an exploratory investigation into how project management

1

An exploratory investigation

into how project management

methods are chosen and

implemented by organisations

in the UK

A thesis submitted to The University of Manchester

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

in the Faculty of Science and Engineering

2018

By David Biggins

School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering

2

Blank page

3

Contents

List of tables ...................................................................................................................... 5

List of figures..................................................................................................................... 8

Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. 10

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 11

Declaration and copyright ............................................................................................................ 12

Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... 13

The author .................................................................................................................................... 14

1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 15

1.1 Setting the scene ................................................................................................ 15

1.2 Problem statement ............................................................................................. 17

1.3 Research aim and goals ..................................................................................... 17

1.4 Research questions and context ........................................................................ 17

1.5 Justification for this research and contribution to knowledge ............................ 18

1.6 Structure ............................................................................................................. 19

1.7 Summary ............................................................................................................ 19

2 Synthesis of the literature, part 1 ............................................................................................ 20

2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 20

2.2 What is a PMM? ................................................................................................. 20

2.3 Benefits of using a PMM .................................................................................... 22

2.4 Growth in PMMs ................................................................................................. 23

2.5 Which methods are in use? ................................................................................ 25

2.6 The life cycle approach to PMMs ....................................................................... 27

2.7 Stage 1 – Select ................................................................................................. 28

2.8 Stage 2 – Embed ................................................................................................ 29

2.9 The importance of the select and embed stages ............................................... 30

2.10 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 31

3 Synthesis of the literature, part 2 ............................................................................................ 33

3.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 33

3.2 Decision-making ................................................................................................. 34

3.3 Diagnosing the change situation ........................................................................ 45

3.4 Change management ......................................................................................... 51

3.5 Espoused and in-use processes ........................................................................ 55

3.6 Maturity ............................................................................................................... 61

3.7 Organisational culture ........................................................................................ 66

3.8 Organisational structure ..................................................................................... 74

3.9 Revising the conceptual map ............................................................................. 77

3.10 Conclusion .......................................................................................................... 79

4 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 82

4.1 Research aim and objectives ............................................................................. 83

4

4.2 Research philosophy .......................................................................................... 83

4.3 Research approach ............................................................................................ 85

4.4 Methodological choice ........................................................................................ 86

4.5 Research strategy .............................................................................................. 87

4.6 Sampling ............................................................................................................. 89

4.7 Interview ............................................................................................................. 92

4.8 Questionnaire ..................................................................................................... 95

4.9 Validity .............................................................................................................. 100

4.10 Ethics ................................................................................................................ 102

4.11 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 102

5 Qualitative findings and analysis .......................................................................................... 103

5.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 103

5.2 Sample 1 findings and analysis ........................................................................ 105

5.3 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 126

6 Quantitative findings and analysis ........................................................................................ 127

6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 127



6.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................ 178

7 Discussion............................................................................................................................. 180

7.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 180

7.2 Goal A – Understand how organisations select PMMs .................................... 181

7.3 Goal B – Understand how organisations embed PMMs .................................. 187

7.4 Goal C – Investigate how maturity, culture and organisational structure affect

the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages. .................................................................................. 197

7.5 PMM life cycle model revision and descriptive model creation ........................ 204

8 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 208

8.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 208

8.2 Achievement of the research aim ..................................................................... 208

8.3 Contribution to knowledge ................................................................................ 210

8.4 Recommendations for practitioners ................................................................. 212

8.5 Research limitations ......................................................................................... 214

8.6 Recommendations for future research ............................................................. 215

References ................................................................................................................................. 217

Appendix 1 – A brief history of PM and PMMs .......................................................................... 236

Appendix 2 – Project management methods............................................................................. 239

Appendix 3 – Software development methods .......................................................................... 241

Appendix 4 – Change management models ............................................................................. 242

Appendix 5 – Maturity models ................................................................................................... 247

Appendix 6 – Interview and questionnaire topic guide .............................................................. 248

Appendix 7 – Invitation to participants ....................................................................................... 249

Appendix 8 – Participant Information – Interviews .................................................................... 250

5

Appendix 9 – Participant Information – Questionnaire .............................................................. 252

Appendix 10 – Consent Form .................................................................................................... 254

Appendix 11 – Facsimile of the questionnaire ........................................................................... 255

Appendix 12 – Data transformations and new variables ........................................................... 275

Appendix 13 – Introduction to supporting papers ...................................................................... 277

Appendix 14 – Supporting paper 1 ............................................................................................ 279




List of tables

Table 1. Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 10

Table 2. CHAOS data for IT projects (Cameron and Green 2015; Lynch 2015) ....................... 16

Table 3. Research questions ...................................................................................................... 18

Table 4. Thesis structure ............................................................................................................ 19

Table 5. Types of PMM ............................................................................................................... 20

Table 6. Organisational benefits of PMMs.................................................................................. 22

Table 7. Project benefits of PMMs .............................................................................................. 23

Table 8. Methods in use ............................................................................................................. 26

Table 9. Uses of PMMs .............................................................................................................. 26

Table 10. Derivation of the PMM life cycle stages ..................................................................... 27

Table 11. PMM life cycle stage definitions ................................................................................. 28

Table 12. Risks associated with PMM selection ........................................................................ 29

Table 13. Risks associated with PMM embedding ..................................................................... 30

Table 14. Performance criteria ................................................................................................... 37

Table 15. Five problem scenarios .............................................................................................. 38

Table 16. Path dependency (Johnson et al 2008) ...................................................................... 44

Table 17. The 7S framework (Waterman et al 1980) ................................................................. 47

Table 18. Driving forces for change ............................................................................................ 49

Table 19. Restraining forces for change..................................................................................... 50

Table 20. Change strategies (Strebel 1994)............................................................................... 53

Table 21. Change model summary ............................................................................................ 54

Table 22. The link between maturity and performance .............................................................. 63

Table 23. Maturity levels ............................................................................................................. 64

Table 24. Data on maturity levels ............................................................................................... 64

Table 25. Culture origins ............................................................................................................. 67

Table 26. The importance of culture ........................................................................................... 68

Table 27. Conceptualisations of organisational culture .............................................................. 69

Table 28. The cultural web (Johnson et al 2008) ....................................................................... 70

Table 29. Culture frameworks..................................................................................................... 71

Table 30. CVF cultures ............................................................................................................... 72

6

Table 31. OCAI reliability ............................................................................................................ 73

Table 32. Five types of structure form (PMI 2017b) ................................................................... 76

Table 33. Determinants of structural form .................................................................................. 76

Table 34. Research questions .................................................................................................... 80

Table 35. Interview questions ..................................................................................................... 92

Table 36. Themes used in qualitative analysis ........................................................................... 95

Table 37. Question source .......................................................................................................... 96

Table 38. Sources of questionnaire error and mitigating actions ............................................... 97

Table 39. Sources of questionnaire data gathering error and mitigating actions ....................... 98

Table 40. Statistical analysis tests .............................................................................................. 99

Table 41. Interviewees and roles .............................................................................................. 104

Table 42. Overview of participating organisations .................................................................... 105

Table 43. Organisations' performance criteria (sample 1) ....................................................... 107

Table 44. Problem scenarios (sample 1) .................................................................................. 110

Table 45. Application of the change model to the sample data (sample 1) ............................. 112

Table 46. Driving and restraining forces (sample 1) ................................................................. 114

Table 47. Why practice deviates from process (sample 1) ...................................................... 118

Table 48. Sector analysis (sample 2) ....................................................................................... 127

Table 49. Industry analysis (sample 2) ..................................................................................... 128

Table 50. Department analysis (sample 2) ............................................................................... 128

Table 51. Number of projects started (sample 2) ..................................................................... 128

Table 52. Project duration (sample 2) ...................................................................................... 129

Table 53. Number of project managers (sample 2) .................................................................. 129

Table 54. Role analysis (sample 2) .......................................................................................... 129

Table 55. Years of employment (sample 2).............................................................................. 130

Table 56. Years in projects (sample 2) ..................................................................................... 130

Table 57. Age categories (sample 2) ........................................................................................ 130

Table 58. Projects managed (sample 2) ................................................................................... 130

Table 59. Time devoted to projects (sample 2) ........................................................................ 131

Table 60. Time devoted to project management (sample 2) .................................................... 131

Table 61. Drivers for projects (sample 2) ................................................................................. 133

Table 62. Involvement in the ‘Select’ process (sample 2) ........................................................ 133

Table 63. Should PMs be involved in selection? (sample 2) .................................................... 134

Table 64. Criteria for using a PMM (sample 2) ......................................................................... 134

Table 65. PMM in use (sample 2) ............................................................................................. 135

Table 66. Embedding of PMMs (sample 2) .............................................................................. 136

Table 67. Process tailoring (sample 2) ..................................................................................... 137

Table 68. Rationale for tailoring (sample 2).............................................................................. 137

Table 69. Implementation success (sample 2) ......................................................................... 138

Table 70. PMM benefit (sample 2) ........................................................................................... 139

Table 71. Most valuable aspect of a PMM (sample 2) ............................................................. 141

Table 72. How PMMs are supported (sample 2) ...................................................................... 141

7

Table 73. Number of distinct PMMs (sample 2) ....................................................................... 143

Table 74. Alignment with PMMs (sample 2) ............................................................................. 143

Table 75. Rationale for deviating from a PMM (sample 2) ....................................................... 144

Table 76. Qualifications (sample 2) .......................................................................................... 145

Table 77. Cross tabulation of maturity level by sector (sample 2) ........................................... 148

Table 78. Cross tabulation of industry and maturity level (sample 2) ...................................... 149

Table 79. Culture types (sample 2) .......................................................................................... 150

Table 80. Culture dimensions (sample 2) ................................................................................. 151

Table 81. Culture dimensions for two organisations (sample 2) .............................................. 151

Table 82. Culture responses for the manufacturing company (sample 2) ............................... 152

Table 83. Cross tabulation of PMM usage and culture type (sample 2) .................................. 153

Table 84. Organisational structure (sample 2) ......................................................................... 153

Table 85. Summarised list of organisational structures (sample 2) ......................................... 154

Table 86. Cross tabulation of organisational structure and sector (sample 2) ......................... 154

