final report v1.0e
Post on 06-Apr-2018
223 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
1/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
2/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
3/89
Reliability...........................................................................................................................................11
Validity..............................................................................................................................................
11
CHAPTER3DISCOVERYANDFINDINGS..............................................................................................14
PRELIMINARIES..........................................................................................................................................14
SurveyStatistics................................................................................................................................14
Concept
Maps
...................................................................................................................................
14
ConceptThemes...............................................................................................................................15
MultidimensionalScalingStatistics...................................................................................................15
Reliability...........................................................................................................................................15
Validity..............................................................................................................................................16
PresentationofFindings...................................................................................................................16
InterpretationofIdeaRankings........................................................................................................16
AssumedParticipantKnowledge......................................................................................................16
PrudentComparison.........................................................................................................................17
PRINCE2.................................................................................................................................................17
PRINCE2ConceptMaps....................................................................................................................17
RelativeImportanceofPRINCE2IssuesConcepts............................................................................17
Framework/ManualTheme..............................................................................................................18
Issues.............................................................................................................................................18
ExistingFeatures...........................................................................................................................19
ProposedFeatures........................................................................................................................20
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
4/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
5/89
ReliabilityandValidity.......................................................................................................................40
ConceptThemes
...............................................................................................................................
40
Framework/ManualTheme..............................................................................................................41
ProblemsandIssuesOrganizationalversusMethodological.........................................................42
ProjectBoards/SponsorsandProjectGovernanceThemes.............................................................42
Organizational
PM
Competency
and
Project
Team
Competency
Themes
.......................................
44
Tailoring/EmbeddingTheme............................................................................................................44
PRINCE2LearningfromtheOtherExperience.............................................................................45
CHAPTER5RECOMMENDATIONSANDFURTHERRESEARCHOPPORTUNITIES.................................46
FURTHERRESEARCHOPPORTUNITIES............................................................................................................47
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................................................48
Appendix1:QUTResearchTeam.........................................................................................................50
Appendix2CrossReferencebetweenConceptThemesandConceptMapConcepts..................52
Appendix3ConceptMaps.................................................................................................................53
Appendix4ConceptStatistics............................................................................................................62
Appendix5ConceptMapMultidimensionalScalingandReliabilityStatistics..................................63
Appendix6ConceptMapData..........................................................................................................66
PRINCE2IssuesConceptMapData......................................................................................................67
PRINCE2FeaturesConceptMapData..................................................................................................70
OtherIssuesConceptMapData.........................................................................................................72
OtherFeaturesConceptMapData.....................................................................................................75
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
6/89
ForwardbytheSponsors:BestManagementPracticeOGC,APMGroupandTSO
ThisimportantresearchispublishedatacriticaltimeinthehistoryofPRINCE2. Theworldsproject
managersareunderincrediblescrutinyandpressuretoensuretheirprojectsdeliverqualityontime
andonbudgetandevenmoresoduringaworldrecession. TheresearchshowsthatPRINCE2goes
alongwaytohelpingthemachievethesegoals.
AlthoughitsoriginsbeganintheUK,PRINCE2nowhasatrulyinternationalreach.Wearedelighted
thattheQueenslandUniversityofTechnology(QUT)hasundertakenthisglobal,thoroughand
informative
research
project.
While
it
highlights
the
strengths
of
the
methodology
itself,
the
report
alsolooksatthechallengesorganisationsfacewhenusingaprojectmanagementmethodsuchas
PRINCE2.
Weresurethechallengeswillresonatewithprojectmanagersaroundtheworld. Securingexecutive
supporttochampiontheadoptionofPRINCE2,creatingarobustbusinesscaseandprioritising
projectgovernancearekeyissuesthatallprojectmanagerswillgrapplewithduringtheircareer.
Theresearchalsoshowsthattobethoroughlyeffective,organisationsneedtoproperlyembed
PRINCE2and
tailor
it
to
suit
their
particular
circumstances.
Many
successful
organisations
have
soughttheeffectivehelpofaccreditedconsultingorganisationstoassistthemindevelopinga
programmetotailorandinculcatethismethodintotheirorganisationalculture. Thelatestversion
incorporatesawholechapterontailoringPRINCE2.
WebelievethatthepublicationofPRINCE2DirectingSuccessfulProjectsusingPRINCE2andthedevelopmentoffurthersupportintheformofmaterials,mentoringandtrainingforsenior
executiveswillbeofsignificantbenefittocontemporaryprojectbasedorganisations. TheAPM
Grouphas
already
developed
aqualification
for
sponsors
in
conjunction
with
the
UKs
Home
Office
tohelpwiththis.
Ifyouwouldlikefurtheradviceorifyouhavefeedbackregardingthisresearchpleasecontact
APMG:www.apmginternational.comforfurtherdetails.
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
7/89
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
UnderthesponsorshipoftheAPMGroupUKLtdworkinginconjunctionwiththeUKGovernment
OfficeofGovernmentCommerceandTSO,amultidisciplinaryresearchteamfromtheQueensland
UniversityofTechnology(QUT)hasundertakenoneofthefirstempiricalstudiesintotheimpactof
PRINCE21onprojectperformance. TheresearchstudywasentitledCreatingValueinProject
ManagementusingPRINCE2. Forcomparison,thestudyalsoconductedparallelresearchontheimpactofotherunspecified(nonPRINCE2)contemporaryprojectmanagementframeworkson
projectperformance.
StudyparticipantsinthePRINCE2andOtherresearchgroupswereallexperiencedproject
managerswhohaverecentlyappliedPRINCE2orotherprojectmanagementframeworks
respectively.
Thestudy
participants
were
drawn
from
adiverse
range
of
industries
(including
InformationandCommunicationsTechnology,Construction,andTransport)acrossthreemajor
geographicalregions(UnitedKingdomandEurope,UnitedStates,andAustralia).
ThestudyusedacomprehensivemixedresearchmethodologyknownasConceptMapping.
Conceptmappingcombinesthereceptivenessofqualitativeanalysistotheunstructuredand
nuancedopinions
of
participants
(including
brainstorming,
sorting
and
ranking),
with
the
statistical
rigourofquantitativeanalysis(includingmultidimensionalscalingandclusteranalysis)toextract
andrankthelatentconceptswhichstructureparticipantssubjectiveperceptions. Theresultsare
convenientlyillustratedinaconceptmap.
Morespecifically,thestudyfocusedontwocriticalquestions:
WhatproblemsorissuesadverselyaffecttheutilityofPRINCE2andotherproject
managementframeworksinsuccessfullydeliveringprojects?
Whatexistingorrecommendedfeaturesdoorwouldmitigate(orresolve)theseproblems
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
8/89
Collectively,theconceptmapssuggestthatparticipantssubjectivelyframetheirperspectivesonthe
tworesearchquestionsaroundsixmajorthemes:
Framework/Manualtheparticularprojectmanagementframeworkincludingitsassociated
documentation
ProjectBoards/SponsorsCompetencyprojectsponsorandprojectboardcompetency ProjectGovernanceCompetencyorganizationalcompetencyinprojectgovernance
OrganizationalPMCompetencyorganizationalcompetencyinsuccessfullyintroducingandimplementingtheparticularprojectmanagementframework
ProjectTeamCompetencyprojectmanagerandprojectteamcompetency Tailoring/Embeddingadaptingtheprojectmanagementframeworktotheprojectcontext
(tailoring)andtothecorporatecontext(embedding).
TheresearchfoundthatPRINCE2isperceivedasaveryrobust,comprehensiveandpragmatic
projectmanagementframework,whichunderwritesprojectsuccess. Indeed,existingfeaturesof
thePRINCE2frameworkandmanual2rankedveryhighinmitigatingperceivedproblemsandissues.
Majorstrengthscitedincluded:
Roleof
the
business
case
in
assuring
continuing
project
viability
Extensiveguidanceofferedonprojectgovernance
Expansionofthetoleranceconcepttoencompasssixareas
Comprehensivedefinitionofrolesandresponsibilities
Productbasedplanningandproductfocusseddelivery
Delegationof
responsibilities
to
the
appropriate
level
Newchaptersontailoringandembedding.
ThiswasinmarkedcontrasttoresponsesfromthenonPRINCE2participantswhosubmitted
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
9/89
Primafacie,thePRINCE2frameworkandmanualappearstocovermanyofthecorresponding
problems/issuesandfeaturessubmittedbythenonPRINCE2participants. Howeverfurther
researchisrecommendedtoconfirmthissupposition.
Moreover,thebenefitsofanagreedsetofprojectmanagementconceptsandadefinedproject
managementlexiconwereveryevidentintheconsistencyofthePRINCE2responsescomparedto
theOtherresponses.
Notwithstanding,themajorareaofimprovementsuggestedtoPRINCE2frameworkandmanualis
expandedcoverageofstakeholdermanagement.
ThedominantfactorswhichparticipantsbelieveconstrainthesuccessofPRINCE2projectsare
demonstrablynotmethodologicalbutorganizational. CriticismsrelatenottothePRINCE2
framework
or
manual,
but
rather
to
organizational
shortcomings
including
poor
project
governance
andtheinabilityoforganizationstosuccessfullyintroduceandimplementPRINCE2. Ormore
conciselyalackofprojectleadership.
PRINCE2participantswereespeciallytrenchantintheirjudgementofProjectBoardeffectiveness.
ProjectBoardmemberswerecriticisedfor:notunderstandingtheirrolesandresponsibilities,lacking
experience,or
not
possessing
the
necessary
competency.
Project
Boards
membership
was
sometimesdelegatedtostaffwhohadnodecisionmakingauthority. ProjectBoardswerenotusing
theBusinessCasetoperiodicallyverifythecontinuingviabilityoftheproject. Seniormanagement
wasalsochidedforitslackofcommitmentandleadership,andatendencytobypasstheProject
Board. Moregenerally,organizationswerenotgivingsufficientprioritytoprojectgovernance.
However,theproblemswithprojectgovernancedonotliewiththePRINCE2frameworkormanual.
Indeed,thePRINCE2participantsrankedprojectgovernancefeaturesamongthegreateststrengths
ofthePRINCE2frameworkandmanual,citedabove.
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
10/89
Onamorepositivenote,researchparticipants(andespeciallythePRINCE2participants)emphasis
onorganizationalprojectgovernancemattersreflectsasignificantshiftinmindsetfrom
operationallyfocusedtostrategicallyfocusedprojectmanagement.
