journal of Project Management, 37(4),

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

decisions at work. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Kline, J. (2008). Managing people and processes. Armed Force Comptroller, 53(1), 26-

30. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database. (AN 31189663)

Kloppenborg, T. J., Tesch, D., Manolis, C., & Heitkamp, M. (2006). An empirical

investigation of the sponsor’s role in project initiation. Project Management

Journal, 37(3), 16-25.

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

the service sector. Journal of Professional Services Marketing, 14(1), 101-116.

Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 10311952)

 100
Kridan, A., & Goulding, J. (2006). A case study on knowledge management

implementation in the banking sector. Journal of Information and Knowledge

Management Systems, 36(2), 211-222. doi:10.1108/03055720610683013

Kwantes, C. & Boglarsky, C. (2007). Perceptions of organizational culture, leadership

effectiveness and personal effectiveness across six countries. Journal of

International Management, 13(2), 204-230. doi:10.1016/j.intman.2007.03.002

LaBrosse, M. (2007). Project management: Best practices for the public sector. Journals

of Public Manager, 36(2), 25-27. Retrieved from Business Source Complete

database. (AN 25782457)

Levine, H. (2005). Project portfolio management: A practical guide to selecting projects,

managing portfolios, and maximizing benefits. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Linzalone, R. (2008). Leveraging knowledge assets to improve new product development

performances. Measuring Business Excellence, 12(2), 38-50. doi:10.1108/136830

40810881180

Lloria, B. (2007), Differentiation in knowledge-creating organizations. International

Journal of Manpower, 28(8), 674-693. doi:10.1108/01437720710835165

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting

and task motivation. Journal of American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. doi:10.

1037/0003-066X.57.9.705

Martinsuo, M., Hensman, N., Artto, K., Kujala, J., & Jaafari, A. (2006). Project-based

management as an organizational innovation: Drivers, changes, and benefits of

adopting project-based management. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 87-97.

 101
Mescon, M. H., Albert, M., & Khedouri, F. (1985). Management: Individual and

organizational effectiveness. New York, NY: Harper & Row.

Miles, D. (2003).The 30-second encyclopedia of learning and performance: A trainer's

guide to theory, terminology, and practice. New York, NY: American

Management Association.

Milosevic, D. Z., & Srivannaboon, S. (2006). A theoretical framework for aligning

project management with business strategy. Project Management Journal, 37(3),

98-110.

Morrison, J., & Brown, C. (2004). Project management effectiveness as a construct: A

conceptual study. South African Journal of Business Management, 35(4), 73-94.

NCSS LLC. (2010). Sample size calculator. Retrieved from http://www.ncss.com/pass.

html

Newell, M. (2002). Preparing for the project management professional (PMP)

certification exam. New York, NY: American Management Association.

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

York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

 102
Olsson, N. (2006). Management of flexibility in projects. International Journal of Project

Management, 24(1), 66-74. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.06.010

Pan, G., Hackney, R., & Pan, S. (2008). Information systems implementation failure:

Insights from prism. International Journal of Information Management, 28(4),

259-269. doi:10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2007.07.001

Panayides, P. (2007). The impact of organizational learning on relationship orientation,

logistics service effectiveness and performance. Journal of Industrial Marketing

Management, 36(1), 68-80. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.07.001

Parhizgari, A., & Gilbert, R. (2004). Measures of organizational effectiveness: Private

and public sector performance. Omega, 32(3), 221-229. doi:10.1016/j.omega.20

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)

Phillips, J. (2004). Certified associate in project management all-in-one exam guide.

Emeryville, CA: McGraw-Hill.

Phillips, J. (2009). Program management professional all-in-one exam guide. Emeryville,

CA: McGraw-Hill.

Pinto, J. K. (2005). Project management best practices: Achieving global excellence.

IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 54(2), 392. doi:10.1109/TEM.

2007.893984
 103
Pinto, J. K. (2007). Project management logic puzzles. IEEE Transactions on

Engineering Management, 54(2), 391. doi:10.1109/TEM.2007.893983

Project Management Institute. (n.d.). Welcome to PMI’s communities of practice.

Retrieved from http://consulting.vc.pmi.org/AboutthisCommunity.aspx

Project Management Institute. (2004). A guide to the project management body of

knowledge. Newtown Square, PA: Author.

Puddicombe, M. (2006). The limitations of planning: The importance of learning.

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(9), 949-955.

doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:9(949)

Qureshi, T., Warraich, A., & Hijazi, S. (2009). Significance of project management

performance assessment (PMPA) model. International Journal of Project

Management, 27(4), 378-388. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.05.001

Reed, D. (2008). The road map to best practices requires a change of culture. Plant

Engineering, 62(12), 45. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global database.