Table 87. Cross tabulation of organisational structure and size (sample 2) ............................ 154

Table 88. Sector analysis (sample 3) ....................................................................................... 155

Table 89. Industry analysis (sample 3) ..................................................................................... 156

Table 90. Department analysis (sample 3) ............................................................................... 156

Table 91. Number of projects started (sample 3) ..................................................................... 157

Table 92. Project duration (sample 3) ...................................................................................... 157

Table 93. Number of project managers (sample 3) .................................................................. 157

Table 94. Role analysis (sample 3) .......................................................................................... 158

Table 95. Years of employment (sample 3).............................................................................. 158

Table 96. Years in projects (sample 3) ..................................................................................... 158

Table 97. Age categories (sample 3) ........................................................................................ 159

Table 98. Projects managed (sample 3) ................................................................................... 159

Table 99. Time devoted to projects (sample 3) ........................................................................ 159

Table 100. Time devoted to project management (sample 3) .................................................. 160

Table 101. Drivers for projects (sample 3) ............................................................................... 161

Table 102. Involvement in the ‘Select’ process (sample 3) ...................................................... 161

Table 103. Cross tabulation of involvement and role (sample 3) ............................................. 162

Table 104. Should PMs be involved in selection (sample 3) .................................................... 162

Table 105. Criteria for using a PMM (sample 3) ....................................................................... 163

Table 106. PMM in use (sample 3) ........................................................................................... 163

Table 107. Embedding of PMMs (sample 3) ............................................................................ 164

Table 108. Process tailoring (sample 3) ................................................................................... 164

Table 109. Rationale for tailoring (sample 3)............................................................................ 165

Table 110. Implementation success (sample 3) ....................................................................... 165

Table 111. PMM benefit (sample 3) ......................................................................................... 166

Table 112. Most valuable aspect of a PMM (sample 3) ........................................................... 167

Table 113. How PMMs are supported (sample 3) .................................................................... 168

Table 114. Number of distinct PMMs (sample 3) ..................................................................... 169

8

Table 115. Alignment with PMMs (sample 3) ........................................................................... 169

Table 116. Rationale for deviating from a PMM (sample 3) ..................................................... 170

Table 117. Qualifications (sample 3) ........................................................................................ 171

Table 118. Cross tabulation of maturity level by sector (sample 3) ......................................... 173

Table 119. Cross tabulation of industry and maturity level (sample 3) .................................... 174

Table 120. Culture types (sample 3) ........................................................................................ 175

Table 121. Culture dimensions (sample 3) ............................................................................... 175

Table 122. Cross tabulation of PMM usage and culture type (sample 3) ................................ 176

Table 123. Organisational structure (sample 3) ....................................................................... 176

Table 124. Summarised list of organisational structures (sample 3) ....................................... 177

Table 125. Cross tabulation of organisational structure and sector (sample 3) ....................... 177

Table 126. Cross tabulation of organisational structure and size (sample 3) .......................... 177

Table 127. Mapping research questions to primary data ......................................................... 180

Table 128. Driving and restraining forces ................................................................................. 189

Table 129. Achievement of research questions ....................................................................... 209

Table 130. Contribution to knowledge ...................................................................................... 212

Table 131. Practitioner recommendations ................................................................................ 213

Table 132. Research limitations ............................................................................................... 214

Table 133. Recommendations for further research .................................................................. 216

Table 134. A brief history of project management .................................................................... 237

Table 135. Project management methods................................................................................ 240

Table 136. Software development methods ............................................................................. 241

Table 137. Change management models ................................................................................ 246

Table 138. Maturity models ...................................................................................................... 247

Table 139. Data transformations .............................................................................................. 276

Table 140. Supporting papers summary .................................................................................. 278

List of figures

Figure 1. PMMs in literature ........................................................................................................ 24

Figure 2. PRINCE2 examinations by year (APMG 2012)........................................................... 24

Figure 3. The PMM continuum ................................................................................................... 26

Figure 4. Initial conceptual model ............................................................................................... 31

Figure 5. Linking goals and the conceptual model (Maxwell 2013) ........................................... 31

Figure 6. Normative decision-making model (Jennings and Wattam 1998) .............................. 35

Figure 7. Path dependency (Johnson et al 2008) ...................................................................... 43

Figure 8. Change types (Balogun and Hailey 2008) .................................................................. 46

Figure 9. 7S model (Waterman et al 1980) ................................................................................ 47

Figure 10. Generic force field analysis diagram ......................................................................... 49

Figure 11. Situation diagnosis responses (Strebel 1994)........................................................... 52

Figure 12. Change paths (Strebel 1994) .................................................................................... 52

Figure 13. Maturity in the PM literature ...................................................................................... 61

9

Figure 14. Organisational maturity levels ................................................................................... 65

Figure 15. Culture in PM literature .............................................................................................. 67

Figure 16. Cultural web (Johnson et al 2008)............................................................................. 70

Figure 17. The Competing Values Framework (Cameron and Quin 2011) ............................... 72

Figure 18. Organisational culture in PM literature ...................................................................... 74

Figure 19. Research question linkage (Maxwell 2013) .............................................................. 77

Figure 20. Revised conceptual model ........................................................................................ 78

Figure 21. Mapping of research questions to the conceptual model.......................................... 81

Figure 22. Linking research design to the research model (Maxwell 2013) ............................... 83

Figure 23. The three samples in this research ........................................................................... 91

Figure 24. Complete research model (Maxwell 2013).............................................................. 100

Figure 25. Pie chart of performance criteria groups (sample 1) ............................................... 107

Figure 26. Confidence in project management (sample 2) ...................................................... 132

Figure 27. Implementation success (sample 2) ........................................................................ 138

Figure 28. PMM benefit (sample 2) .......................................................................................... 139

Figure 29. Implementation success and PMM benefit scatter plot (sample 2) ........................ 140

Figure 30. Contribution from training and certification (sample 2) ........................................... 146

Figure 31. Contribution to the organisation (sample 2) ............................................................ 146

Figure 32. Maturity level (sample 2) ......................................................................................... 148

Figure 33. Maturity level by sector (sample 2).......................................................................... 149

Figure 34. Radar plot of two organisations (sample 2)............................................................. 151

Figure 35. Confidence in project management (sample 3) ...................................................... 160

Figure 36. Implementation success (sample 3) ........................................................................ 165

Figure 37. PMM benefit (sample 3) .......................................................................................... 166

Figure 38. Implementation success and PMM benefit scatter plot (sample 3) ........................ 167

Figure 39. Contribution from training and certification (sample 3) ........................................... 171

Figure 40. Contribution to the organisation (sample 3) ............................................................ 172

Figure 41. Maturity level (sample 3) ......................................................................................... 173

Figure 42. Maturity level by sector (sample 3).......................................................................... 174

Figure 43. Revised life cycle model .......................................................................................... 205

Figure 44. PMM descriptive model ........................................................................................... 206

Word Count: 79,872

10

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Meaning

AC Adhocracy culture

ANT Actor-network theory

APM Association for Project Management

APMG An accreditation body for PM and other qualifications

BOK Body of Knowledge

CC Clan culture

CEO Chief Executive Officer

CIO Chief Information Officer

CVF Competing Values Framework

F F-test statistic

HC Hierarchy culture

ICB IPMA Competence Baseline

ICT Information and communications technology

IPMA International Project Managers Association

IS Information Systems

ISO International Standards Organisation

IT Information Technology

m Mean

MC Market culture

n Number

NVIVO A qualitative data analysis (QDA) computer software package

OCAI Organisational Culture Assessment Instrument

OGC Office of Government Commerce

p Significance level

PINO PRINCE in name only

PM Project manager

PMBOK Project Management Institute Body of Knowledge

PMI Project Management Institute

PMM Project management method

PMO Project management office

PMP Project Management Professional

PRINCE2 Projects in a Controlled Environment, version 2

r Correlation coefficient

sd Standard deviation

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

SSADM Structured systems analysis and design methodology

Table 1. Abbreviations

11

Abstract

This research investigates project management methods (PMMs) and, in particular, how UK-

based organisations choose and implement them. Through the development of a life cycle

model of PMMs comprising five distinct stages: Select, Embed, Tailor, Operate and Develop,

this research focuses on the first two stages. The impact of the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages on

those stages which follow in the life cycle highlights the importance of this research, an area

currently unstudied in project management literature.

This research uses an exploratory, deductive, mixed methods design underpinned by a

pragmatic ontology and epistemology. Qualitative data was collected from 18 interviewees and

quantitative data from 71 respondents.

For the ‘Select’ stage, the findings are that PMMs have many potential benefits but that

organisations do not set out with a clear vision of what the PMM is to achieve. Organisations

select PMMs quickly and the decision is heavily influenced by the past experiences of those

involved. The dominant reason for selecting a method was process improvement. For the

‘Embed’ stage, it was found that organisations do not analyse the change situation before

embarking on the implementation and that change management tools are not used. Embedding

is a long stage that continues while the PMM is in use and is characterised by intermittent

actions to encourage the change, the nudging of project staff and reactions to driving and

restraining forces in the environment as they arise. In looking at whether the espoused method

was the same as the in-use ways of managing projects, it was found that project staff’s use of

their own processes could be viewed as either positive or negative depending on the

perspective taken. The findings show that organisations do not set goals for PMMs and thus

are unable to assess the success of either selection or implementation. Three environmental

variables, maturity, culture and organisational structure were found to have no, strong and weak

influences respectively on the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages. The many factors that comprise

culture and the flux over time suggest that the selection and embedding of PMMs is unique to

organisations and that there is therefore no single, best way to carry out these stages.

This research makes a contribution to academic knowledge due to the gap it fills between

research on why organisations select PMMs and the benefit that PMMs bring to organisations.

Understanding how organisations select and embed PMMs bridges this gap and helps to

provide explanations for the results from using PMMs. From a practitioner perspective, the

research provides assistance including lists of the performance criteria, risks relevant to PMMs

and a descriptive model of how these stages are managed in reality, information that can be

used to improve the selection and embedding and, ultimately, the performance of PMMs.