PRINCE2participantsreportedthatorganizationseitherdidnotknowordidnotpossessthe
commitmenttoproperlyimplementPRINCE2. Thisappearstobesymptomaticofabroader
quandary. OrganizationsarenotrecognizingandmanagingtheintroductionofPRINCE2asamajor
organizationalchange
initiative,
taking
into
account
both
the
hard
and
soft
issues
including
the
creationofaprojectmanagementculture.
PRINCE2participantswerealsoconcernedthatmanyRegisteredPRINCE2Practitionershavelimited
projectmanagementexperience. TomaintainandindeedextendthevalueofPRINCE2certification,
participantsproposedthatanawardbedevelopedtorecogniseexperienceintheapplicationof
PRINCE2.
Similarlythe
non
PRINCE2
participants
argued
the
primacy
of
experience
(both
diversity
anddepth)inrecruitingprojectstaff. Theyalsostressedthecriticalimportanceofongoing
educationandtrainingindevelopingprojectmanagementcompetencynotjustintheclassroom,
butthroughworkplacementoringandcoaching.
ThebenefitoftherecentguidanceontailoringandembeddinginthePRINCE22009editionwas
acknowledgedbythePRINCE2group. However,PRINCE2participantswantthatguidance
expandedextendingcurrenttopicsandaddingnewtopics(e.g.forusewithnontraditional
developmentanddeliverymethodologiessuchasagile). Inparticular,guidanceonembedding
wouldassistorganizationsintroducingandimplementingPRINCE2. Currently,adviceonembedding
isexcludedbecauseitfocusesonthecorporateorganizationandnottheindividualprojects
(OfficeofGovernmentCommerce,2009a,p.97).
Recognitionamongpractitionersoftheimperativefortailoringandembeddingissalutary. Itreflects
aclearbreakfromthepastonesizefitsallapproach(Shenhar,2001). Italsoindicatesagrowing
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
11/89
responsibilitiesforeffectiveprojectleadership,andmoregenerallyPRINCE2processesand
products. ThismightalsoincludeacertificationprocessforProjectBoardmembers.
DevelopnewanddetailedguidanceonhoworganizationscanintroducePRINCE2,but
treatingtheimplementationasasignificantorganizationalchangeinitiativeencompassing
bothhardandsoftissues. Thiswouldalsoincludedevelopingguidanceonembedding
whichisnotcurrentlyaddressed,becauseittargetsthecorporatelevelratherthanprojects.
ExtendthecurrentPRINCE2certificationtorecognisepractitionerswhobothunderstandthe
frameworkandcanproficientlyapplyitinmanagingactualprojects.
Wherepossible,implementationoftheserecommendationsshouldbuilduponexistingofferings
suchastheProgrammeandProjectSponsorshipandChangeManagementqualifications.
RichardSargeantMBEOAM
Facultyof
Business
QueenslandUniversityofTechnology
Brisbane,Queensland,AUSTRALIA
Web:www.qut.edu.au
Email:richard.sargeant@qut.edu.au
4August2010
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
12/89
CHAPTER1INTRODUCTION
Inthesecondhalfof2009,theQueenslandUniversityofTechnology(QUT)wasawardedaresearch
contractfromtheAPMGroup(UK)LtdinconjunctionwiththeUKGovernmentOfficeof
GovernmentCommerce(OGC)andTSO(formerlyTheStationeryOffice)toinvestigatetheroleof
thePRINCE2projectmanagementframeworkinsuccessfulprojectdelivery. Theresearchstudywas
entitledCreatingValueinProjectManagementUsingPRINCE2. Thisreportsummarizesthestudys
researchdesign,analysis,findings,conclusions,recommendations,andfutureresearch
opportunities.
ResearchGoal
ThegoaloftheresearchprojectwastoevaluatetheimpactofPRINCE2onprojectperformance.
Toassurethebroadestpossibleapplicabilityoftheprojectoutcomes,researchparticipantswere
drawnfromseveralcontinents/regions:UnitedKingdom,Europe,UnitedStatesandAustralia;and
fromsimilarlydiverseindustrysectorsincluding:InformationandCommunicationsTechnology(ICT),
Construction,andTransport,DefenceandR&D. Furthermore,asabasisforcomparisonparallel
researchwascarriedoutonotherbutunspecifiedprojectmanagementframeworks.
Structure
TheFinalReportcomprisesfivechapters
Introduction
ResearchDesign
Discoveryand
Findings
Conclusions
RecommendationsandFutureResearchOpportunities.
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
13/89
QUTResearchTeam
TheresearchwasundertakenbyaninterdisciplinaryteamdrawnfromtheQUTFacultyofBusiness
andtheFacultyofBuiltEnvironmentandEngineering(SchoolofUrbanDevelopment).
Theresearchteamconsistedof:
RichardSargeantMBEOAM(ChiefInvestigator),FacultyofBusiness(Staff)andFacultyof
BuiltEnvironmentandEngineering(PhDCandidate)
ProfessorCarolineHatcherPhD,FacultyofBusiness
AssociateProfessorBambangTrigunarsyahPhD,FacultyofBuiltEnvironmentand
Engineering
DrVaughanCoffeyDBA,FacultyofBuiltEnvironmentandEngineering
DrJudyKraatzPhD(ResearchAssociate),FacultyofBusiness
ShortbiographiesoftheresearchmembersaregiveninAppendix1.
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
14/89
CHAPTER2RESEARCHDESIGN
SelectionofaResearchMethodologyConceptMapping
Criteria
Thestudyssuccessdependedinlargepartupontheselectionofaresearchmethodologywhichis
compatiblewithboththenatureofprojectmanagementandtheopennessoftheresearchgoal.
Projectmanagementoperateswithinacomplexwebofinteractionsbetweenpeople,processesand
technologies. Itspracticeseldomlendsitselftoeitherasimpleormechanisticformulation. Asa
result,itisimpossibletodetermineinadvancewhatfactorsthestudymustexamineinfulfillingthe
researchgoal. Rather,theresearchmustbeginwithanexploratorystagewhichisreceptiveto
multipleandsometimesconflictingparticipantperspectives. Qualitativemethodsarebestusedto
freelyelicit
the
ideas
of
experienced
project
managers
during
this
stage.
However,theseideaswillneitherstandalonenorhaveequalrelevance. Theywillcontain
duplicationandoverlap. Theywillbeinterrelatedaroundlargerunderlyingorlatentconcepts
whichstructureparticipantssubjectiveperceptionsconceptswhichtheresearchmustdiscover.
Moreover,therelativeimportanceofindividualideastotheresearchgoalwilldiffer.
Therefore,theresearchmethodologymustincorporatemechanismswhichsummarizetheseideas,
rankthemaccordingtotheirrelativeimportancetotheresearchgoal,discerntheinterconnecting
structures,andidentifythecorrespondinglatentconcepts. Herequantitativemethodscanadd
statisticalrigourtothelatterthreeactivitiesandgeneralizetheresults. Atthesametime,
qualitative
methods
will
remain
important
in
appraising
the
authenticity
and
credibility
of
the
outcomessuggestedbyquantitativemethods.
ConceptMapping
Tosatisfytheserequirements,ConceptMapping(Kane&Trochim,2007)waschosenasthe
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
15/89
perceptions. Importantly,conceptmappingdoesnotmeasureobservablebehaviours,butrather
participantsperceptionsoftheeffectivenessofprojectmanagementframeworkswithintheir
projectandorganizationalexperience.
Morespecifically,conceptmappingentailssixmajorphaseswhicharesummarizedinTable1(Kane
&Trochim,2007,pp.723)below.
Phase Description
Purpose
Developthe
focus
questions
to
be
investigated
using
Concept
Mapping
ParticipantsSelection Selectanappropriate participant sample
Brainstorming Generateandcollectparticipantsideas
IdeasAnalysis Summarizetheideasintoamanageablenumber
Structuring Participantssortideasintopiles accordingtotheirperceivedsimilarity,
andthenranktheideasbytheirimportancetosuccessfulprojectdelivery
Interpretation Similarities andrankingsidentifiedbyparticipantsareanalysed,using
multidimensionalscalingandclusteranalysis,toextractandprioritisethe
key
concepts
Table1:ConceptMappingPhases
Thesephasesareconsideredingreaterdetaillaterinthischapter.
ResearchGroups
Forcomparison,tworesearchgroupswerecreated:
PRINCE2groupconsistingofRegisteredPRINCE2Practitionerswithtwoormoreyearsrecent
projectmanagementexperienceusingPRINCE2,and
OtherFrameworksgroupcomprisingprojectmanagerswithtwoormoreyearsrecent
projectmanagementexperienceusinganyotherprojectmanagementframework.
MajorFocus
Questions
TodeterminetheextenttowhichPRINCE2andOtherprojectmanagementframeworkscontribute
toprojectperformance,theteamaskedbothresearchgroupstwomajorquestions:
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
16/89
ResearchSample
SamplingFrame
ThesamplingframeforthePRINCE2groupcomprisedexperiencedPRINCE2projectmanagers
locatedintheUnitedKingdom,EuropeandAustralia,andworkingacrossadiverserangeofindustry
sectorsincludingICT,Construction,andTransport. ThesamplingframefortheOthergroup
consistedofexperiencedprojectmanagersusingaprojectmanagementframeworkotherthan
PRINCE2,but
in
similar
locations
(plus
the
United
States)
and
similar
industry
sectors.
The
major
imperativeindefiningthesamplingframewastoensuregeographicandindustrydiversity. However
tolimittheimpactofculturaldifferences,thegeographicspreadwaslimitedtothreeregions.
SamplingStrategy
Apurposivesamplingstrategywaspursuedwithinthesamplingframesdescribedabove. Morethan
500project
managers
were
approached
by
the
research
team
through:
personalcontacts,
PRINCE2accreditedconsultantsandtrainers,
professionalorganizations,
snowballing, and
broadcaststhroughglobalwebsites.
SampleSize
Thetargetsamplesizeforeachsurveywas20(R.Rosas,ConceptSystemsIncorporated,personal
communication,13January2010). ThesamplesizewasrecommendedbyConceptSystems
Incorporatedwhose
principals
include
William
Trochim
and
Mary
Kanepioneers
in
the
application
ofConceptMapping(e.g.(Kane&Trochim,2007;Trochim,1985,1989a,1989b,1993;Trochim&
Cabrera,2005;Trochim&Linton,1986). Thesamplesize,however,isnotsufficienttodraw
conclusionsaboutindividualregionsorindustrysectorsthisisoutsidetheresearchscope.