(Document ID: 1619922341)

Reich, B., Gemino, A., & Sauer, C. (2008). Modeling the knowledge perspective of IT

projects. Project Management Journal, 39(Suppl.), 4-14.

Rosenfeld, S. (2005). Setting-up a project management office. Information Week, 10(58),

86-89. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 9096121

91)
 104
Rowe, G., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. (2006). A comparison of responses to internet

and postal surveys in a public engagement context. Science Communication,

27(3), 352-375. doi:10.1177/1075547005284668

Salant, P., & Dillman, D. A. (1994). How to conduct your own survey. Hoboken, NJ:

John Wiley & Sons.

Sanchez, H., Robert, B., Bourgault, M., & Pellerin, R. (2009). Risk management applied

to projects, programs, and portfolios. International Journal of Managing Projects

in Business, 2(1), 14-35. doi:10.1108/17538370910930491

Sauser, B., Reilly, R., & Shenhar, A. (2009). Why projects fail? How contingency theory

can provide new insights: A comparative analysis of NASA’s Mars Climate

Orbiter loss. International Journal of Project Management, 27(4), 665-679.

doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.01.004

Schachter, D. (2004). Managing your library's technology projects. Information Outlook,

8(12), 10-12. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database. (AN 154519

06)

Scholefield, J. (1968). The effectiveness of senior executives. Journal of Management

Studies, 5(2), 219-234. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

(AN 4553502)

Scott-Young, C., & Samson, D. (2008). Project success and project team management:

Evidence from capital projects in the process industries. Journal of Operations

Management, 26(4), 749-766. doi:10.1016/j.jom.2007.10.006

 105
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project management. Boston, MA:

Harvard Business School.

Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O., & Maltz, A. (2001). Project success: A

multidimensional strategic concept. Long Range Planning, 34(2), 699-725.

doi:10.1016/S0024-6301(01)00097-8

Shenhar, A. J., Milosevic, D., Dvir, D., & Thamhain, H. (2007). Linking project

management to business strategy. PM Network, 21(9), 91.

Singleton, R., & Straits, B. (2005). Approaches to social research. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Smither, J., Walker, A., & Yap, M. (2004). An examination of the equivalence of Web-

based versus paper-and-pencil upward feedback ratings: Rater- and ratee-level

analyses. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(1), 40-61. doi:10.117

7/0013164403258429

Söderholm, A. (2008). Project management of unexpected events. International Journal

of Project Management, 2(1), 80-86. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2007.08.016

Spender, J. (1996). Making knowledge the basis of a dynamic theory of the firm.

Strategic Management Journal, 17(1), 45-62.Retrieved from http://links.jstor.org

Starns, J., & Odom, C. (2006). Using knowledge management principles to solve

.organizational performance problems. VINE, 36(2), 186. doi:10.1108/03055720

610682997

Stretton, A. (2007). A short history of modern project management. PM World Today,

IX(X), 18.
 106
Sue, R. (2005). Setting up a project management office. Information Week, 10(58), 86-

89. Retrieved from Academic Search Premier database. (AN 184993461)

Sullivan, P. (1999). Profiting from intellectual capital. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 3(2), 132. doi:10.1108/13673279910275585

Tatum, C., & Eberlin, R. (2007). Leadership, ethics, and justice in strategic decision

making. Business Strategy Series, 8(4), 303-310. doi:10.1108/17515630710684

358

Taylor, F. (1998). The principles of scientific management. New York, NY: Dover.

Taylor, F. (2007). Shop management. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.

Thomas, G., & Fernández, W. (2008). Success in IT projects: A matter of definition?

International Journal of Project Management, 26(7), 733-742. doi:10.1016/j.ijp

roman.2008.06.003

Unruh, J. (1997). Mining the gold in your organization. Journal of Information

Management, 63(11), 336. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database.

(AN 9704042965)

Venkatraman, N., & Grant, J. H. (1986). Construct measurement in organizational

strategy research: A critique proposal. Academy of Management Review, 11(1),

71- 87. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database. (AN 4282628)

Vigoda-Gadot, E., & Angert, L. (2007). Goal setting theory, job feedback, and OCB:

Lessons from a longitudinal study. Journal of Basic and Applied Social

Psychology, 29(2), 119-128. doi:10.1080/01973530701331536

 107
Viratkapan, V. & Perera, R. (2006). Slum relocation projects in Bangkok: What has

contributed to their success or failure? Habitat International, 30(1), 157-174.

doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2004.09.002

Virine, L., & Trumper, M. (2008)). Project decisions: The art and science. Vienna, VA:

Management Concepts.