12

Declaration and copyright

Declaration

No portion of the work referred to in the thesis has been submitted in support of an application

for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning.

Copyright statement

1. The author of this thesis (including any appendices and/or schedules to this thesis)

owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the "Copyright") and s/he has given The

University of Manchester certain rights to use such Copyright, including for

administrative purposes.

2. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy,

may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as

amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with

licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form

part of any such copies made.

3. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks and other intellectual

property (the "Intellectual Property") and any reproductions of copyright works in the

thesis, for example graphs and tables ("Reproductions"), which may be described in

this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such

Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use

without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant Intellectual Property

and/or Reproductions.

4. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and

commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright and any Intellectual Property and/or

Reproductions described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy. In

any relevant Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The

University Library's regulations and in The University's policy on Presentation of Theses

13

Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the staff and supervisors at the University of

Manchester for their support over the 6 years of this PhD. In particular, my thanks go to

Dr Therese Lawlor-Wright who, as principal supervisor, guided, enlightened and challenged me

and, by so doing, made this work far better than it would otherwise have been.

The completion of this work would not have been possible without the support, cups of Lady

Grey tea and motivation of my wonderful family, Cathryn, Alexander and Edward. Members of

my wider family and in particular Dr Emma Truelove and Dr Lynne Truelove offered great

encouragement during this journey. I would also like to acknowledge the desire for self-

improvement and love of education that was inculcated by my parents and brother, Chris, and it

is with no small measure of sadness that these much-missed family members are not able to

see where their encouragement has led me.

Along the way, I have been assisted by so many people that I am afraid to list them should I

miss off anyone. My thanks and appreciation go to Dr Roger Atkinson, Dr Nigel Williams,

Dr Jacq Priego, Dr Julie Robson, Professor Gail Thomas, Professor Debbie Holley, Steve

Smith, Jacqui Timms, Charlotte Martin, Michelle Atherton, John Kelly, Dr Dermot McCarthy,

Dr Fabian Homberg, Dr Jim Johnson, Dr Michael Acaster, Dr Jeff Pinto, Dr Jouko Vaskimo,

Dr Ann Luce, Dr Michael Pace, Dr Margaret Emsley, Dr Peter Fenn, Dr David Lowe,

Dr Benedict Rogers, Dr Beverly Pasian, Dr Carla Messikomer, Dr Hany Wells, Les Squires and

the staff at the PMI and APM who helped to distribute the questionnaire.

Special thanks go to the organisations who gave up their time to participate in the research, to

the staff who volunteered to take part in the interviews and to the many people who made the

time to fill out the online questionnaire to provide the information on which this thesis was built.

I would also like to thank my conference paper co-authors, Frida Trollsund, Anne Lene Høiby,

Dr Lynne Truelove and Dr Therese Lawlor-Wright.

14

The author

After 25 years working in the IT industry and within the sphere of projects and project

management for the last 15 years, I have been very immersed in the management of projects.

As a project manager, I had seen the benefits of project management methods after being

initially trained in PRINCE2. To broaden my experience, I became a Project Management

Professional (PMP) based on the PMBOK and also passed an APM PM qualification which

used the APMBOK. In spite of this training and a firm belief in the benefits of PMMs, it was

evident from my professional experience that PMMs were no guarantee of success and also

that the espoused use of a PMM did not mean that project staff actually followed the method.

It was to understand this area in more detail and to provide practical help to my fellow

practitioners to improve the benefit of PMMs that I chose this area to study. I decided that the

rigour and structure of a PhD was an appropriate mechanism to achieve my goal and began my

studies at the University of Manchester in September 2012.

At the same time as I began my PhD journey, I started teaching project management on a part-

time basis at Bournemouth University and in November 2013 became a permanent lecturer in

project management, working on a fractional contract. The teaching position facilitated access

to and familiarisation with the academic aspects of project management. Undergraduate and

post graduate dissertation supervision developed my research skills through an understanding

of research design and method.

When not engaged with Bournemouth University, I have worked as a self-employed contractor

undertaking a range of project management and change management roles across different

sectors and also helped other higher education institutions with the development of modules

and assessments for project management courses.

15

1 Introduction

1.1 Setting the scene

Projects are temporary endeavours undertaken to create an outcome or result. They have been

in existence for millennia and their use has expanded considerably since the 1950s (Morris et al

2011). Organisations are increasingly relying on projects to manage their work (Whittington et

al 1999; Winter et al 2006; Turner et al 2010; Burke 2011; Alderton 2013; PMI 2013d; Pace

2017). Pinto (2013 p24) provides a succinct summary when he concludes “Projects are one of

the principal means by which we change our world .. the means through which to achieve these

challenges remains the same: project management.” A study by the Anderson Economic Group

estimates that, by 2016, 32.6 million people in 11 countries will be participating in business

projects, an increase of 8 million in the space of a decade (ISO 2012). Building on that

prediction, the PMI (2013b) estimate that between 2010 and 2020 15.7 million new project

management jobs will be added globally.

As the number, size, complexity and importance of projects within organisations grow

(Richardson 2010; Pinto 2013; Meredith et al 2016), so does the requirement to ensure that

projects are governed well and perform well. Increasingly, organisations are looking for ways in

which project success can be enhanced and one such factor is the use of a project

management method (PMM) (Frame 1995; Lehtonen and Martinsuo 2006; Richardson 2010;

Burke 2011; Serrador and Pinto 2015; Joslin and Müller 2015, 2016; Pace 2017). The study by

Wells (2012 p53) came to the same conclusion that “there existed a general consensus … that

traditional, structured PMMs were beneficial for projects and organisations.”

Project management methods are a factor in successful projects because of the standardisation

they bring to an organisation through a set of common practices, tools and techniques, a shared

vocabulary and way of working. Research by McKinsey and Oxford University highlighted

“excelling at core project-management practices” as one of the four ways to improve project

performance (Bloch et al 2012). The adoption of a project approach is one method employed to

raise the performance of the project practices within an organisation with research showing that

the more mature an organisation’s processes, the more successful it is (Ibbs and Kwak 2000;

Bryde 2003; PWC 2004; IBM 2008; Richardson 2010; Swanson 2012). This view was

reinforced by The Pulse of the Profession questionnaire of 2,324 professionals which concluded

in the executive summary that “Our findings continue to show what we have learned in the past:

that when proven project, program, and portfolio management practices are implemented,

projects are more successful.” (PMI 2017a p2). Carstens et al (2013 p20) go as far as stating

that “every project should follow some form of standardized approach”.

While PMMs are a pan-industry phenomenon, they predominate in some industries such as

information technology (IT) and information systems (IS). The importance of the IT/IS industry

is exemplified by research from Gartner (2016) which found the IT/IS industry contributed

£2.8 trillion or nearly 5% of global GDP (IMF 2017). However, as Table 2 shows, the level of

16

success of IT projects in organisations reported in the Standish CHAOS reports remained low

and this report continues to be a useful indicator especially because CHAOS reports have the

same focus as this research, IT/IS projects.

Year Successful (%) Challenged (%) Failed (%)

1994 16 53 31

2000 28 49 23

2006 35 46 19

2010 37 42 21

2015 29 52 19

Table 2. CHAOS data for IT projects (Cameron and Green 2015; Lynch 2015)

The CHAOS reports are not universally acknowledged as providing an accurate picture of

project outcomes and have been criticised for the definitions of outcomes (successful,

challenged and failed) and interpretation of its data set (Eveleens and Verhoef 2010). However,

results similar to those of the CHAOS reports are generated by other organisations and in other

research, giving credence to the view that projects are difficult to complete successfully. Recent

examples include the 2014 IBM Corporation report that 41% of projects in their survey of 1,400

project practitioners were considered successful and the 2012 McKinsey report of 5,400 IT

projects found that 66% of software projects experienced cost overrun, 33% had schedule

overrun and 17% exhibited benefits shortfalls (Bloch et al 2012). In their study of PM

professionals, Mir and Pinnington (2014 p202) reflected how “in spite of advancement in PM

processes, tools and systems, project success has not significantly improved”. However, Sharif

et al (2018) offer hope for the future because their research shows management is aware of

these issues and have an opportunity to remedy them.

Some authors have amalgamated the figures for global IT spend with the data on project

failures to attempt to place an estimated figure on the cost of IT failure worldwide. While not all

of these figures will be attributable to projects, the importance of IT project management would

suggest that a large proportion could be identified as IT project management failure costs. One

estimate calculated that 30% of IT spend is on capital projects and with a 30% failure rate,

estimated the annual cost at £210 billions of waste (Kriegsman 2012). Such figures are no

more than very rough estimates but they do give a feel for the magnitude of the problem and

they are based on rational logic and empirical data.

The need to improve the performance of projects is both supported by the data and

acknowledged amongst researchers (Bredillet 2008; Richardson 2010; Khatua 2011; Pinto

2013; Meredith et al 2016). In the survey of IT budget forecasting priorities for the year 2016

undertaken by 201 participants across 20 industrial sectors, the area with the highest priority for

improvement, with 43% of respondents identifying it as a major priority, was improving efficiency

and business processes (TechPro Research 2015).

17

1.2 Problem statement

The period of study for the CHAOS reports coincides with the growth of PMMs (see Appendix 1

for the PMM timeline) and this suggests that, despite the expansion and development of PMMs,

their application, according to the data presented in Section 1.1, is having little effect on the

success of the projects they are employed to improve.

The adoption by an organisation of a PMM is a strategic business decision (Charvat 2003). The

costs of implementation can be significant and full implementation requires considerable

resources of time and money, management commitment and support, training and

communication, as well as a wide range of supporting and integrating structures and processes

(Richardson 2010). The complexity has meant that success has been difficult to achieve

(Serrador and Pinto 2015). For the last decade, PMMs have been in the list of the top ten

factors leading to project failure (Wells 2012).

The problem statement underlying this research is that PMMs are being increasingly used but

this is not seemingly linked to an improvement in the performance of projects.