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
17/89
Table2:
Research
Demographics
Surveys
DatawascollectedinsevenparticipantsurveysadministeredinthreesequentialSurveyRounds
describedinTable3.
Invited TotalAust
raliaUK US Europe Global ICT Construction Transport
Other
(R&D,
Defence)
SurveyRound1:ParticipantSelection(Over500initialrequestsmade)
PRINCE2
119
38 19 8 0 8 3 13 3 22 1
Other
53
18
10
17
7
1
7
29
8
9
SurveyRound2ParticipantBrainstorming
PRINCE2 38 24 11 6 0 5 2 7 2 16 0
Other 54 44 14 8 14 8 1 8 22 7 8
SurveyRound3ParticipantStructuring
PRINCE2Problems/Issues
24
19
9
3
0
4
1
4
1
11
1
PRINCE2
Features20 19 10 3 0 4 2 4 1 12 2
Other
Problems/Issues22 21 7 3 5 2 4 4 9 4 4
OtherFeatures 22 19 5 4 7 1 2 4 7 3 5
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
18/89
Round Survey GroupSurveyed Type Purpose
1
Survey1 AllParticipant
Selection
Selectappropriatelyqualifiedparticipants,allocate themto
thePRINCE2orOtherGroups,andcollectrelated
demographicsandexperienceinformation.
2
Survey2A PRINCE2
Brainstorming
Identifyproblemsorissuesexperiencedbyparticipantswith
PRINCE2thatadverselyaffectprojectdelivery.
Survey2B Other Identifyproblemsorissuesexperiencedbyparticipantswith
Otherframeworksthatadverselyaffectprojectdelivery.
3
Survey3A PRINCE2
Structuring
RankPRINCE2problemsorissuesbytheirperceivedimpacton
projectdelivery. SortPRINCE2problemsorissues(derived
fromallparticipants)accordingtotheirperceivedsimilarity.Survey
3B
PRINCE2
Rank
features
by
their
perceived
impact
on
project
delivery.
SortPRINCE2existingorproposedfeatures(derivedfromall
participants)accordingtotheirperceivedsimilarity.
Survey3C Other RankPRINCE2problemsorissuesbytheirperceivedimpacton
projectdelivery. SortOtherproblemsorissues(derivedfrom
allparticipants)accordingtotheirperceivedsimilarity.Survey3D Other Rankfeaturesbytheirperceivedimpactonprojectdelivery.
SortOtherexistingorproposedfeatures(derivedfromall
participants)
according
to
their
perceived
similarity.
Table3:SurveyConducted
BrainstormingandIdeasAnalysis
TheBrainstormingphaseelicitedalargenumberanddiverserangeofideasonthetwofocus
questionsfrombothresearchgroups. DuringtheIdeasAnalysisphase,theseideaswererationalized
intoasmaller
number
which
research
participants
could
comfortably
rank
and
sort
in
less
than
one
hour. ThenumberofideassubmittedduringtheBrainstormingphaseandthenumberof
summarizedideascreatedduringtheIdeasAnalysisphasearelistedinTable4below.
ResearchGroup
PRINCE2 Other
FocusQuestions:Problems&Issues
IdeasBrainstormed
96 194
IdeasSummarized 85 68
FocusQuestion:Features
IdeasBrainstormed 75 126
IdeasSummarized 65 85
Table4:NoofProblems&IssuesandFeaturesSubmittedbyPRINCE2andOtherGroups
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
19/89
participantsrankingsforthatidea. Finally,therawrankingsforallideaswithinaparticularconcept
maparenormalizedonascaleof1(low)to5(high). Unlessotherwisespecified,thetermranking
willmeannormalizedrankingthroughoutthisreport.
SortingParticipantsthensortideas(e.g.problems/issuesorfeatures)intopilesaccordingtotheirperceived
similarity. Ideascontainedwithinthesamepileareassumedtoberelatedorsimilar;ideasin
different
piles
are
assumed
to
be
unrelated
or
dissimilar.
Participants
are
free
to
sort
the
ideas
in
anywaytheychoose. Thesimilaritiesidentifiedbyaparticipantaresummarisedinaparticipant
similaritymatrix. Forexample,theexposedparticipantsimilaritymatrixontheleftofFigure1,
indicatesthattheparticularparticipantsortedideas1,4and6intothesamepilea1isrecorded
inthecorrespondingcellsoftheparticipantsimilaritymatrix.
Theparticipant
similarity
matrices
are
summed
to
form
the
group
similarity
matrix.
The
group
similaritymatrixrecordsthenumberofparticipantswhoassessedeachsimilarity,whichisthenused
tomeasuretherelativestrengthofasimilarity. Forexampleinthe groupsimilaritymatrixof
Figure1,nineparticipantsassessedideas9and10assimilar;whereas,onlyoneparticipant
consideredideas3and7assimilar,andallparticipantsregardedideas3and6asdissimilar.
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
20/89
ClusteringandConceptInterpretation
Thegroupsimilaritymatrixisconvertedintoatwodimensionalmapusingthestatisticaltechnique
multidimensionalscaling. Thedistancebetweenpointsreflectstheirperceivedsimilarity. The
multidimensionalscalingmapfortheFigure1groupsimilaritymatrixisdrawninFigure2. Usingthe
sameexamples,ideas9and10whichhaveahighgroupsimilarityof9areverycloseindistance;
whereasideas3and7whichhavealowgroupsimilarityof1aresomedistanceapart.
Finally,
the
concepts
which
underpin
the
participants
perceptions
are
crystallized
as
clusters
of
proximatepointsonthemap. Clustersareidentifiedusingacombinationofscienceandart(Guyon,
vonLuxburg,&Williamson,2009),ormorespecificallystatisticsandexpertjudgement. Aninitial
clusterconfigurationisdeterminedusingastatisticaltechniqueclusteranalysis. Thecluster
boundariesarethenrefinedandtranslatedintoconcepts,usingexpertjudgementsay,intheform
ofanexpertpanel. Figure2illustratesthefourclustersidentifiedfromthegroupsimilaritymatrix.
Clusters1,2and3wouldbetranslatedintotheircorrespondingconcepts. However,the
interpretationofCluster4wouldlikelybedeferredbecauseofitssingularcontent,untilmore
informationwascollected. Therelativerankingofeachideaisindicatedbythesizeofthe
correspondingpoint. Therelativeimportanceofaconceptismeasuredbytheconceptsranking,
whichiscalculatedasthemeanofitsideasrankings.
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
21/89
Figure2: MultidimensionalScalingMap&ClusterAnalysisDataCollectionandAnalysisToolsDataCollectionAll
data
was
collected
online
using:
Zoomerangonlinesurvey(http://www.zoomerang.com/)forSurvey1 ConceptSystemsIncorporatedGlobalSoftware(http://www.conceptsystems.com/)for
S 2A 2B 3A 3B 3C d 3D ( T bl 3)
Cluster1
Cluster2 Cluster3
Cluster4(?)
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
22/89
IBMSPSSStatistics18(http://www.spss.com/)formultidimensionalscaling(PROXSCAL),
andclusteranalysisKmeansandhierarchicalclusteranalysis
Rlanguage(http://www.rproject.org/)scriptsfordatamanipulationandTrochims(1993)
conceptmappingreliabilitystatistics
TibcoSpotfireProfessional(http://spotfire.tibco.com/)fordatavisualisation.
MultidimensionalScalingMapAssessment
Inmultidimensional
scaling,
stress
statistics
measure
the
fit
between
the
multidimensional
scaling
mapandthecorrespondingsimilaritymatrix. Ormorespecifically,howcloselythedistances
betweenpointsinthemultidimensionalscalingmapreflecttheperceivedsimilaritybetweenthe
correspondingideas(Borg&Groenen,2005,pp.3842). Inthisresearch,theparticularstress
statisticStressIisusedandassessedintwoways. First,itmustfallwithinthenormativerange
established
by
Trochim
(1993)
and
Rosas
and
Camphausen
(2007).
Second,
it
must
not
exceed
the
1%cutoffthresholddefinedbySturrockandRocha(2000). MultidimensionalmapswithaStressI
statisticfallingbelowthisthreshold,havelessthan1%probabilityofhavingnostructure(thatis
beingmerelyarandomconfiguration).
Reliability
Formally,reliability
is
defined
as
the
portion
of
measurement
that
is
due
to
permanent
effects
that
persistfromsampletosample(Netemeyer&Sharma,2003). Orinotherwords,reliabilityasks
whetherthesameresultwouldbereachediftheresearchwasrepeatedwithotherparticipant
samples. However,reliabilitymeasuresusedinthetraditionalsurveyapproach(whichrequires
respondentstoansweraseriesofclosedtestitems)arenotsufficientfortheconceptmapping
methodology(Trochim,
1993).
Instead,
Trochim
(1993)
has
developed
asuite
of
reliability
statistics
specificallyforconceptmapping. Normativerangesforthesereliabilitystatisticshavebeenderived
fromalmosttwodecadesofconceptmappingexperience(Rosas&Camphausen,2007).
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
23/89
collectionandanalysismethodsstrengtheningthecredibilityoftheresearchfindings (Creswell,
2009,pp.443453;Flick,2008).
Ontheotherhand,inquantitativeresearchvaliditychecksthecorrespondencebetweenwhatis
actuallybeingmeasuredandwhatispurportedtobemeasured(Bryman,2008,p.151). Validityis
generallydividedintothreetypes:content,constructandcriterion(Abell,Springer,&Kamata,2009,
pp.98101;Neuman,2006,pp.192194).
Inassessing
the
validity
of
the
research,
both
qualitative
and
quantitative
definitions
were
put
to
use.
Fromthequalitativestandpoint,thestudymadesubstantialuseoftriangulation. Asignificant
numberofindependentparticipantswithdiverseexperiencewereconsulted,elicitingboth
convergentanddivergentperspectives. Moreoverdatawascollectedusingavarietyofmodes
includingbrainstorming,sortingandranking.
Fromaquantitativestandpoint,theresearchmustshowthatwhatisbeingmeasuredthe
problems/issuesandmitigatingfeaturesisbothrelevantandcomprehensivetotheresearch
questions. Severalstepsareneeded.