Vloeberghs, D., & Berghman, L. (2003). Towards an effectiveness model of development

centres. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 18(6), 511-540. doi:10.1108/026839

40310494368

Wallman, J. (2010). Strategic transactions and managing the future: A Druckerian

perspective. Journal of Management Science, 48(4), 485-499. doi:10.1108/00251

741011041300

Wang, Z. (2005).Organizational effectiveness through technology innovation and HRM

strategies. International Journal of Manpower, 26(6), 481-488. doi:10.1108/0143

7720510625403

Watson, P. (2009). A methodology for attaining and assessing project success for

rehabilitation projects. Journal of Building Appraisal, 4(3), 181-189. doi:10.10

57/jba.2008.36

Waxman, R. (2005). How to make or break your project. Security Technology & Design,

15(7), 54-55.

Wearne, S. (2008). Stakeholders in excellence in teaching and learning of project

management. International Journal of Project Management, 26(3), 326-328.

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

effectiveness over the innovation life cycle. Journal of Organizational Science,

17(2), 230-238. doi:10.1287/orsc.1050.0170

Willis, G., Guinote, A., & Bailon, R. (2010). Illegitimacy improves goal pursuit in

powerless individuals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(2), 416.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.009

Wood, J. (2008). Effective project management. Health Facilities Management, 21(6),

49. Retrieved from Business Source Complete database. (AN 32727135)

Wysocki, R. (2007). Effective project management: Traditional, adaptive, extreme.

Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.

Yilmaz, C. & Ergun, E. (2008). Organizational culture and firm effectiveness: An

examination of relative effects of culture traits and the balanced culture

hypothesis in an emerging economy. Journal of World Business, 43(3), 290-306.

doi:10.1016/j.jwb.2008.03.019

Young, R., & Jordan, E. (2008). Top management support: Mantra or necessity?

International Journal of Project Management, 26(8), 713-725. doi:10.1016/j.ijp

roman.2008.06.001

Young, R., Brady, S., & Nagle, D., Jr. (2010). How to save a failing project: Chaos or

control. Project Management Journal, 41(1), 89.

 109
Yu, A., Flett, P., & Bowers, J. (2005). Developing a value-centered proposal for

assessing project success. International Journal of Project Management, 23(6),

428-436. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.01.008

Yukl, G. (2008). How leaders influence organizational effectiveness. Leadership

Quarterly, 19(6), 708-722. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2008.09.008

Zheng, W., Yang, B., & McLean, G (2010). Linking organizational culture, structure,

strategy, and organizational effectiveness: Mediating role of knowledge

management. Journal of Business Research, 63(7), 763-771. doi:10.1016/j.jbus

res.2009.06.005

Zand, D. (2010). Drucker’s strategic thinking process: Three key techniques. Strategy &

Leadership, 38(3), 23-28. doi:10.1108/10878571011042078

Zwikael, O., & Unger-Aviram, E. (2010). HRM in project groups: The effect of project

duration on team development effectiveness. International Journal of Project

Management, 28(1), 413-421. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.09.005

 110
Appendix A: Project Success Assessment Questionnaire

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

for each item.

Table A1

Project Success Assessment

No. Success measures Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly N/A

Code disagree agree
S1 Project efficiency
S11 The project was completed on time or
earlier
S12 The project was completed within or
below budget
S2 Impact on the customer/user
S13 The customer was satisfied
S14 The product met the customer’s
requirements
S15 The customer is using the product
S3 Business and direct organizational
success
S16 The project increased the organization’s
profitability
S17 The project contributed to the
organization’s direct performance
S18 The project was an economic business
success
S4 Preparing for the future
S19 The project outcome will contribute to
future project
S20 The project developed better managerial
capabilities
 111
Appendix B: Project Management Effectiveness Construct

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

organization. Make your choice by clicking in the appropriate box.

Table B1

Dimension 1: Rational Project Decision Making

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

interests or interdepartmental power concerns.

No. Effectiveness Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly

factor or criterion disagree disagree agree agree
1 Project estimates
and planning are as
far as possible
done on factual
and reliable
information
2 It is customary to
have formal
reviews to learn
from project
failures and/or
success
3 There is an
emphasis on up-
front project
homework and
feasibility studies
4 Projects are
continually
reviewed to re-
evaluate their
viability and Table
potential success B1
Cont’d
 112
No. Effectiveness Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly
factor or criterion disagree disagree agree agree

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

Dimension 2: Goal Clarity

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.