1.3 Research aim and goals

Using a life cycle modelling approach that is described in Section 2.6, an initial conceptual

model was developed. This model proposes that PMMs pass through five distinct stages:

‘Select’, ‘Embed’, ‘Tailor’, ‘Operate’ and ‘Develop’. Research suggests that the use of PMMs

has an effect on project outcomes (Wells 2012; Too and Weaver 2014; Pace 2017) but this

previous research concentrates on the ‘Tailor’ and ‘Operate’ stages, ignoring the prior steps of

choosing and implementing the PMM in the organisation which may also contribute to the

effectiveness of the PMM. Based on the problem statement, the aim of this research is to gain

a better understanding of how organisations ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ PMMs.

This research has three goals:

Goal A. Understand how organisations select PMMs

Goal B. Understand how organisations embed PMMs

Goal C. Investigate how maturity, culture and organisational structure affect the ‘Select’ and

‘Embed’ stages.

1.4 Research questions and context

To address the three goals of the research, seven questions were identified during the literature

review. These questions are located within the relevant sections of the literature review in

Chapter 3 and are summarised in Table 3:

18

Goal Research question

A. Understand how organisations select PMMs

1. How are PMMs selected?

B. Understand how organisations embed PMMs

2. How is the change situation diagnosed?

3. What is the change process for PMMs?

4. Are espoused PMM processes different to in-use PMM processes?

C. Investigate how maturity, culture and organisational structure affect the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages

5. How does maturity relate to PMMs?

6. How does organisational culture relate to PMMs?

7. How does organisational structure relate to PMMs?

Table 3. Research questions

This research is undertaken with the IT/IS departments of large, UK-based organisations who

use PMMs. All of the organisations conduct IT/IS project but are not themselves within the IT

industry.

1.5 Justification for this research and contribution to knowledge

The continuing growth in the use of projects in organisations (Whittington et al 1999; Turner et

al 2010; Burke 2011; Alderton 2013; Pace 2017) and the continued expansion in the use of

PMMs (Biggins et al 2016b) are both cogent reasons to justify the study of PMMs. Despite the

growing importance of PMMs, this area has received little attention. As Joslin and Müller (2016

p368) point out “research on project methodologies is limited”. Anderson and Merna (2003

p387) identified the “paucity of research and literature addressing effective strategy for

developing and deploying projects.” This point was reinforced by Shi (2011 p297) who

commented how “From the organizational project management point of view, however, there is

still a lack of literatures about how to find the best path of implementing project management”.

Similarly, Burgan and Burgan (2012) alluded to this gap when they commented that “In spite of

substantial research supporting the value of project management, effective implementation of

project management within an organization remains elusive.” In the conclusion to his research,

Pace (2017 p90) calls for research “to investigate the customization of project management

methodologies for a specific organization to see if that correlates to project success.” This

research is a response to these calls. While there have been studies looking into why

organisations use PMMs, for example Vaskimo (2015), and studies looking at the benefits from

using PMMs, for example Mir and Pinnington (2014), Serrador and Pinto (2015) and Pace

(2017), there have been no studies of how organisations choose and implement the PMM.

Researching, critiquing, analysing and discussing the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages will help to

close this gap in the academic literature and this is the most important justification for this study.

In addition to its academic justification, this research is also a response to the call, now a

decade old, for research into the actualities of projects (Winter et al 2006). The academic

thinking relating to the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages is tested using empirical data to generate a

descriptive model of how project staff select and embed PMM, the “theory for practice” as

Winter et al (2006 p641) refer to it. The descriptive model is a theory for practice and will be

useful to organisations who are new to PMMs or who seek ways to manage the implementation

19

process. The descriptive model is not tied to any established method or standard and thus is

applicable to any PMM. By focusing on the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages of PMMs, this research

explores an area that has not been investigated directly by any researcher in the past. As a

result, this research contributes to the literature on PMMs and has implications for researchers,

PM bodies and practitioners.

1.6 Structure

The structure of this thesis is explained in Table 4:

Chapter Description

1 Introduction. Provides an overview of the research project’s context and background, aim, purpose and justification for the study.

2 and 3 Literature review. Contains a synthesis of the relevant literature. The literature is separated into two chapters, the first discussing macro issues and the second discussing more detailed, micro issues.

4 Methodology. Explains the research methodology that was devised to answer the research questions and includes the method and a discussion of how validity and reliability were addressed in this mixed methods research project.

5 and 6 Findings and analysis. Presents the qualitative and quantitative findings and analyses the results of the primary data.

7 Discussion. Examines the key themes identified during the research project.

8 Conclusion. Reviews the extent to which the aims and objectives have been met. Additionally, the originality of the study and the resulting contribution to knowledge is discussed. Finally, recommendations for practitioners are listed, limitations are discussed and there is a list of potential future research opportunities.

Table 4. Thesis structure

At the end of this thesis are a number of appendices which support and provide additional

information. Appendices 1 to 5 contain material that supports the review of literature,

Appendices 6 to 11 support the methodology, Appendix 12 is related to the analysis of

quantitative data and the remaining four appendices include conference papers that were

written to develop ideas and gain feedback on aspects of this thesis. Appendix 13 provides an

introduction to and explanation of the papers which are shown in Appendices 14 to 17.

1.7 Summary

This chapter serves to introduce the important elements of this research. It began by explaining

the context of the research and the problem statement. The research aims and objectives were

then set out and the research questions that will enable the achievement of those aims were

listed. The next section discussed the contribution to knowledge and the chapter concluded

with an explanation of the structure of the thesis.

The next chapter begins the investigation of the literature relating to PMMs by explaining what

PMMs are, why they are used by organisations, defines the PMM life cycle model and explains

the importance of the first two stages, ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’.

20

2 Synthesis of the literature, part 1

2.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the theoretical and contextual background for this research. The chapter

begins by describing PMMs, then explains why companies use them, discussing estimates for

how extensively they are used and how much they are written about in literature. Next, the life

cycle approach is explored and the five-stage life cycle for PMMs is introduced. The first two of

the five stages, ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’, which are the focus of this research, are then introduced

and the chapter ends by justifying the importance of these two stages.

2.2 What is a PMM?

Within the realm of project management, governance relates to the structures, processes and

systems that provide confidence to senior management that projects are being delivered

effectively by the organisation (Gardiner 2005; Pinto 2013). There are typically three levels in

the project management hierarchy: portfolios, programmes and projects (APM 2012; Axelos

2017; PMI 207b). Projects are often collated into programmes of co-ordinated activity, for

example at departmental or functional level within organisations. Similarly, programmes are co-

ordinated at the organisation level into single or multiple portfolios in the case of larger

organisations. Governance takes place at each level in the hierarchy and is specific to the

level. Project management governance operates at the project level.

Under the umbrella of project management governance are methods and standards, collectively

known as PMMs. These are defined in Table 5 (Biggins 2015).

Concept Definition

Method A method is the ‘how’ or a “set of guidelines or principles that can be tailored and applied to a specific situation. In a project environment, these guidelines might be a list of things to do … a specific approach, templates, forms, and even checklists used over the project life cycle.” (Charvat 2003 p17). The OGC define a method as “An approach to a process that is secure, consistent and well-proven.” (OGC 2009 p4). In their typography of models, Anderson and Merna (2003) classified these as process models because they define the process or method to be carried out.

For example: PRINCE2.

Standard More a ‘what’ than a ‘how’, a standard is a “document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose” (ISO 2017). A standard is a “Document approved by a recognised body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidance, or characteristics for products, processes or services with which compliance are not mandatory.” (PMI 2013a p418). Standards are classified by Anderson and Merna (2003) as either knowledge or baseline models.

For example: Project Management Institute Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), the Association of Project Managers (APM) Body of Knowledge (APMBOK) and the ISO 21500:2012.

Table 5. Types of PMM

21

Methods and standards are similar in that they contain best practice tools, techniques,

processes and role definitions but methods are different in that only they contain guidance on

when, how and by whom the best practice should be carried out (Gardiner 2005; OGC 2010;

Richardson 2010; Carstens et al 2013; PMI 2017b). While PRINCE2 is the dominant project

management method, there is more diversity in the focus and scope of the available standards.

The PMI’s PMBOK is targeted at project and fits in with other guidance available from the PMI

on programme and portfolio management. In terms of the project management functions

covered by the PMBOK, there is a strong overlap with PRINCE2 with most processes such as

risk, scheduling and scope management being common to both (OGC 2009; PMI 2017b).

PMBOK includes team management and procurement within its scope, areas not covered by

PRINCE2. The APMBOK has yet a different focus that provides guidance on all three levels of

the project hierarchy but in less detail than PMBOK (APM 2012). Within the Agile sphere there

are multiple variants or standards from which to choose (Serrador and Pinto 2015).

Organisations seeking a PMM can choose a method or look to one of the available standards.

As it is not possible to directly implement a standard, the approach taken by many organisations

is to create a bespoke method based on the existing standard, a gap that many books,

consultancies and internal project management offices and departments seek to address.

While methods can, by their nature, be more easily implemented, there is still an expectation

that they will require a level of tailoring before they can be used (OGC 2009).

Neither methods nor standards can encompass all the practices, tools and techniques that

comprise the spectrum of project management and instead their scope allows for the greatest

possible application to projects (PMI 2017b). The development of new tools and techniques

coupled with academic research into project management means the component parts of the

methods and standards are continually evolving, a fact recognised by the number of revisions of

both PRINCE and PMBOK and the number of competing Agile standards.

The boundary of project management methods is neither tightly defined nor universally agreed.

The language, processes and tools related to projects are frequently used by other approaches.

The most similar of these allied approaches is software development. Appendix 3 lists popular

software development approaches.

22

2.3 Benefits of using a PMM

The rationale for deploying PMMs is that they are of benefit to the management of projects

within organisations. The benefits can be viewed from two different perspectives: how the

organisation can derive positive outcomes from using PMMs and how projects themselves can

be improved by the use of PMMs.

2.3.1 Organisational benefits

Introducing a PMM is seen by organisations as offering a range of potential benefits which are

listed in Table 6:

Organisational benefits Author(s)

Competitive advantage. Organisations that increase the number

of simultaneous projects are more likely to gain a competitive

advantage through improved financial metrics.

Spalek (2014)

Governance compliance. Governance is often described as the

way an entity exercises power and performs its functions.