First,theresearchmustensurethatthemeasuresencompasstherelevantaspectsoftheresearch
questions. Thisisreferredtoascontentvalidity(Neuman,2006,p.193) Althoughtherecanbeno
guaranteethatallproblems/issuesandfeatureshavebeendiscovered,thebrainstormingactivity
coupledwiththediversityofparticipants(e.g.geographicallyandbyindustrysector)ensuredthata
substantialsetofcontrastingideaswasunearthed. Therelativeimportanceoftheseideas,with
respectto
the
research
questions,
was
established
by
the
participants
in
the
ranking
activity.
Second,theresearchmustdetermineifthemeasuresoperateinaconsistentmannertermed
constructvalidity(Neuman,2006,p.194). Althoughthisismoreeasilyverifiedinpurely
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
24/89
Contentandconstructvaliditywerealsostrengthenedbytheperiodicinvolvementofresearchteam
memberswhoareexperiencedprojectmanagers,inroundtablesduringtheIdeasAnalysisand
Interpretationphases.
Finally,criterionvaliditydependsonagreementwithotherindependentexternalmeasures,bothin
thepresent(concurrentvalidity)andthefuture(predictivevalidity)(Neuman,2006,pp.193194).
Concurrentreliabilityarisestoalargeextentfromthecommonperspectiveselicitedfromdiverse
but
independent
participants
who
have
substantial
experience
in
looking
at
current
problems/issues
orexistingmitigatingfeatures. Predictivevalidityisalittlehardertodemonstrategiventhelimited
durationoftheresearch. However,againitisexpectedthatparticipantsextensiveexperience
containssubstantialpredictivevalueinidentifyingandassessingtheefficacyofrecommended
features.
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
25/89
CHAPTER3DISCOVERYANDFINDINGS
PRELIMINARIES
SurveyStatistics
Thenumberofparticipantswhotookpartintherankingandsortingactivitiesofeachsurveyare
listedin
Appendix
5,
Table
30.
In
both
the
PRINCE2
Issues
and
the
Other
Issues
concept
maps,
the
numberofparticipantsintherankingandsortingactivitieswasdifferent. Ineachcase,oneofthe
sortswasnotcompletedandwasthereforeexcluded.
ConceptMaps
Fourconceptmaps,listedinTable5,weredevelopedcoveringresponsestothetwofocusquestions
ineach
of
the
PRINCE2
and
Other
groups.
ConceptMap Description Reference
PRINCE2Issues Problemsorissueswhichadverselyaffectedtheutilityof
PRINCE2insuccessfullydeliveringprojectoutcomes.
Appendix3,Figure5
PRINCE2Features Existingorrecommendedfeatureswhichdoorwouldat
leastmitigate,ifnotresolve,thePRINCE2problemsor
issues.
Appendix3,Figure7
OtherIssues Problemsorissueswhichadverselyaffectedtheutilityof
otherprojectmanagementframeworksinsuccessfully
deliveringprojectoutcomes.
Appendix3,Figure10
OtherFeatures Existingorrecommendedfeatureswhichdoorwould
mitigate,ifnotresolve,theseotherprojectmanagement
frameworksproblemsorissues.
Appendix3,Figure12
Table5ConceptMapsDeveloped
ThefourconceptmapsshowingallideasaredepictedinAppendix3,Figure5,Figure7,Figure10,
andFigure12. Thesignificantproblems/issues(withrankingsequaltoorgreaterthan3)forthe
PRINCE2IssuesandOtherIssuesconceptmapsareseparatelybrokenoutinAppendix3,Figure6
d i 11 i l h I C 2 I i d d i b di
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
26/89
Conceptstatisticsforeachconceptmapincludingnumberofideasencompassedbytheconceptand
theconceptrankingaredescribedinAppendix4,Table29.
ConceptThemes
Collectively,theseconceptmapssuggestthatparticipantssubjectivelyframetheirperspectiveson
thetworesearchquestionsaroundsixmajorthemes:
Framework/Manualtheprojectmanagementframeworkincludingitsassociated
documentation
ProjectBoards/SponsorsCompetencyprojectsponsorandprojectboardcompetency ProjectGovernanceCompetencyorganizationalcompetencyinprojectgovernance OrganizationalPMCompetencyorganizationalcompetencyinimplementingtheparticular
projectmanagementframework
ProjectTeamCompetencyprojectmanagerandprojectteamcompetency. Tailoring/EmbeddingusingthedefinitionsinDirectingSuccessfulProjectsusingPRINCE2
(OfficeofGovernmentCommerce,2009a,pp.97103),tailoringisadaptingtheproject
managementframeworktotheprojectcontext; whereasembeddingisadaptingthe
projectmanagementframeworktothecorporatecontext.
TherelationshipsbetweentheseconceptsandtheconceptsthemesaremappedinAppendix2,
Table28. Occasionallyaconceptrelatestomorethanonetheme.
Althoughtheidentificationoftheseconceptthemesisonlyapreliminaryresult,itprovidesan
intuitive,convenientandpervasivestructuretoanalysethespecificfindings.
MultidimensionalScalingStatistics
Thestressstatisticsforthemultidimensionalscalingmapsforeachoftheconceptmapsareshown
inAppendix5,Table30. Inallcases,thestressstatisticStressIusedinthisstudysatisfiesthetwo
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
27/89
(1993)andRosasandCamphausen(2007). Inotherwords,iftheresearchwererepeatedunder
similarcircumstances,thereisahighprobabilitythattheresultswouldbesimilar.
Validity
Becauseconceptmappingisamixedmethodology,theresearchsvaliditywasexaminedfrom
qualitativeandquantitativeperspectives. Theapproachesadoptedinthisstudytopreserve
qualitativeandquantitativevalidityaredescribedindetailundertheheadingResearchDesign
above.
OnesourcewhichweakenstheresearchvalidityistheapparentlackofawarenessofsomePRINCE2
participantsofthesignificantchangesmadetoPRINCE2inthe2009release. However,theresultis
mostlikelytobeamoreconservativeevaluationintheareasaffected. Theresearchteam
recommendsthattheproblems/issuesandfeaturessuggestedbythePRINCE2participantsbe
reviewedby
an
expert
panel
to
identify
those
that
have
been
resolved
in
the
latest
release.
Notwithstanding,theresearchdesignisdeemedtoexhibitanacceptabledegreeofvalidity.
PresentationofFindings
Thefindingspresentedbelowaregroupedhierarchicallyinthreelevels:
Firstlevel:ProjectmanagementframeworkPRINCE2orOther
Secondlevel:ConceptTheme
Thirdlevel:ResearchquestionsProblems/IssuesorFeatures
InterpretationofIdeaRankings
Informulating
findings,
only
problems/issues
or
features
which
are
ranked
equal
to
or
greater
than
3
areconsideredsignificant. ThePRINCE2IssuesandOtherIssuesconceptsmapsarealsoredrawn
inAppendix3,Figure6andFigure11respectivelytoshowonlysignificantideas.
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
28/89
PrudentComparison
TheresearchdoesnotattempttocomparetheperformanceofPRINCE2againstthatofanyother
specificprojectmanagementframework. Moreover,suchcomparisonswouldbeinvalidbecausethe
Othergroupdoesnotrepresentusersofaparticularframework,butratherabroadclassof
unspecifiedframeworks.
RathertheOtherdataoffersanexcellentcomparativesampleoftheproblems/issuesbeing
experienced,and
the
features
sought,
by
practitioners
in
general
project
management
practice
using
nonPRINCE2frameworks.
PRINCE2
PRINCE2
Concept
Maps
ThePRINCE2IssuesandPRINCE2FeaturesconceptmapsareillustratedinAppendix3,Figure5and
Figure7.
RelativeImportanceofPRINCE2-IssuesConcepts
TherelativerankingoftheconceptswithinthePRINCE2IssuesconceptmapisillustratedinFigure
3below. Thehighertheranking,themoreseriousistheperceivedconcernofthePRINCE2
participants. AttheextremesofthisscaleofperceivedconcernsaretheProjectBoard/Sponsor
issuesatthehighendandthePRINCE2FrameworkandManualissuesatthelowend.
NotethatinthePRINCE2Issuesconceptmap,theProjectTeamCompetencythemeisencapsulated
intheOrganizationalPMCompetencyconcept,andtheFramework/Manualthemeiscollectively
coveredbytheFrameworkandManualconcepts.
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
29/89
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
ProjectBoard/Sponsor ProjectGovernanceCompetency
OrganizationalPMCompetency
Tailoring Framework Manual
Concdept
Ranking
Concept
Figure3:PRINCE2IssuesConceptRankings
Framework/ManualTheme
Issues
AlthoughthePRINCE2participantsraisedmanyanddistinctissuesaboutthePRINCE2Framework
andManual,therelativeimportanceofthesewasverylowwithaveragerankingsof1.9and1.1
respectively(onascaleof1to5). UnlikeotherconceptswithinthePRINCE2Issuesconceptmap,
theFrameworkandManualconceptscontainnoissuesrankedabove3and2respectively. Thisisa
verysignificantfinding,whichpersuasivelyexemplifiesthegeneralsatisfactionofparticipantswith
thePRINCE2
framework
and
manual.