No. Effectiveness Strongly Disagree Somewhat Neutral Somewhat Agree Strongly

factor or criterion disagree disagree agree agree
8 Project goals are
clearly defined at
start-up
9 Project goals are
made clear to all
participants
10 Project
participants are
committed to the
achievement of
project goals
11 Project team
members takes
ownership of
project goals
12 Team members
actively
participate in
decision-making
regarding the
achievement of
project goals
 113
Appendix C: Demographic Information

Please mark your appropriate opinion among the alternatives provided.

1. Are you PMP certified?
a. Yes ( )
b. No ( )

2. What is your age?

a. 21-30 years ( )
b. 31-40 years ( )
c. 41-50 years ( )
d. 50 and above ( )

3. What is your highest educational level?

a. High school or equivalent ( )
b. Associate or technical degree ( )
c. Bachelor degree ( )
d. Master’s degree ( )
e. Doctorate degree ( )
f. Other ( )

4. What is your industry?

a. Agriculture ( )
b. Constructions ( )
c. Finance and Banking ( )
d. Information Technology ( )
e. Manufacturing ( )
f. Pharmaceutical ( )
g. Retail and Wholesale ( )
h. Other ( )
 114
5. How long have you been with this company?
a. Less than 5 years ( )
b. Between 5 and 10 years ( )
c. 11-15 years ( )
d.16-20 years ( )
e. Above 20 years ( )
 115
Appendix D: Frequency Tables for Demographic Variables

Table D1

Frequency Table: PMP Certification

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

Frequency Table: Study Participant Age

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

Frequency Table: Level of Education

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

Frequency Table: Industry Classification

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

Frequency Table: Length of Time With Company

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

Frequency Table: Project Was Completed on Time or Earlier

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

Frequency Table: Project Was Completed Within or Below Budget

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

Frequency Table: Customer Was Satisfied

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

Frequency Table: Product Met Customer’s Requirements

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

Frequency Table: Customer Is Using the Product

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

Frequency Table: Project Increased the Organization’s Profitability

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

Frequency Table: Project Contributed to Organization’s Direct Performance

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

Frequency Table: Project Was an Economic Business Success

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

Frequency Table: Project Outcome Will Contribute to Future Projects

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

Frequency Table: Project Developed Better Managerial Capabilities

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

Frequency Table: It Is customary to Have Formal Reviews to Learn From Project

Failures and/or Successes

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

Frequency Table: There Is an Emphasis on Up-Front Project Homework and Feasibility

Studies

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

Frequency Table: Project Priorities Do Not Change Too Frequently

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

Frequency Table: Project Goals Are Clearly Defined at Start-Up

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

Frequency Table: Project Goals Are Made Clear to All Participants

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

Frequency Table: Project Participants Are Committed to Achievement of Project Goals

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

Frequency Table: Project Team Members Take Ownership of Project Goals

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

Frequency Table: Team Members Actively Participate in Decision Making Regarding

Achievement of Project Goals

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

Descriptive Statistics for Project Management Effectiveness and Project Success

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

Cronbach’s Alpha for Independent and Dependent Variables

Variable Cronbach’s alpha No. of items

Rational project decision making .924 7
Goal Clarity and Alignment .959 5
Project efficiency .915 2
Impact on the customer .923 3
Business success .915 3
Preparation for the future .785 2
 126
Curriculum Vitae

Derrick C. Nwagbogwu, MBA, PMP, PhD

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

2008-Present Keller Graduate School of Management, Senior Faculty (Adjunct).

2008-2009 Middlesex College, Adjunct, Math Department.

2007-2009 Union County College, Adjunct, Business and Math Department.

TopMost Teq, Business Consultant (2003-2006)

Malboc International Limited, Lagos, Nigeria, Project Manager (2004-2006)

STV Technology, Lagos, Nigeria, Business Development Officer (2001-2004)

European Economic Chamber of Commerce, Trade & Industry, Lagos, Nigeria,

Business Development Officer (1999-2000)

EDUCATION

2010 PhD, Applied Management and Decision Sciences, Walden University,

Minneapolis, MN

2004 MBA, University of Lagos, Nigeria

1998 BS, Mechanical Engineering, University of Benin, Nigeria

ADDITIONAL TRAINING

Certified Project Management Professional.

Certificate in Project Management, Developing a Sound Business, Developing a

Competitive Marketing Strategy, Identifying and Assessing Business Opportunities,

HSE/Managing Environmental Issues, Management/Leadership Development.