Organisations require governance and at the project level

governance relates to a set of management and control

relationships. Project governance establishes the model by which

projects are aligned to organisational needs and the ways in which

they are executed.

Eskerod and Östergren

(2000); Andersen

(2008); Richardson

(2010); Burke (2011);

Pemsel et al (2014);

Vaskimo (2015)

Standardisation. As organisations merge, grow and trade

collaboratively, the need for common standards that facilitate

cooperative working increase. The standards defined by a PMM

include common processes, documentation and, critically, a shared

vocabulary. Lientz (2013 p22) suggests this creates a “comfort

zone” for management and business units.

Richardson 2010;

Burke (2011); PMI

(2017b); Lientz (2013)

Credibility. Whether organisations that have external customers

for whom projects are conducted or the customer is internal, there

is an advantage to be gained by explaining to the customer how the

project management method improves the quality and reliability of

the project services being offered. This is exemplified by Ericsson

Services Ireland where the project management method was stated

to be a key part of the company’s quality processes.

APMG (2002); Burke

(2011)

Professional standards. The development of project

management as a profession has created a requirement for

accreditation systems that can validate practitioners’ knowledge of

the tools and techniques of their craft. The Project Management

Professional (PMP) examination was introduced in 1984 and the

PRINCE2 Practitioner examination in 1996.


(2000); Gardiner

(2005); Richardson

(2010); Burke (2011);

Pemsel et al (2014);

Vaskimo (2015); PMI

(2017b);

Organisational learning. Improves the use of existing

organisational knowledge. This can be achieved by documenting

and circulating lessons learnt from past projects.


(2000); Andersen

(2008); Richardson

(2010); Carstens et al

(2013)

Table 6. Organisational benefits of PMMs

23

2.3.2 Project benefits

Project benefits Author(s)

Improved project delivery. The advantages of implementing an

approach are:

▪ Reduced project schedules through better planning and

control.

▪ Reduced project costs through better planning and control.

▪ Increased project quality through the use of better

processes.

▪ Improved client participation through better role definitions.

▪ Improved efficiency through the use of common processes.

▪ Consistency of approach.


(2000); Gardiner

(2005); Andersen

(2008); Richardson

(2010); Bloch et al

(2012); Wells (2012);

Lientz (2013); Joslin

and Müller (2015);

Vaskimo (2015)

Adoption of new practices. The development of methods over

the years has meant they have become increasingly broad and

deep. Organisations that use an older method may see benefit

from choosing a newer method because of the up-to-date

components it incorporates.

Rad (2012); PMI

(2017b); Pemsel et al

(2014)

Shared understanding. This comes from the common language

and way of working that allows project staff to reduce the barriers to

effective team work. This is supported by training using formal

documentation


(2000); Andersen

(2008); Richardson

(2010); Lientz (2013);

Pemsel et al (2014)

Reduced risk and uncertainty. Following a common process

reduces the vulnerability of the project to staff exit, absence or

redeployment. The need for crisis management is reduced.


(2000); Richardson

(2010); Lientz (2013)

Table 7. Project benefits of PMMs

Table 7 lists the expected project-level benefits. There is some overlap between organisational

and project benefits in that some of the items listed as project benefits could equally be seen as

organisational benefits. However, it is more important that the benefit has been captured rather

than the category to which it has been allocated.

This section has explored the reasons why PMMs are used in organisations but there has been

no differentiation amongst the different methods, instead presenting a list of the generic benefits

often associated with PMMs. In the next section, the growth in PMMs is reviewed.

2.4 Growth in PMMs

Appendix 1 records the first appearance of PMMs around 1975 and records their subsequent

growth and expansion in the last four decades. A bibliometric analysis of trends in project

management between 1966 and 2015 (Biggins et al 2016b) shows that terms related to PMMs

(project management method, PRINCE2, PMBOK, APMBOK, body of knowledge, BOK, agile,

scrum and governance) in the title, keywords and abstracts in online academic repositories are

increasing as a percentage of all the project management literature (the Y axis in Figure 1). As

Figure 1 shows, PMM-related search terms have been increasing in the literature since 2001

and now account for one in 12 of all publications related to project management.

24

Figure 1. PMMs in literature

Another indicator for the growth of PMMs comes from certification data. For example, project

managers wanting to use PRINCE2 effectively have been encouraged to certify their skills and

abilities. PRINCE2 contains tacit knowledge which enables the controlling bodies to run training

and certification schemes to validate that those who pass the tests have acquired a required

level of understanding. The demand for certification has been growing over time. In 2012, the

APMG reported that 1 million PRINCE2 examinations had been taken (APMG 2012). Figure 2

shows the number of examination passes by year (APMG 2012).

Figure 2. PRINCE2 examinations by year (APMG 2012)

The pass rates for the PRINCE2 examinations in 2011 were 96% for the foundation exam and

74% for the practitioner exam (APMG 2012). Axelos does not publish figures of the number of

examination passes so the figures have not been updated since 2011. The number of people

holding the PMI’s equivalent qualification, the Project Management Professional (PMP) as of

October 2016 was 741,007, a rise of 133,879 in the 24 months from March 2014 (PMI Today

2016). In the 2007 PWC survey, 77% of respondents reported holding certification in project

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

19

96

19

97

19

98

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

20

09

20

10

20

11

Examinations

Exa

min

atio

n p

asse

s

Perc

enta

ge o

f p

ub

licatio

ns

25

management. Longitudinal surveys have also identified the growing benefit of certification in

the decade to 2014 (Blomquist et al 2017).

The next section disaggregates PMMs into the component methods to present a view of the

extent to which they are used in organisations.

2.5 Which methods are in use?

The data about the methods in use is sparse. The number of project managers who have been

accredited in the different methods is known but how this correlates with the methods in use is

unknown. Some surveys that appear to identify this number presume that organisations use a

single method but this may be a false assumption. Different parts of the same organisation may

have chosen different methods and, as the organisation grows, factors such as decentralisation,

divisional structures and internationalisation will only exacerbate the situation.

This proliferation of methods means that asking a large organisation what method they use can

be a difficult question to answer. Table 8 presents a collation of the few studies available on the

PMMs in use based on the responses of organisations or individuals. Some of the responses

identify ‘combination’ as a response which suggests more than one approach is in use but the

methods are not identified. Similarly, ‘other’ as a response could mean that the organisation

uses a method that is not listed or that they use a combination of methods.

Another factor is geography. It is notable that surveys conducted primarily in the USA where

PMI is dominant are more inclined to report PMBOK as the most popular method (PWC 2007,

2012) whereas surveys in the UK where PRINCE2 is the most prevalent are likely to record this

method as the most used (White and Fortune 2001). The problems with the way the questions

have been phrased, the range of permitted answers and geographically where the questions

were asked means that the data on PMM usage needs to be viewed with caution.

Findings Study Author

▪ PRINCE2 18%

▪ Similar to PRINCE2 2%

▪ SSADM 8%

▪ In-house 62%

▪ Other 10%

228 project managers from a broad range of industries

White and Fortune (2001)

▪ In-house 39%

▪ PRINCE2 11%

▪ PMI 27%

▪ None 23%

213 respondents PWC (2007)

▪ PMBOK 41%

▪ PRINCE2 3%

▪ In-house / combination 12%

▪ ‘Other’ 9%

▪ IT method 9%

▪ None 26%

1,524 respondents PWC (2012)

26

Findings Study Author

▪ Standardised practices used throughout 21%

▪ Standardised practices used by most departments 34%

▪ Used by some departments 38%

▪ Standardised practices not used 7%

3,234 project management professionals

PMI (2017a)

Table 8. Methods in use

Table 8 demonstrates that it is very difficult to gauge the extent to which methods are used

across all industries. Older surveys such as White and Fortune (2001) have reduced validity

because of their age. For example, the once prevalent SSADM has declined in popularity in the

intervening period. The fact that the 2004 PWC survey which focused on project management

maturity did not report on PMMs suggests PWC did not consider PMMs relevant to maturity.

What can be deduced from the various sources in Table 8 is that there is a spectrum in the use

of PMMs that are summarised in Table 9:

Use Description

Identifiable method Some organisations use a single, standard method or standard such as PRINCE2 or PMBOK.

Standards-based method

Some organisations use a method that is based on a standard and then tailor to the needs of the organisation.

Bespoke method Other organisations use a bespoke method which may be based on one or more standards but which is identifiably bespoke or in-house.

Combination of methods

Other organisations use a combination of different methods.

Table 9. Uses of PMMs

Figure 3 (Biggins 2015) shows how a continuum for PMMs can be devised which begins with a

totally customised PMM and ends with a highly structured method such as PRINCE2.

Progression from left to right along the continuum is accompanied by increasing levels of project

management standardisation. Full alignment with established methods indicates a formal,

externally recognisable process for managing projects that is integrated, documented and

auditable. Organisations to the left of centre are often identified by their own descriptions of

their methods as ‘PRINCE-like’ and ‘PMBOK-lite’.

Figure 3. The PMM continuum

More research into the proliferation of PMMs is needed to establish how organisations are

arrayed along the continuum.

PMM continuum

Full alignment to

established methods

No alignment to

established methods

27

2.6 The life cycle approach to PMMs

The term ‘life cycle’ is used in many disciplines and in differing contexts. Since its proposal by

Raymond in 1966 the life cycle approach has been developed and expanded (Cao and Zhao

2011). A life cycle is defined as the partitioning of the life into phases or stages (Chrissis et al

2003). There are life cycles for products, software development, information technology and

information management. The life cycle perspective provides a beneficial way to structure a

holistic review of PMMs because the approach allows all aspects of the PMMs to be assessed

in a systematic way. A life cycle can be viewed from different perspectives. PMMs could be

viewed from the perspective of the OGC or PMI in which case the continuing and evolutionary

development of the product would be a key focus. This thesis takes the perspective of the

organisation which encompasses all stages of the PMM life cycle. Currently no organisational

life cycle model exists for PMMs. A life cycle is composed of stages. A stage is defined as a

major period in the product’s life that is distinguishable from what went before and after it (Burke

2011). Stages typically are “sequential and time-restricted, and include groups of activities that

produce specified results” (IPMA 2013). The stages in the life cycle for PMMs have been

derived from research into the life cycle models in use in IT/IS, construction and manufacturing

industries.