TheperceivedintegrityofthePRINCE2frameworkissimilarlydemonstratedpictoriallyinthe
contrastbetweenthetwovariantsofthePRINCE2IssuesconceptmapinAppendix3,Figure5and
Figure6. ThefirstmapwhichincludesallissuesdepictswellpopulatedFrameworkandManual
concepts(combinedforconvenience). Yetinthesecondmap,whichonlyincludessignificantissues
(withrankingsequaltoorgreaterthan3),thecombinedFrameworkandManualconceptsare
almostemptyexceptfortwoissues,insharpcomparisontoallotherconcepts. Theonlytwoissues
inthecombinedFrameworkandManualconceptwiththemaximumrankingof3arelistedinTable
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
30/89
EquallyimportantarethePRINCE2Framework/ManualissuesraisedbyindividualPRINCE2
participantsbuttheneffectivelyrejectedbythePRINCE2groupasawholebyassigningarankingof
1. ThesearedescribedinTable7below.
RejectedIssues Ranking
PRINCE2is'builtinmidair' lacksfoundationdisciplinese.g.constructingschedulesandmotivating
people 1
PRINCE2examfocusesonruleoverprinciple 1
PRINCE2methodology
too
theoretical
1
PRINCE2manualoffersnaiveandshallowguidanceespeciallyinriskandchangemanagement 1
VolumeofPRINCE2manualcandistractprojectteamfromdeliveringpractical/realoutcomes 1
PRINCE2manualdifficulttoread 1
PRINCE2doesn'tprovidetemplatesformanagementproducts(withguidelines),soorganizations
mustcreatetheirown 1
Toomanydetailedacronymstomemorise,makingitdifficulttoengagetheorganization 1
PRINCE2manualmutatesratherthanevolvesevery3to4yearscreatingdisruptiontoprojectteams
requiringexpensiveupdatestointernaldocumentation 1
PRINCE2manualrepetitiousandfragmented 1
ExamplesprovidedarelargelylimitedtoInformationandCommunicationsTechnology 1
PRINCE2manualhasmanygapse.g.nodirectiononfinancialaccountingforprojects 1
PRINCE2manualcontainstoomany'seeotherOGCdocument'references 1
PRINCE2
2005
and
2009
guidance
creates
two
sets
of
advice
1
PRINCE22009madesomedumbchangeslikeremovalofsubprocessid'stobepopulist 1
PRINCE2manualtoodetailed 1
Table7:RejectedCriticismsofthePRINCE2FrameworkandManual
ExistingFeatures
Table8showstheexistingPRINCE2featureswhichparticipantsrankedhighly(witharankingof3,4
or5asdiscussedearlier). ThePRINCE2participantsweregenerallyoftheopinionthattheexisting
featuresofthePRINCE2frameworkandmanualnotonlyresolvemanyoflowlevelFrameworkand
Manualissues,butalsocontributetowardresolvingothermorehighlyrankedPRINCE2Issues
themes
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
31/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
32/89
ProblemsandIssuesOrganizationalNotMethodological
ThemajorproblemsandissuesconstrainingsuccessinprojectsusingPRINCE2arelargelyunrelated
tothePRINCE2frameworkormanual. Thecriticalproblemsandissuesarenotmethodological,but
ratherpredominantlyorganizationalinnature. DespitetheperceivedbenefitsofthePRINCE2
frameworkandmanual,poorprojectleadershipandlackadaisicalimplementationofPRINCE2in
organizationsreceivedtrenchantcriticismfromthePRINCE2group.
ProjectBoards/Sponsors
Theme
Issues
Inparticular,thePRINCE2groupwasexceptionallycriticalofthecompetenceandeffectivenessof
ProjectBoardsandProjectSponsors. InthePRINCE2Issuesconceptmap,theProject
Boards/Sponsorsthemewasthehighestrankedwithascoreof4.6. Moreover,morethanhalfof
thetop
30
PRINCE2
issues
(with
rankings
of
4and
5)
target
the
competence
or
behaviour
of
Project
BoardsandSponsors. TheProjectBoards/SponsorsissuessubmittedbythePRINCE2groupare
listedinTable10andareselfexplanatory.
PRINCE2ProjectSponsor/Board Issues Ranking
ProjectBoardsdonotunderstandtheirrolesandresponsibilities 5
ProjectBoard
members
not
always
competent
to
fulfil
their
role
5
BusinessCaseisnotusedtoperiodicallytestandconfirmprojectviability 5
Lackofcommitmentandleadershipfromseniormanagement 5
ProjectBoardsarenotusedeffectively 5
CorporatemanagementbypassestheProjectBoard 5
ProjectBoardsconstitutedbydelegateswholackauthoritytomakedecisions 5
Project
Boards
do
not
understand
or
apply
management
by
exception
5
Project'startingup'and'initiation'arerushedormissedbecauseofpressure'togetgoing' 5
ProjectBoardsareinexperienced 5
Escalatedissues(ExceptionReports)arenotresolved 5
ProjectBoardsdonotdefinethetoleranceswithinwhichthePMmustwork 4
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
33/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
34/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
35/89
IssuesProjectTeamCompetencyTheme
Asalreadymentioned,themajorProjectTeamCompetencyissuesubmittedbythePRINCE2groupis
theperceived
inexperience
of
many
Registered
PRINCE2
Practitioners.
The
term
practitioner
is
obviouslyinterpretedinthemarketplaceasaprojectmanagerwhocanproficientlyapplyPRINCE2
inactualprojects.
OrganizationalPMCompetencyIssues Ranking
OrganizationdoesnotknowhowtoapplyPRINCE2processes 4
Organizationdoesnotknowhowtomanagequalityusingproductdescriptionsandcustomer
qualityexpectations 4
ManysocalledPRINCE2Practitionershaveneverrunaproject,andsotimeandeffortiswasted 4
PRINCE2exceptionprocessesnotfollowedinmanagingescalatedissues 4
PRINCE2usedinnameonly theProjectBoardandProjectManager thinktheyareusing
PRINCE2,butnotreally. 4
Some
team
members
struggle
to
apply
product
based
planning
and
to
understand
its
relationshiptoscopeandquality 3
ProjectmanagersdonotreceiveadequatesupportintheirinitialuseofPRINCE2 3
Projectmanagersaretreatedasprojectcoordinators 3
LackofcriticalmassofthoseunderstandingPRINCE2methodologyintheorganisation 3
NotenoughpeoplehavebeentrainedinPRINCE2 3
Issuemanagementpileup lackofclarity,worry,fearetccanbeenteredasanissue.Filtering
thesequite
atask.
3
Stageprocessesarenotstrictlyfollowed 3
Runningtheproject'byPRINCE2'canbecomemoreimportantthanachievingprojectobjectives 3
Table13:OrganizationalPMCompetencyIssues
FeaturesOrganizationalPMCompetencyTheme
Earliersectionshavealreadycanvassedfurtherfeaturesincluding:
educationinitiativesforseniormanagement,
certificationforProjectBoardmembers.
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
36/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
37/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
38/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
39/89
Issues Concept Ranking
Educatingprojectboardmembersontheircollectiveand
individualresponsibilities
ProjectGovernance 5
Increasingsenior
management
awareness
of
P2
processesandmanagementproductsProject
Governance 5
Explainhowtoachievetheseniorleadership
commitmentneededtoembedP2inmanual(R)
ProjectGovernance 5
UpdatesupplementaryguidePeopleIssues&PRINCE2 Framework 4Placegreateremphasison'peopleissues' ProjectGovernance 3
Table18:ExampleFeaturesSupportingEmbedding
OTHERPROJECTMANAGEMENTFRAMEWORKS
OtherConceptMaps
TheOtherIssuesandOtherFeaturesconceptmapsareillustratedinAppendix3,Figure10and
Figure12. AvariationoftheOtherIssuesconceptmapshowingonlysignificantissues(ranked3or
more)isshowninAppendix3,Figure11.
RelativeImportanceofOtherIssuesConcepts
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
RelationshipManagement RequirementsMa na gement Governance Financi al/CostManagement Framework Tailoring
ConceptRanking
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
40/89
TherelationshipsbetweenconceptsandthemesfortheOthergrouparenotassimpleasthe
PRINCE2group. AsAppendix2,Table28demonstrates,severalconceptsintheOtherIssuesand
OtherFeatures
concept
maps
relate
to
two
or
even
three
themes.
This
is
not
surprising.
Unlike
the
PRINCE2group,theOthergroupembracesmultipleprojectmanagementframeworksanda
correspondinglygreaterdivergenceofissuesandfeatures. Forconvenience,theissuesorfeatures
containedwithintheseconceptsarereviewedunderasinglethemedesignatedinAppendix2,Table
28. Forexample,theRequirementsManagementconceptoverlapstheFramework/Manual,
OrganizationalPM
Competency
and
Project
Team
Competency
themes.
An
issue
which
forms
of
the
RequirementsManagementconceptcouldresultfromeitherashortcomingintheproject
managementframeworkortheabsenceofthecorrespondingcompetencyattheorganizationalor
projectlevel. Itisdifficultinmanycasestodeterminetheparticularcause;consequentlythe
RequirementsManagementconceptiscoveredundertheFramework/Manualtheme.
Althoughtheanalysisismorecomplex,theOtherfindingsofferanextraordinarilyrichcomparative
sampleofsignificantissuesandfeaturesexperiencedingeneralprojectmanagementpractice
outsidePRINCE2.
ExistingversusRecommendedFeatures
The
distinction
between
existing
and
recommended
features
is
not
investigated
in
the
discussion
of
OtherfindingsbelowbecausethedistinctionisnotrelevanttotheassessmentofPRINCE2.
Whetherexistingorrecommended,anyfeaturerankedassignificantbytheOthergroup,is
germanetotheevaluationofPRINCE2. Moreover,thedistinctionbetweenexistingand
recommendedfeaturesblursintheOtherfindingsbecauseofthemultipleframeworks. Anexisting
featureinoneframeworkmightbearecommendedfeatureinanother.
Framework/ManualTheme
Issues
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
41/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
42/89
Ineffectiveinitiationandtransition(orcommissioning)
Preeminentfocusonprocessratherthanstrategicengagement.
Features
ThefeaturessuggestedbytheOthergrouptomitigatetheseissuesarecapturedbythe
RequirementsManagementandProjectSystemsandControlsconcepts. Thesefeaturesareoutlined
inTable20below.