Table 10 lists the source models that have been investigated and used as the basis for creating

a life cycle relevant to PMMs that comprises five stages: ‘Select’, ‘Embed’, ‘Tailor’, ‘Operate’

and ‘Develop’ (Biggins et al 2016a). The mapping of existing life cycle models to this new

model for PMMs gives credence to the PMM model because it is similar in structure and

sequence to established and proven life cycles.

Source Select Embed Tailor Operate Develop

Software development (Hernon 1994)

Analysis Test

Integrate

Specification

Design

Develop

Operate

Modify Maintain

Product (Cao and Zhao 2011)

Imagine

Define

Realise Design Use

Support

Information management (Hernon 1994)

Planning Collection

Acquisition

Requirements definition

Transmission

Processing

Storage

Disseminate

Evaluation Maintenance

IT (Microsoft 2008)

Plan Deliver Operate Manage

Project (Gardiner 2005)

Initiate and define

Procure

Construct

Commission

Plan Execute and control

Closure

BSI (2010) Feasibility Design Execute

Handover

Benefits

Table 10. Derivation of the PMM life cycle stages

28

Many life cycles terminate with a stage in which the item ceases to be used. This stage is not

present in all life cycles because the decommissioning and disposal of the existing system may

overlap with the initiation of the replacement system as the cycle begins its next iteration. This

stage has therefore been omitted from the PMM life cycle. The five PMM life cycle stages are

described in Table 11:

Stage Definition

Select The initial stage defines the criteria for selection and sets out how the method is chosen.

Embed In the ‘Embed’ stage, the method is adopted by the organisation. ‘Embed’ is a term used by the OGC to refer to this stage (OGC 2009).

Tailor This stage allows the method to be changed to align with the needs of projects.

Operate In the ‘Operate’ stage, the organisation uses the tailored method to manage projects.

Develop In the ‘Develop’ stage, the benefits or dis-benefits of the method are evaluated and used to enhance and improve the method or the organisation’s use of it. This is linked to the concept of process maturity and continuous improvement.

Table 11. PMM life cycle stage definitions

The focus of this research is on the first two stages of the life cycle, ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’,

because there is a large body of literature on how to tailor, operate and develop PMMs but very

sparse literature on the initial two stages.

2.7 Stage 1 – Select

Selecting a method is the first stage in the life cycle. Given the resources required to implement

a PMM, it is evident that not all organisations would gain benefit from the development of this

capability (Charvat 2003). In those cases where organisations are small or carry out few

projects, the investment would outweigh any benefits. For smaller organisations, an ad hoc

process for managing projects would probably suffice with the impetus for change emanating

from the aspiration to increase rates of project success or introduce a more managed process

for projects. For those organisations that are project-oriented or for which projects are an

important element of their operations (for example in IT, construction, engineering, the health

service, local and central government), the benefits outlined in Section 2.3 are potentially

available. While the importance of selecting a method is key, the available literature is limited.

The choice of method is important because of the way it facilitates or constrains the stages that

follow (Cooke-Davies et at 2009). It is also important to research this aspect of PMMs because

of the risks associated with their selection. The risks are summarised in Table 12:

Risk Authors

Weak selection process. Organisations may fail to take into consideration all the factors involved in selection. For example, the criteria to consider when selecting a PMM include the organisational strategy, size of the project team, priority of projects and the criticality of projects to the organisation.

Charvat (2003)

29

Risk Authors

Inappropriate selection. Organisations can select an inappropriate method.

Cooper (2007); Burke (2011); Lientz (2013); Joslin and Müller (2015)

Overt external influence. Selection may be constrained by external factors. For example, the PMMs used by partner organisations may constrain the choice of method due to the need to interact with them in a seamless way.

MacMaster (2002)

Over-reliance on one method. Organisations can use the same method on all projects. While there is no standard way to define a project, it is recognised that different projects require different approaches. Organisations may choose one method when multiple methods are required. For example, if the organisation undertakes projects of a similar nature, one method may suffice but more methods may be required if the projects exhibit wide variation.

Shenhar et al (2002); MacMaster (2002); Lientz (2013)

Alienation of users. Project staff may feel alienated if their preferred method is not chosen of if they have not been included in the process to select the replacement.

OGC (2002a); Burke (2011)

Table 12. Risks associated with PMM selection

Table 12 lists a range of potential risks for the ‘Select’ stage and the Table demonstrates the

importance of the stage in the PMM life cycle.

Once the method has been selected by an organisation, the next stage in the life cycle is to

embed it.

2.8 Stage 2 – Embed

Embedding is another critical task that organisations need to manage carefully (Charvat 2003).

A large OGC study from 2010 found that the key factors constraining the success of PMMs

came from the ‘Embed’ stage and emanated from the environment rather than the method

(Sargeant et al 2010). The importance of embedding was reinforced by Shi (2011 p295) who

commented how “The right implementation of project management can add great value to an

organization. Nevertheless, some organizations have gained little value from project

management due to the fact that they have not introduced and applied project management

correctly.” The criticality of the ‘Embed’ stage is underlined by the associated risks which are

listed in Table 13.

Risk Authors

Complexity. The complexity of methods, a lack of knowledge about how to embed and a lack of commitment to do so is a risk in some organisations. Burke (2011) goes further and suggests that the rules and regulations inherent in PMMs can delay decision making and lead to the loss of opportunities.

Sargeant et al (2010); Burke (2011); Lientz (2013)

Underestimating the task. Organisations can view the incorporation of a PMM into its working practices as no more than a training exercise rather than as a major change initiative that needs to be managed as a project in its own right.

OGC (2002a); Sargeant et al (2010)

Poor monitoring and support. Poor monitoring and control of the method leads to a decline in its use. Users may stop using the method or substitute their own working practices.

Feldman and Pentland (2003); Lientz (2013)

30

Risk Authors

Poor change management. PMMs are generic products and they will require a varying level of work to embed them based on the needs and experience of the organisation.

MacMaster (2002); Burke (2011)

Viewed as bureaucracy. The perception that the method is bureaucratic inhibits innovation and the adoption of new ways of working.

Burke (2011); Lientz (2013)

Resistance to change. The natural human resistance to change needs to be managed if it is not to become an impediment. In an attempt to avoid using the method, managers cease referring to projects as projects.

Burke (2011); Lientz (2013)

Table 13. Risks associated with PMM embedding

Embedding a PMM methodology into project management practices requires organisational

change and there is a large body of literature on how organisations can successfully implement

change. The factors affecting change include training, the setting of standards (ie template and

definitions), tools to support the new ways of working, integration with existing business

practices and clearly defined roles and responsibilities for the change process (OGC 2002b).

2.9 The importance of the select and embed stages

The ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages are vital because they shape and determine the subsequent

stages in the PMM life cycle, that is, the effectiveness of the method within the organisation.

Burke (2011 p83) argues for the importance when he says that “the implementation of a project

management methodology needs to be carefully planned and executed to ensure user

acceptance and operational success.” Organisations need to be aware that methods are

generic products created for as broad an audience as possible and, as such, always require

embedding based on the needs of the organisation (MacMaster 2002) and tailoring based on

the needs of the project (Shenhar et al 2002; Pinto 2013). If the wrong method is selected or it

is not appropriately embedded, the organisation may fail to achieve all the expected benefits

(Lientz 2013). Cooke-Davies et al (2009) are correct in highlighting how the decisions made at

the selection stage can have a profound influence on the stages that follow because they may

be inappropriate or of poor quality and run the risk of alienating the very people who will be

asked to use the method once it has been brought into the organisation.

The organisational risks associated with poor project execution are clearly set out in the

literature (Burke 2011, 2013; Lientz 2013; Pinto 2013; Joslin and Müller 2015). This focus at

the project level is narrow because it is strongly influenced and constrained by the choice of

PMM and the way it was brought into the organisations. As Charvat (2003) makes clear,

selecting a PMM is a strategic decision because it is a long-term commitment that cannot easily

and quickly be changed. It is for this reason that the project-level reviews tend not to assess

the PMM because recommendations for change and improvement are unlikely to be heeded.

These points lend support to the contention that ‘Select’’ and ‘Embed’ are important stages in

the PMM life cycle that warrant further investigation.

31

2.10 Conclusion

This chapter has presented the theoretical and contextual background for this research.

Beginning with a definition of PMMs as the structures, processes and system of project

governance, the chapter explored PMMs in terms of standards and methods and listed their

organisational and project benefits. Using an analysis of PMM literature and supported by

empirical data from certification, the case was made that PMMs are increasingly prevalent but

the literature is sparse when it comes to understanding which PMMs are in use.

The next section introduced the concept of the life cycle and proposed a five-stage model for

the life cycle of PMMs consisting of: ‘Select’, ‘Embed’, ‘Tailor’, ‘Operate’ and ‘Develop’. As this

research focuses on the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages, the research boundary can be defined to

create the initial conceptual model that is shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Initial conceptual model

The conceptual model is not standalone but is closely associated with the goals of the study.

This relationship, using Maxwell’s (2013) research design model which will be built upon in the

coming chapters, is shown in Figure 5:

Figure 5. Linking goals and the conceptual model (Maxwell 2013)

32

Arguing from a risk perspective, the case was made for why the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages are

important to PMMs. Their criticality lies in the way in which they shape the stages in the life

cycle that follow and influence acceptance and success (MacMaster 2002; Cooke-Davies et al

2009; Burke 2011; Lientz 2013). Having established the foundations for this research in this

chapter, the next chapter will develop and expand the conceptual map shown in Figure 4 by

reviewing the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages in more detail and widening the view to look at the

effect of the environment on these two stages.

33

3 Synthesis of the literature, part 2

3.1 Introduction

The foundation knowledge for PMMs has been established in the first part of the literature

review. This chapter builds on the previous chapter by looking at the ‘Select’ stage in detail to

explore how PMMs are chosen using the lens of normative decision-making. While the

normative decision-making model is a helpful structural device, the next section considers its

feasibility by looking at factors that can affect decision-making.