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
43/89
OtherFrameworkFeatures Concept Ranking
Formalchangemanagementsystemintroduced ProjectSystemsandControls 5
Implementingbettercommunication&projectreportsforchangecontrol ProjectSystemsandControls 5
Ensuringstakeholderagreementtoprojectobjectivesandresultingallocationof
responsibilities RequirementsManagement 5
Establishedformalprocessforprojectdefinitionincorporatingsitespecificrequirement
inscopingtheproject RequirementsManagement 5
Definedprocessforownersinvolvementindecisionmakingandchangemanagement RequirementsManagement 5
Betterunderstanding,clarificationanddocumentationofownerrequirementsand
specificgoalsandobjectivespriortostartofprojects RequirementsManagement 5
Providesufficient
contingency
for
unexpected
events
Project
Systems
and
Controls 4
Intensifyestimatingprocess;introducebasiccostreportsforestimating;unifycost
controlsystemandincorporatevaluemetrics ProjectSystemsandControls 4
Processfortrackingintroduced ProjectSystemsandControls 4
Establishedformalprocessforimplementingperformanceacceptancecriteria ProjectSystemsandControls 4
Definedprocesswithownerforcommissioningandhandover ProjectSystemsandControls 4
Betterlogicalstructurerequiredforcontrolmechanismsforstartupanddocumented
changecontrols
Project
Systems
and
Controls 4
Provisionofsufficienttime/budgettoassesschanges;cleardecisionfromclienton
acceptance/rejection;andassociatedtimeproblemsalleviatedbyuseofheuristic
estimatesandaccuratereporting RequirementsManagement 4
Usinglaunchworkshopsandvalueengineeringwithdesign/contractor stakeholdersto
understandrequirementsandunderstandthatPMvalueaddmetricsaredifferentto
engineeringmetrics RequirementsManagement 4
Greateremphasis
placed
on
outcomes
(effectiveness)
rather
than
just
efficiency
(time,
cost,performance) RequirementsManagement 4
Betteroutcomedefinitionrequiredtoimprovedecisionmaking RequirementsManagement 4
Acceptanceoflifecycleapproachforallprojectinvestmentdecisions RequirementsManagement 4
BetterdeterminationofWorkBreakdownStructuredecomposition;and
standardisationofWBSsoftwaretoolsrequiredacrossprojects ProjectSystemsandControls 3
Considerationofcommercialaswellasfinancialmanagementandtailoredguidelines
required
Project
Systems
and
Controls 3
Usingdetailedstagemodellinginprogrammetopreventresourceconflicts ProjectSystemsandControls 3
Betterreviewsbaseduponkeydocuments ProjectSystemsandControls 3
UsingcentralisedwebbasedElectronicDocumentControlsystemforgreater
traceability,efficiencyandeaseofuse ProjectSystemsandControls 3
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
44/89
Inbroadterms,thekeyfeaturesproposedare:
Developingformalprocessesfor
o scopedefinitionandmanagement
o changemanagementandchangecontrol
o customer/stakeholder/ownerinvolvementespeciallyinscopedefinition
o costestimation
o productacceptance
o initiation,commissioningandhandover
Includingadequatecontingencyforunknownunknowns
Allocatingsufficienttimeandbudgettoassessandapprovechanges
Launchandvalueengineeringworkshops
Improvingcostestimationandvaluemetrics
Greateremphasisonoutcomes(effectiveness)ratherthanjustefficiency(time,costand
performance)
Adoptingalifecycleapproachtoprojectinvestmentdecisions.
ProjectGovernanceTheme
Issues
BecauseofthecloserelationshipbetweentheProjectGovernanceandRelationshipManagement
concepts(reflectedintheproximityofthecorrespondingclusters)intheOtherIssuesconcept
map,theyaretreatedcollectivelyundertheProjectGovernancetheme. Theissuesidentifiedbythe
OthergrouparecataloguedinTable21.
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
45/89
OtherProjectGovernanceIssues Concept Ranking
Unclearlinesofauthorityandnorealteamcommitment ProjectGovernance 5
Lackofgovernance,poorstagegates,lackofaccountability; ProjectGovernance 5
Nodefinedchainofcommandandcomplacency. ProjectGovernance 5
Cultureclashesbetweendifferentstakeholdersandpoordisputeresolution RelationshipManagement 5
Inadequatecommunication RelationshipManagement 5
Lackofleadershipandtopmanagementsupportandbuyintostandardised
PMprocessesandmethodology inconsistent projectpractices ProjectGovernance 4
PMnotresponsibleforschedule ProjectGovernance 4
Excessivetimeconsumingeffortrequiredtomonitor/control
suppliers/contractors nopowertoenforce3rdpartiestodeliver ProjectGovernance 4
Poorprojectexecution ProjectGovernance 4
LackofPMtrainingtostaff,clientsandworkpackageownersandpoor
understandingofprojectmanagementframework RelationshipManagement 4
Lackofownershipandsystemintegrationamongstalllevelsofproject ProjectGovernance 4
Poorstakeholdermanagementandconflictingobjectives RelationshipManagement 4
ToomuchfaithinIT,notenoughsupportfor'managementskills'(people
sideunderplayed)
Project
Governance
3
LackofcommitmenttoproviderelevantexpertiseandHRresourcesto
projectrecruitmentbasedonavailability ProjectGovernance 3
ClientandprojectteammembersunfamiliarwithPM
framework/methodology RelationshipManagement 3
Meddlingbysponsorswithtime/costcausing'churn' ProjectGovernance 3
LackofPMprocessmaturity nonconstructionskilledconsultantsdriving
PMfor
high
fees
low
service
quality
Project
Governance
3
Killingprojectsi.e.'no/go'solutionsnotanoption ProjectGovernance 3
Managementfocusontime/cost,hencelowquality/highcostdelivery ProjectGovernance 3
UntimelyPMappointment ProjectGovernance 3
LowPMresources ProjectGovernance 3
Projectmanagementframeworkproblemsunresolveddespitereviews ProjectGovernance 3
Table21:OtherProjectGovernanceIssues
Inanutshell,thedominantprojectgovernanceissuesare:
Absenceofdefinedprojectgovernancestructures,processesand
roles/responsibilities/accountabilities
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
46/89
Inadequateintegrationbetweentheprojectandotherorganizationallevels.
So,theresponsesnotonlycriticisethelackofstructureandprocess,butalsoequallyassailthe
neglectofsoftissuescreatedbypoorprojectleadership,andunresolvedfractiousrelationships
betweenstakeholdergroups.
Features
FeatureswhichtheOthergroupidentifiedasmitigatingProjectGovernanceissuesarerecordedin
Table22.
OtherProjectGovernanceFeatures Concept Ranking
Educatingclientoftherisksofproceedingwithunresolvedissues ProjectGovernance 5
Properformalised,comprehensiveandmandatoryriskidentificationand
managementprocessinplace ProjectGovernance 5
Weeklyprogressreportingonmilestonesatteammeetings ProjectGovernance 5
Keepingexecutives
fully
informed
of
goals,
process
and
issues
to
receive
direction ProjectGovernance 5
LeadershiprecognizesPMvalue ProjectGovernance 5
Moretimelydecisionmakingobserved ProjectGovernance 4
Agreedandexecutednew governanceincludingeffectivegatewayprocess ProjectGovernance 4
LeadershipprioritisingPMinvestment ProjectGovernance 4
Periodicreviewofbusinesscasetoensureongoingviabilityrelativeto
alternate
investments
Project
Governance
3
Safetycultureprograminstigated ProjectGovernance 3
Leadershipbehaviourchangingforbetter ProjectGovernance 3
Involvingsoftdisciplines(e.g.Systemsthinkers,psychologists)toimprove
PMculture ProjectGovernance 3
Table22:OtherProjectGovernanceFeatures
Inbrief,crucialfeaturessuggestedbyOtherparticipantstomitigateProjectGovernanceissues
include:
Activeleadershipwhichrecognisestheorganizationalvalueofprojectmanagement
P tf li t hi h i iti j t t i t t
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
47/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
48/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
49/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
50/89
OtherTailoringIssues Concept Ranking
Projectmanagementframeworkusedasnonflexibleprescriptive
process toomuchfocusontemplatesasan'end'notasa'means'Tailoring 3
Newproject
management
framework
has discarded
proven
existing
toolsandtechniqueswithoutconsideringworthi.e. repackageof
oldversionslackingadaptationandflexibilitytochangeculture
Tailoring 3
PMtoolsnotintegratedintostandardprocesses Tailoring 3
Standardratherthantailoredsolutionsapplied Tailoring 3
Table26:OtherTailoringIssues
Organizationsare
still
adopting
the
one
size
fits
all
approach
to
project
management
(Shenhar,
2001),withoutallowingsufficientflexibilitytoaccommodatetheprojectsrealcharacter. Moreover,
projectmanagementframeworksareoperatinginisolationfromotherorganizationalorenterprise
processes. Presumablyasaresultofprojectmanagementfailures,newprojectmanagement
frameworksarebeingintroducedwithlittleattentionbeinggiventodecisiveorganizationalchange
issues
such
as
culture.
Features
FeatureswhichOtherparticipantsproposedtoengagetheseissuesareoutlinedinTable27.
OtherTailoringFeatures Concept Ranking
Tailoringguidelines/methodology
to
suit
individual
projects
rather
than'onesizefitsall' Tailoring 4
ProjectownershipnowpartofPMframework Tailoring 4
ApplysimpleandconcisePMmethodology Tailoring 4
Ensureadequateflexibilityinprojectmanagementframework Tailoring 3
Workerinputintoprocesseswhicharebeingmorestandardized/
refined/definedi.e.projectstartups Tailoring 3
Table
27:
Other
Tailoring
Features
Participantsrejecttheprescriptiveordoctrinaireapproachtoprojectmanagement. Rather,theyare
seekingmethodologies(orguidelinestoexistingmethodologies)whichenablethemtotailorthe
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
51/89
CHAPTER4CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Asdiscussedearlierundertheheading PrudentComparison,thecomparisonbetweenthePRINCE2
andOtherfindingsshouldbeinterpretedasanevaluationoftheperformanceofPRINCE2against
generalprojectmanagementpracticerepresentedby Otherfindings. Itshouldnotbeseenasa
comparativeevaluation
of
PRINCE2
against
any
other
particular
project
management
framework.
ConceptMapping
Theconceptmappingapproachprovedhighlysuccessfulinelicitingandanalysingalargenumber
andadiverserangeofissuescovering:
theproblems
and
issues
affecting
the
utility
of
PRINCE2
and
the
other
project
management
frameworks,
existingandrecommendedfeaturestoresolveoratleastmitigatetheseproblemsand
issues.
ReliabilityandValidity
Theresearchresultsaredeemedtoexhibitanacceptablelevelofreliabilityandvalidity.
ConceptThemes
Collectively,theconceptswhichemergedfromtheanalysissuggestthatparticipantsframe
problems/issuesandfeaturesaroundsixbroadbutinevitablyoverlappingthemes:
Framework/Manualtheproject
management
framework
including
its
associated
documentation(e.g.thePRINCE2manual),
ProjectSponsors/BoardsCompetencyprojectsponsorandprojectboardcompetency,
k/ l h
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
52/89
Framework/ManualTheme
InremarkablecontrasttotheOtherprojectmanagementframeworks,thePRINCE2frameworkand
manualsare
perceived
to
have
almost
no
significant
problems
or
issues.
This
is
acrucial
finding.
PRINCE2(frameworkandmanual)isperceivedasaveryrobust,comprehensiveandpragmatic
projectmanagementframeworkwhichunderwritesprojectsuccess. Althoughnumerousproblems
andissuesweresuggested,overallPRINCE2participantsrankedtheseverylow. Conversely,
participantsrankedmanyexistingPRINCE2featuresasveryeffectiveinmitigatingseriousproblems
inotherthemes.