Having looked at the ‘Select’ stage, this chapter next considers the ‘Embed’ stage which is

concerned with the processes of organisational change. The different types of change are

reviewed and this is followed by a list of tools that organisations may use to diagnose the

change situation before making any changes. Lewin’s Force Field Analysis model is reprised

and used as the basis for evaluating the driving and restraining forces that an organisation

might face when looking to implement a PMM. Lastly, a list of the change management models

that could be used to support the ‘Embed’ stage is reviewed in order that the processes for

change carried out by organisations can be better understood.

PMMs consist of processes, and change, in this context, is concerned with altering existing

processes and bringing in new ones. The importance of processes prompts the next section of

the literature review in which the use of processes as recurring patterns of activity and as

organisational memory is reviewed. How processes in use can be different to the espoused

processes is also examined. Research into processes is informed by the use of maturity

models which categorise processes into a hierarchy of levels and allow those processes to be

better understood (Kerzner 2013; Pinto 2013). Maturity levels and their relation to PMMs is

reviewed in this section.

That projects cannot be divorced from their environment is a view held by many authors (Sydow

and Staber 2002; Anderson and Merna 2003; Engwall 2003; Brady and Davies 2004). They

contend that the project context is affected by past projects, the organisation and inter-personal

networks so that even a radically new project will be influenced by the past (Engwall 2003).

Anderson and Mena (2003 p389) summarise this widespread view when they conclude “There

is a general recognition that a project’s environment gives rise to some of the most difficult

issues that a project manager has to cope with and manage.” The project management authors

(Gardiner 2005; Andersen 2008; Richardson 2010; Larson and Gray 2011; Pinto 2013; Lock

2013) are in agreement that project management exists within an environment that is heavily

influenced by culture and the organisational structure. Culture is explored and the different

connotations are examined in order that the effect of culture with regard to both decision-making

and PMMs in general can be better understood. The different structures adopted by

organisations are described in order to examine the effect of structure on PMMs.

34

Finally, a revised and expanded conceptual model is presented and the research questions,

identified as the chapter progresses, are mapped onto the conceptual model.

This chapter begins by looking at decision-making.

3.2 Decision-making

Decision-making is an activity that is at the very core of management. Vroom and Yetton (1973

p4) profess that “an understanding of the decision-making process is critical not only for the

explanation of individual behaviour but also for the behaviour of complex organisations.” Simon

(1957, 1964, 1966, 1983) asserts that management is synonymous with decision-making and

he has devoted much of his career to the analysis of how decisions are made and their

effectiveness. Simon’s three stage model begins with an awareness of the need to make a

decision. This is followed by a search for options or the design stage and lastly the choice

activity where a decision is made. Once a decision has been made, Simon suggests that the

implementation of that decision requires yet more decisions, hence his view that all of

management is decision-making.

In making decisions, the traditional economic theory presumes absolute rationality in the

decision-maker so that the decision taken maximises potential returns (Manktelow 2012; Thaler

2015). Weber in 1964 outlined two types of rationality which are still in use today; the choice of

appropriate means to achieve the goals and that the goals themselves are logical given the

organisation’s goals (Salaman 2002).

Researchers in the field of decision-making investigated how managers could make rational

decisions and derived a normative model. A normative model describes how decisions should

be made in an ideal world rather than describing the reality of how decisions are made (Vroom

and Yetton 1973). Normative representations of decision-making in the literature are

widespread with models in the areas of corporate planning and management science using

similar structures (Jennings and Wattam 1998). As Beach and Connolly (2005) and Thaler

(2015) recommend, where there are no appropriate models available in the literature, a basic or

normative model is a logical starting point and this is the approach that has been taken towards

the selection of PMMs.

3.2.1 The normative model of decision-making

Normative models of decision-making consist of a series of logical and sequential steps that are

followed in order to make a decision. Vroom and Yetton (1973) created the normative model of

decision-making processes based on rational principles to explain how managers should make

decisions. The generic normative model, based on the Vroom and Yetton original and modified

from Jennings and Wattam (1998), is presented in Figure 6.

The normative process in Figure 6 is located between organisational goals and implementation

and control. Organisational goals set out what the organisation is trying to achieve. Goals have

35

been defined by Simon (1964) as value premises that create the need for a decision. Goals act

as constraints within which decision-makers must operate, reviewing alternatives to find a

solution which satisfies the goal (Simon 1964). Aligning projects with organisational goals is

essential for project success (Larson and Gray 2011; Morris et al 2011; Pinto 2013) and authors

such as Shenhar et al (2007) are surely right to call for project managers to take a more

strategic and organisational goal focused approach to their projects and to use this perspective

when making decisions.

The step at the end of the decision-making process, ‘implementation and control’, is not

discussed in this part of the literature review as the topic of embedding change into an

organisation forms a major, separate section of this chapter.

Figure 6. Normative decision-making model (Jennings and Wattam 1998)

The elements of the model (shown in purple in Figure 6) are explained in the following sections.

36

3.2.2 Performance criteria

The goals and objectives can be used as a basis for generating criteria for evaluating possible

solutions. A criterion is a measurable way by which performance can be quantified, either

subjectively or objectively. In PMM terms, the criteria describe the performance to be achieved

by the method if it is to accomplish its goals and objectives. The link back from criteria to goals

means that decisions taken to achieve the criteria should be made in alignment with

organisational strategies.

There is no established set of performance criteria for PMMs in literature. Instead, a list of the

potential criteria can be collated from the standards and methods themselves and the related

PM literature. This list of 32 criteria and their sources is shown in Table 14. To make this list

more accessible for analysis and following similar practice elsewhere in PM research (for

example Crawford et al 2006), related criteria were grouped together into categories. The

source of the four categories of business management, people, process and technology was

the Gartner IT Infrastructure and Operations Maturity Model (Scott et al 2007). The Gartner

categories were chosen because they represent an industry-standard framework for assessing

business-related criteria. Structuring the criteria in this way demonstrates the wide-ranging

effects of a PMM on an organisation as all aspects of business operations may be affected by

the PMM decision.

Item Criteria Source

Business Management

1 External factors (for example legislation, customers, competitors, mergers and acquisitions etc) require a new PMM

Kerzner (2013); Cadle and Yeates (2008); Burke (2011)

2 The PMM is supported by senior management Charvat (2003)

3 There is budget and resource to implement the PMM

Charvat (2003); Burke (2011)

4 The resource implications of on-going maintenance are considered

Charvat (2003)

5 The PMM offers value for money Charvat (2003); Pitagorsky (2003)

6 The expected benefits from the PMM are defined Bradley (2010); Jenner (2012)

7 The organisation is exposed to less risk and uncertainty

Eskerod and Östergren (2000)

8 The organisation is free to select its own method OGC (2002a); Burke (2011)

9 The implications of adopting a method (for example changes to budgeting and approval processes) are understood

OGC (2002a)

10 Stakeholders have been consulted and their concerns addressed

Charvat (2003); Burke (2011)

People

11 Appropriate staff involved for example the QA department, middle managers, senior managers

OGC (2002a); Burke (2011)

12 Staff productivity improves Cadle and Yeates (2008)

37

Item Criteria Source

13 Staff turnover reduces Robbins and Barnwell (2006)

14 Staff development/certification APMG (2012); Ramazani and Jergeas (2015); PMI (2017a)

15 Learning in the organisation is improved Eskerod and Östergren (2000)

Process

16 The process improves standardisation Burke (2011); PMI (2017b)

17 The process improves credibility of the organisation APMG (2002)

18 The process promotes professional standards PMI (2017b); Burke (2011)

19 The process control of projects improves Eskerod and Östergren (2000)

20 The process is flexible/adaptable Robbins and Barnwell (2006)

21 Project delivery is improved Eskerod and Östergren (2000); Burke (2011)

22 Communication is improved Burke (2011)

23 Best practice can be adopted Rad (2013); PMI (2017b)

24 Weaknesses in the current PMM can be addressed Charvat (2003)

25 Current processes are understood and baselined Charvat (2003); Burke (2011)

26 The areas not covered by the PMM are known and understood

OGC (2005)

27 Sufficient time is allowed to choose and implement the PMM

Kerzner (2013)

Technology

28 The PMM can map onto the organisation’s processes and terminology

OGC (2002a)

29 The same/similar method is in use by other organisations with whom the organisation operates

MacMaster (2002)

30 The minimum number of PMMs required for all the organisations projects are used

MacMaster (2002); Burke (2011)

31 The PMM is appropriate to the organisation’s maturity level

Kerzner (2013)

32 The chosen PMM is relevant to the operating environment of the organisation

OGC (2009)

Table 14. Performance criteria

According to the model, individual organisations are expected to develop the performance

criteria that are relevant to them and then create one or more measurable indicators per criteria

to facilitate monitoring and to assess the level of achievement (Jennings and Wattam 1998).

3.2.3 Problem identification

The criteria can be used to help define the problem the PMM is trying to resolve. By comparing

the current state with the desired or ideal state, any gaps can be identified and used to build the

problem statement. “The performance gap is a symptom resulting from underlying problems

occurring in the organisation’s health” (Jennings and Wattam 1998 p7). Various studies have

identified the problems or scenarios that promote the adoption of a PMM or change to a new

method (APMG 2002; Charvat 2003; Burke 2011; Kerzner 2013; PMI 2014a). These are

summarised in Table 15:

38

Item Scenario Description / rationale

1 The organisation has no approach

The organisation is carrying out more projects and wishes to take a more standardised approach or improve project outcomes.

2 Senior management requires a project management method

Senior management may identify the needs for a PMM to improve project outcomes, gain more business or to improve their competitive position.

3 Problems with the current method

If an organisation already uses a PMM, it may no longer meet the organisation’s need, perhaps being seen as inflexible, incomplete or providing a poor fit with business processes or culture.

4 Drive for process improvement

The rational for process improvement could include the desire to deliver better quality projects, to create a basis for measuring performance or supporting the implementation of maturity models.

5 External factors are forcing the change

The external factors could include organisational mergers or acquisitions, supplier requirements or legislation.