Someofthehighestrankedexistingfeaturesincluded:
Roleofthebusinesscaseinassuringcontinuingprojectviability
Theextensiveguidanceofferedonprojectgovernance
Expansionofthetoleranceconcepttoencompasssixareas
Thecomprehensivedefinitionofrolesandresponsibilities
Productbasedplanningandproductfocusseddelivery
Delegationofresponsibilitiestotheappropriatelevel
Newchaptersontailoringandembedding.
Thefewareaswherechangewasproposedwere:expandedcoverageofstakeholdermanagement,
greaterfocusonbenefitsmanagement,broaderdefinitionoftheroleplayedbyprojectassurance
andupdatingthesupplementaryguidePeopleIssuesandPRINCE2.TheOtherfindings,ontheotherhand,demonstratedsignificantdissatisfactioninthebroader
projectmanagement
community
stemming
from
an
extensive
range
of
shortcomings,
especially
in
theareassuchas:
Poorscopeandchangemanagement
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
53/89
Very importantly the source of project governance problems in organizations using PRINCE2 is
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
54/89
Veryimportantly,thesourceofprojectgovernanceproblemsinorganizationsusingPRINCE2is
organizationalandnottheframework. Infact,manyofthehighestrankedstrengthsofthePRINCE2
framework(cited
above)
directly
address
project
governance,
including:
EmphasisingthecriticalroleplayedbytheBusinessinassuringcontinuingprojectviability
ExtensiveguidanceonprojectgovernanceinthePRINCE22009editions
Comprehensivedefinitionofroleandresponsibilitiesatalllevels.
Thenon
PRINCE2
participants
echoed
similar
sentiments
about:
the
poor
quality
of
project
governanceincludinglackoforunclearaccountabilities,poorleadershipandcommitmentfromthe
seniorexecutive,cultureclashesbetweenstakeholdergroupscoupledwithnomeansofresolving
disputes,andinadequateintegrationbetweentheprojectandotherorganizationallevels.
Overall,thesentimentsexpressedbyboththePRINCE2andOtherparticipantsarenotjustabout
lackof
governance
and
structure
and
process
within
organizations,
but
perhaps
more
significantly
aboutlackofprojectleadership. ThebusinessenvironmentsdescribedbybothPRINCE2andOther
participantswhereseniorexecutivesupportissometimestepidandprojectgovernanceisweak,
confirmotherresearch(Shenhar,2007;Stefanovic&Shenhar,2007)thatprojectsarenotbeing
managedstrategically.
Althoughtheliteratureonstrategicalignmentorfitbetweenstrategy andprojectshasbeen
characterisedasvague(Shenhar,Milosevic,Dvir,&Thamhain,2007,p.6),scant(Milosevic&
Srivannaboon,2006)andlimited(Srivannaboon,2005,p.37),thelimitedresearchsuggeststhat
strategicalignmentisanecessaryifnotsufficientconditionforbusinesssuccess(Stefanovic&
Shenhar,2007). Persistentandsubstantialstrategicmisalignment,particularlyinvolatile
environments,willdiminishanorganizationsabilitytobothinfluenceandadaptto,itschanging
environment.
Notwithstanding research participantsand especially PRINCE2 participantsemphasis on
Organizational PM Competency and Project Team Competency Themes
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
55/89
OrganizationalPMCompetencyandProjectTeamCompetencyThemes
OrganizationalPMCompetencyandProjectTeamCompetencyproblemsandissueswereranked
onlyslightly
behind
those
of
Project
Governance.
The
PRINCE2
participants
critique
highlighted
two
areas.
First,organizationseitherdonotknowhow,ordonotpossessthecommitment,toproperly
implementPRINCE2. Thisissymptomaticofapervasivestrategicissuewhichpermeatesnotjustthis
themebutotherthemesincludingProjectGovernanceandTailoringandEmbedding.
TheintroductionandimplementationofPRINCE2inanorganizationdemandsmuchmorethan
managementmerelydesignatingPRINCE2asthestandardprojectmanagementframework,and
runningtrainingcourses. TheintroductionandimplementationofPRINCE2inanorganizationmust
berecognisedandmanagedasasignificantorganizationalchangewhichaddressesbothhardand
soft
issues
including
the
development
of
a
supporting
project
management
culture.
Second,thePRINCE2groupwasconcernedthatmanyRegisteredPRINCE2Practitionershavelimited
projectmanagementexperience. ThevalueofthecurrentPRINCE2certificationindevelopinga
soundunderstandingofthePRINCE2frameworkincludingacommonprojectmanagementlanguage
wasuncontested. ButtomaintainandextendthevalueofPRINCE2certification,thePRINCE2
participantswant
the
certification
process
extended
to
recognise
proficiency
in
applying
PRINCE2
to
actualprojects. Thiscouldbeofferedasanadditionalaccreditation,preservingthevalueofcurrent
certification.
LiketheirPRINCE2counterparts,theOtherGrouparguedtheprimacyofexperience(bothdiversity
anddepth)inrecruitingprojectstaff. Theyalsoemphasisedthecriticalroleofeducationand
trainingindevelopingOrganizationalandProjectTeamCompetency. Bothgroupssawcoachingand
mentoringintheworkplaceplayinganimportantroleintheeducationofprojectmanagers. The
PRINCE2groupfurtherproposedthataccreditationbeintroducedforPRINCE2coaches.
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
56/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
57/89
ThewholesubjectoforganizationalimplementationofPRINCE2,includingembedding,could
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
58/89
becomeanothersignificantofferingwithintheOGCproductportfolio.
TofurtherincreasethevalueofPRINCE2certificationinthemarketplace,additionalaccreditation
shouldbeintroducedwhichindicatesthatthepractitionerbothunderstandsthemethodology,and
canapplyitproficientlyinmanagingprojects. Furtherguidanceshouldalsobeofferedonhowto
implementPRINCE2mentoringandcoachingintheworkplace.
Although
the
quality
and
serviceability
of
the
PRINCE2
framework
and
manual
has
been
demonstrated,otherpotentialareasofimprovementsuggestedare:expandedcoverageof
stakeholdermanagement,greaterfocusonbenefitsmanagement,broaderdefinitionoftherole
playedbyprojectassuranceandupdatingthesupplementaryguidePeopleIssuesandPRINCE2.Anexpertpanelconsistingofapproximately10PRINCE2consultants/trainersshouldbeconvenedto
determinethe
extent
to
which
the
PRINCE2
2009
release:
accommodatestheissuesandfeaturesidentifiedbytheOthergroup,and
satisfiestheproblems/issuesandfeaturesraisedbythePRINCE2group.
Tosupportthisactivity,theresearchteamhasalreadypreparedadraftsurveyinstrument.
FURTHERRESEARCHOPPORTUNITIES
Insummary,theconclusionsandrecommendationsabovesuggestseveralavenuesofprofitable
researchtargetingareassuchas:
Determiningthe
major
factors
affecting
the
introduction
of
PRINCE2
into
organizations
and
thendevelopingflexibleandinclusiveguidanceontheorganizationalimplementationof
PRINCE2
Identifying the competencies which project board members and sponsors must possess to
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
59/89
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abell,N.,
Springer,
D.
W.,
&
Kamata,
A.
(2009).
DevelopingandAssessingRapidAssessment
Instruments.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversityPress.
Borg,I.,&Groenen,P.J.F.(2005).ModernMultidimensionalScaling:TheoryandApplications(Seconded.).NewYork,NewYork:Springer.
Bryman,A.(2008).SocialResearchMethods.Oxford,UK:OxfordUniversity.Creswell,J.W.(2009).ResearchDesign:Qualitative,andMixedMethodsApproaches(3rded.).Los
Angeles,California:Sage.
Flick,U.(2008).AnIntroductiontoQualitativeResearch(4thed.).London:Sage.Gloafshani,
N.
(2003).
Understanding
reliability
and
validity
in
qualitative
research.
TheQualitative
Report,8(4),597607.Guyon,I.,vonLuxburg,U.,&Williamson,R.C.(2009).Clustering:ScienceorArt?Paperpresentedat
theClustering:ScienceorArt?TowardsPrincipledApproachesANeuralInformation
ProcessingSystemsConferenceWorkshop.
Kane,M.,&Trochim,W.M.K.(2007).Conceptmappingforplanningandevaluation.ThousandOaks,California:Sage.
Milosevic,D.Z.,&Srivannaboon,S.(2006).Atheoreticalframeworkforaligningproject
managementwithbusinessstrategy.ProjectManagementJournal,37(3),98.Netemeyer,R.G.B.W.O.,&Sharma,S.(2003).Scalingprocedures:issuesandapplications:Sage
Publications.
Neuman,W.L.(2006).SocialResearchMethods:QualitativeandQuantitativeApproaches(6thed.).Boston,Massachusetts:Pearson.
OfficeofGovernmentCommerce.(2009a).DirectingSuccessfulProjectswithPrince2.London:TheStationeryOffice.
Officeof
Government
Commerce.
(2009b).
ManagingSuccessfulProjectswithPrince2.London:TheStationeryOffice.
Rosas,S.R.,&Camphausen,L.C.(2007).Theuseofconceptmappingforscaledevelopmentand
validationinevaluation.Evaluationandprogramplanning,30(2),125135.Shenhar,A.J.(2001).Onesizedoesnotfitallprojects:Exploringclassicalcontingencydomains.
ManagementScience,47(3),394.Shenhar,A.J.(2007).StrategicProjectLeadership:TowardaStrategicApproachtoProject
Management.InA.J.Shenhar,D.Milosevic,D.Dvir&H.Thamhaim(Eds.),Linkingprojectmanagementtobusinessstrategy(pp.3555).NewtownSquare,Pennsylvannia:ProjectManagementInstitute.
Shenhar,A.J.,Milosevic,D.Z.,Dvir,D.,&Thamhain,H.(2007).Linkingprojectmanagementtobusinessstrategy.NewtownSquare,Pennsylvania:ProjectManagementInstitute.
Srivannaboon,S.(2005).Linkingprojectmanagementwithbusinessstrategy.UnpublishedPh.D.,
Trochim,W.M.K.(1989a).Conceptmapping:Softscienceorhardart?EvaluationandProgram
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
60/89
Planning,12(1),87110.Trochim,W.M.K.(1989b).Outcomepatternmatchingandprogramtheory.EvaluationandProgram
Planning,12,355366.Trochim,W.M.K.(1993,Nov61993).Thereliabilityofconceptmapping.Paperpresentedatthe
AnnualConferenceoftheAmericanEvaluationAssociation,Dallas,Texas.
Trochim,W.M.K.,&Cabrera,D.(2005).Thecomplexityofconceptmappingforpolicyanalysis.
Emergence:ComplexityandOrganization,7(1),1122.Trochim,W.M.K.,&Linton,R.(1986).Conceptualizationforplanningandevaluation.Evaluation
andProgramPlanning,9,289308.
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
61/89
Appendix1:QUTResearchTeam
MrRichard
Sargeant
(Chief
Investigator):
Richard
helped
develop
and
now
teaches
in
QUTs
ExecutiveMastersinComplexProjectManagement. RichardisalsopursuingPhDresearchstudying
thecriticalfactorsaffectingstrategicalignmentbetweenorganizationalstrategyandprojects.
RichardhasalmostthirtyyearsexperienceinDefenceacquisition,portfolio/programme/project
management,ICT,andaerospaceengineering. HehasreceivedanMBEandanOAMforservicesto
Defence.
Richardis
also
aChartered
Professional
Engineer,
aCertified
Practising
Accountant,
a
FellowoftheRoyalStatisticalSocietyandaFellowoftheAustralianInstituteofProject
Management.
ProfessorCarolineHatcher: ProfessorHatcherisaProfessorintheFacultyofBusinessandCourse
CoordinatoroftheQUTExecutiveMastersinComplexProjectManagement. ProfessorHatcheris
anactive
researcher
in
the
area
of
organizational
and
leadership
communication
with
aspecial
focus
oncommunicationinprojectandcomplexenvironments. Inparticular,ProfessorHatcherisamajor
contributortooneofAustraliaslargestfundedresearchprojectsinvestigatingthecontributionof
projectleaderbehaviourstoprocessesandoutcomesinlargescaleprojects. ProfessorHatcheris
alsoPresidentoftheWorldCommunicationAssociation. ProfessorHatcherhaspublishedvery
widelyincluding
several
books
and
20
refereed
journal
articles
in
the
last
decade.
AssociateProfessor(A/Prof)BambangTrigunarsyah: A/ProfTrigunarsyahisAssociateProfessorof
ProjectManagementintheFacultyofBuiltEnvironmentandEngineering. BeforejoiningQUT,
A/ProfTrigunarsyahwasHeadoftheDepartmentofCivilEngineeringandAssociateProfessorin
ConstructionProjectManagementattheUniversityofIndonesia. A/ProfTrigunarsyahhadmany
yearsexperience
in
the
construction
and
oil
development
industries.
A/Prof
Trigunarsyah
has
publishedwidelyinconstructionmanagementandroadconstruction,coauthoringtwobooksand
oversixtytechnicalpapers.
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
62/89
A di 2 C R f b t C t Th d C t M C t
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
63/89
Page52
Appendix2Cross-ReferencebetweenConceptThemesandConceptMapConcepts
Table28:RelationshipsbetweenConceptsandConceptThemesineachConceptMap
*indicatestheparticularthemeunderwhichtheconceptissuesorfeaturesarediscussed
ConceptTheme
Concept
Map
PRINCE2IssuesConcepts PRINCE2FeaturesConcepts OtherIssuesConcepts OtherFeaturesConcepts
Framework/Manual FrameworkandManual FrameworkPRINCE2FrameworkGovernance
Manual
Framework
RequirementsManagement*
RequirementsManagement*
ProjectSystemsandControls*
ProjectGovernanceCompetency
ProjectGovernance Certification&TrainingProject
Governance
ProjectGovernance
RelationshipManagement
ProjectGovernance*
ProjectBoards/SponsorsCompetency Sponsor/Board Certification&TrainingProjectGovernance* ProjectGovernance ProjectGovernanceOrganizationalPMCompetency OrganizationalPMCompetency* Certification&TrainingProjectGovernance Financial/CostManagement*
RequirementsManagement
OrganizationalPMCompetency
RequirementsManagement
Project
Systems
and
Controls
ProjectTeamCompetency OrganizationalPMCompetency Certification&TrainingPRINCE2Framework
RequirementsManagement
Financial/CostManagement
ProjectTeamCompetency
Tailoring/Embedding Tailoring Tailoring Tailoring Tailoring
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
64/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
65/89
OrgPMCompetence
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
66/89
Page55
Figure6:PRINCE2IssuesConceptMapSignificantIdeas(Ranking>=3)
Sponsor/Board
ProjectGovernance
Framework&
Manual
Tailoring
FrameworkPRINCE2 FrameworkGovernance
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
67/89
Page56
Figure7:PRINCE2FeaturesConceptMapAllIdeas
Certification&TrainingPRINCE2
Tailoring
Manual
Certification&Training
ProjectGovernance
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
68/89
FrameworkPRINCE2 FrameworkGovernance
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
69/89
Page58
Figure9:PRINCE2FeaturesConceptMapRecommendedFeatures
Certification&TrainingPRINCE2
Tailoring
Manual
Certification&Training
ProjectGovernance
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
70/89
Financial/CostManagement
Project Governance
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
71/89
Page60
Figure11:OtherIssuesConceptMapSignificantIdeas(Ranking>=3)
RequirementsManagement
Framework
Tailoring
ProjectGovernance
Relationship
Management
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
72/89
Appendix4ConceptStatistics
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
73/89
ConceptMap
Concept
Name
No
of
Ideas
Concept
Ranking
PRINCE2Isses
Sponsor/Board 16 4.67
ProjectGovernance 18 3.17
Organizational PMCompetency 16 3.06
Tailoring 9 2.78
Framework 11 1.91
Manual 15 1.13
PRINCE2Features
Certification&TrainingProjectGovernance 7 4.29
FrameworkGovernance 7 4.14
Certification&TrainingPRINCE2Framework 8 3.50
FrameworkPRINCE2 11 3.36
Tailoring 19 3.16
Manual 13 2.46
Other
Issues
RelationshipManagement 6 3.83
RequirementsManagement 15 3.53
Governance 20 3.40
Financial/CostManagement 4 3.25
Framework 11 3.09
Tailoring 11 2.36
OtherFeatures
RequirementsManagement 14 3.79
ProjectTeamCompetency 12 3.75
ProjectGovernance
15 3.40
ProjectSystemsandControls 20 3.38
Organizational PMCompetency 15 3.33
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
74/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
75/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
76/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
77/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
78/89
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
79/89
IdeaNo
Normalized
Ranking Issue Concept
PRINCE2IssuesConceptMap
j l d l d l
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
80/89
67 2 Projectsclosedprematurelyandpoorly ProjectGovernance
68 1 VolumeofPRINCE2manualcandistractprojectteamfromdeliveringpractical/realoutcomes Manual
69 3 NotenoughpeoplehavebeentrainedinPRINCE2 OrganizationalPMCompetency
70 3 Stageprocessesarenotstrictlyfollowed OrganizationalPMCompetency
71 4 ManysocalledPRINCE2Practitionershaveneverrunaproject,andsotimeandeffortiswasted OrganizationalPMCompetency
72 5 ProjectBoardsdonotunderstandorapplymanagementbyexception Sponsor/Board
73 4 Organizationdoesnotknowhowtomanagequalityusingproductdescriptionsandcustomerqualityexpectations OrganizationalPMCompetency
74 3 Budgetis'lockedin'whenlittleisknownabouttheproject ProjectGovernance
75 1 Seniormanagementdemandsdocumentationbesuppliedintheirformatsandtemplates OrganizationalPMCompetency
76 5 ProjectBoardsareinexperienced Sponsor/Board
77 3 PMsaretreatedasprojectcoordinators OrganizationalPMCompetency
78 1 PRINCE2manualhasmanygapse.g.nodirectiononfinancialaccountingforprojects Manual
79 1 PRINCE22005and2009guidancecreatestwosetsofadvice Manual
80 2 PRINCE2methodologyhastoorigidastructure canstifleinnovationandcreativity Manual
81 1 PRINCE2is'builtinmidair' lacksfoundationdisciplinese.g.constructingschedulesandmotivatingpeople Framework
82 1 PRINCE2examfocusesonruleoverprinciple Framework
83 1 PRINCE2manualdifficulttoread Manual
84 4 Budgetorresourcesnotsufficienttosatisfyprojectneeds ProjectGovernance
85 3 Doesnotincludeaqualitymeasurementframeworke.g.KPIs Framework
Page69
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
81/89
IdeaNo
Normalized
Ranking Feature
Existingor
Recommended Concept
PRINCE2FeaturesConceptMap
45 3 Includemoreandbroaderrangeofcasestudies R Tailoring
46 2 Makegreateruseofprojectmanagementmaturitymodels(e.g.P3M3) R Tailoring
-
8/3/2019 Final Report v1.0e
82/89
47 2 Explainhow
to
introduce
P2
into
an
organization
in
the
manual
R Manual
48 3 DemonstratehowtointegrateP2andenterpriselevelprocesses R Tailoring
49 2 Incorporatesuppliermanagementprocessesinmanual R Manual
50 2 RemoveextensiveactivitydetailfromtheP209 R Manual
51 4 Developcourseforprojectsponsorsandprojectboardmembers R Certification&TrainingProjectGovernance
52 2 P209ismorereadable E Manual
53 3 UpdateP2trainingtoreflect'realities' R Certification&TrainingP2Framework
54 5 Educatingprojectboardmembersontheircollectiveandindividualresponsibilities R Certification&TrainingProjectGovernance
55 3 Isstructuredandcontrolled E FrameworkPRINCE2
56 4 Demonstrate(withexamples)howP2canbeusedwithnontraditionaldevelopmentanddeliverymethodologies(e.g.agile) R Tailoring
57 1 Splitfoundationandpractitionerknowledgeintoseparatepublications R Tailoring
58 3 Implementaccreditation
scheme
for
P2
coaching
R Certification
&
Training
P2
Framework
59 4 Preparepublicationtargetingtheroles&responsibilitiesofprojectboardsandexecutives R Certification&TrainingProjectGovernance
60 5 EmphasizescriticalroleoftheBusinessCaseinassuringthecontinuingprojectviability E FrameworkGovernance
61 4 Avoids'topheavy'managementbydelegatingresponsibilitiestotheappropriatelevel E FrameworkGovernance
62 3 Placegreateremphasison'peopleissues' R Certification&TrainingProjectGovernance
63 5 ExtensiveguidanceonprojectgovernanceinP209 E FrameworkGovernance
64 1 Removequalityreviewandchangecontroltopic
top related