Table 15. Five problem scenarios

Table 15 demonstrates that there is a range of perspectives that organisations could adopt

when defining the problem that the PMM seeks to resolve. As Morgan explains in his book

Images of organisations (1986), the perspective adopted has a profound influence on how

issues are viewed and addressed. Using Morgan’s insights, it makes intuitive sense that an

organisation that sees their current PMM as suboptimal will have a different standpoint and

approach to an organisation that wishes to introduce a method that will help them to develop

their process maturity and thus problem identification is important as it acts to frame the issue in

the minds of those involved (Thaler 2015). While Jennings and Wattam (1998) referred to this

activity as ‘problem identification’, this research will substitute the synonym ‘diagnosis’ because

the step of assessing why a PMM is needed at the ‘Select’ stage is very similar to the activity

that will be described in the next Section, 3.3, with regards to embarking on the ‘Embed’ stage.

Using the same term reflects the similarity of the activity in each stage.

3.2.4 Option identification

Once the problem has been identified and defined, the search for solutions can commence.

Potential solutions are presented as options that satisfy the performance criteria and address

the problem definition to varying degrees. Linking back to the PMM continuum in Figure 3, the

options considered by an organisation could range from a method that is closely aligned with

established methods such as PRINCE2, to a totally bespoke or tailored method that has no

identifiable links to established methods or a solution in between these two ends of the

continuum.

3.2.5 Choice

In the choice activity, the decision-maker identifies the option that best solves the problem,

satisfies the performance criteria and ultimately contributes to the organisation’s strategic aims.

39

The normative theory presupposes there is perfect information available so that the costs and

benefits of the differing options can be accurately calculated and the option offering the highest

benefit to the organisation can be chosen (Beach and Connolly 2005). However, the availability

of perfect information is one of several potential limitations of the normative model.

3.2.6 Limitations of the normative model

The existence of rational decisions is not universally accepted with the literature, particularly

since the 1990s, showing a significant swing away from objective decision-making towards

alternate explanations. There are number of seminal books and articles that have contributed

to our understanding of how managers actually make decisions and how this can differ from the

formal, rational process. Manktelow (2012) summarises this well when he concludes that

individual performance deviates from the logical norms. This section looks at how managers

behave when making decisions and synthesises the literature.

The reality of decision-making is that there are bounds on how much information a person can

process and this can prevent the optimal decision from being taken. Rather than a purely

rational ‘economic’ man, Simon (1960) proposes the more realistic ‘administrative’ man who

makes decisions that are good enough or satisfactory. Such a strategy enables a manager to

make faster decisions because they take account of only the most salient factors and thus

simplify the process by using heuristics or reasoning by analogy (Valentin 1994). Simon (1960)

observes that most decision-making is the search for satisfactory alternatives rather than the

optimal choice from among the alternatives. Simon (1966) defines a continuum of decision-

making with programmed or repetitive decisions at one extreme and non-programmed or novel

decisions at the other. Relating this idea to the selection of a PMM, it is likely that the decision

would be towards the non-programmed end of the spectrum because decisions such as these

would not happen frequently so it is doubtful the organisation has an established, programmed

process to follow. Simon (1966) points out that non-programmed decisions carry risk and the

possibility of additional cost precisely because the staples of programmed decisions (habit,

skills, experience, well-defined information flows and standard procedures) are usually not

present. In non-programmed decision-making, managers are reliant on their problem-solving

capacities and capabilities.

March (1994) believes the complexity surrounding decision-making is under-estimated,

describes a fluid situation in which aims and objectives may be changing and introduces the

idea of power into the mix. Lacking perfect information, it is neither clear what to do nor how to

do it (Beach and Connolly 2005). In a damning conclusion, March (1994) says that managers

do not comprehend the situations in which they find themselves, that the decisions themselves

pay little heed to decision-making processes and that, as a result, organisations have little clue

what they are doing. March agrees with Simon’s idea of rationality circumscribed by cognitive,

political and organisational limits and adds span of attention and time as two further limiting

factors.

40

Aggregating individual decisions to the corporate level it is easy to see how March (1994) does

not view the organisation as a rational entity pursuing a clear strategy but instead as a flexible

and shifting series of coalitions in which structure is negotiated and goals are bargained.

Coining the phrase ‘organised anarchies’ to describe how organisations behave at times, Cohen

et al (1972) identified three characteristics of such organisations:

1. They define goals based on what they are doing because preferences have not been

defined in advance.

2. They operate using trial and error because the processes are unclear.

3. The participants in the process change constantly.

These factors lead organisations to make decisions that have four characteristics:

1. With unresolved conflicts in decision-making at the corporate level, organisations can

resort to departmental rationality that only focuses on a narrow range of problems or to

the use of acceptable levels of decision-making rules across departments.

2. The strong desire to avoid uncertainty and to conform with the majority.

3. Searching for solutions can stop at the first viable option.

4. Decision-makers do not know all the answers and learn by trial and error.

March with co-authors Cohen and Olsen produced the frequently-cited 1972 paper entitled ‘A

garbage can model of organizational choice’ in which they likened decision-making to a

‘garbage can’ into which problems and solutions are dumped by those involved with them. The

authors suggest that the usual disconnect between the problem, possible solutions and

decision-makers means that decisions are only made by the chance coincidence in time and

place of the three component parts. These ideas led the authors to characterise organisations

as a collection of solutions looking for problems, issues looking for decisions and decision-

makers seeking work. Cohen, March and Olsen (1972) suggest the garbage can metaphor is

more applicable in some organisations such as public companies and universities than others.

It is interesting to think of PMMs as solutions looking for problems. PRINCE2 and PMBOK are

certainly marketed as solutions with wide application. PRINCE2 ‘suits all projects’ (OGC 2009

pv). PMBOK is ‘applicable to most projects most of the time’ (PMI 2017b p2). As such, they

make tempting options for organisations but care is needed because the variety of project types

makes these generic solutions a potentially poor choice (Wells 2013).

Widening the perspective on decision-making Vroom and Yetton (1973) researched the

processes used by decision-makers and the level of subordinate participation, two aspects of

decision-making central to this research. They defined effective decisions as those which:

1. Embodied rationality and quality.

2. Involved subordinates, where appropriate.

3. Used time efficiently.

41

These criteria were used as the basis for creating the Decision Model, a decision tree which can

be used to indicate an appropriate decision process given a set of parameters. The Decision

Model was further developed by Vroom and Jago (1988) by more closely aligning the output of

the model to the manager’s situation.

Turning to the question of how decisions are actually made, Vroom and his team tried two

approaches. The first approach asked managers to assess past decisions in terms of the

Decision Model. The findings showed that managers use a range of processes (from autocratic

to participative) and that the situation dictates the decision instead of the manager’s style

dictating the decision. The second approach asked managers how they would tackle a number

of problem scenarios. Here, Vroom found that managers’ decisions were the same as predicted

by the Decision Model in only 40% of scenarios. In 25% of cases managers chose processes

that were deemed feasible by the Model and in 33% of cases, the Model predicted risk to either

quality or acceptability. If the manager needed to trade quality against acceptability, quality was

found to be the preferred factor (Pugh and Hickson 1996).

The work of Vroom and Jago work was built upon by the systematic reviews of Stanovich

(1999) and Stanovich and West (2000). Their work continued to demonstrate the hiatus

between the prescriptions of normative theory and the realities of human performance.

Identifying this as the normative-descriptive gap in 1999, Stanovich listed possible explanations

which are used here because they encompass the current research into decision-making and

thereby provide a valuable and valid framework:

1. Performance errors. This hypothesises that the gap is caused by a performance error by

the individual. Essentially, this suggests that decisions are predominantly rational except for

occasional lapses of memory, skill or attention. Less random and more systematic errors can

be caused by bias. Cognitive bias can be defined as deviation from the norm and the

interpretation of data that has been distorted by experience, personal agenda and other factors

that affect the choices that are made (Manktelow 2012). “Cognitive bias in inevitable” (Johnson

et al 2008 p34). As it is unrealistic to expect managers to make decisions with total objectivity,

it is necessary to be aware of potential bias. Expressed in this way, bias is often perceived as a

negative phenomenon but if a good decision is made because of the influence of someone’s

beneficial past experience then in that case the bias will have had a positive effect. The work of

Tversky and Kahneman (1973, 1985) and Kahneman (2011) has been ground-breaking in this

area and spawned the research area termed behavioural economics, a mix of economics and

psychology (Thaler 2015), which continues to investigate the reasons behind decisions not

explained by the rational model.

2. Cognitive limitations. This recognises that people have different cognitive capacities and

that the mind has capacity limits (Stanovich 1999). This links back to the work of Simon (1966)

who identified that rationality was not unlimited but was constrained. Building on this idea,

Rollinson (2008) defined a spectrum for decisions from unbounded to bounded. Bounded

42

decisions are usually small, standalone, clearly defined and can be separated from their

environment. Large, complicated, long term, interconnected decisions with multiple

stakeholders and no known solution are referred to as unbounded decisions.

Whereas this research views the deficit as being within the person, a broader and opposing

perspective is taken by researchers such as Oaksford and Chater (1995) who identify external

uncertainty in the real world as the cause. Uncertainty is a powerful factor against rational

decision making in the literature and Burke (2011 p319) summarises this issue well when he

concluded that “problem solvers and decision-makers will always strive for perfect information

so that they can make perfect decisions. In reality, perfect information is rarely available so

certain tactics need to be developed to be able to make reasonably accurate decisions based

on limited or incomplete information.” Beach and Lipshitz (2017 p85) argue that uncertainty

means that the normative model is "an inappropriate standard for evaluating and aiding most

human decision making." Oaksford and Chater (1995) support this view and that of Burke by

arguing that a logical process relies on certain information the paucity of which, in the real

world, renders rational decision-making impossible. Their recent research has focused more on

Bayesian rationality (Oaksford and Chater 2009) which uses revised probabilities to update

belief hypotheses instead of deduction (Manktelow 2012).

To combat cognitive limitations, there are more rigorous and defendable analysis tools that can

be deployed to support the decision-making process. These include cost-benefit analysis, cost-

effectiveness analysis, decision trees, real options, risk-benefit analysis and scoring (Shtub et al

2005). Going beyond these, there are complex tools such as multi-attribute utility theory

(Keeney 1977; Vincke 1992) and the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) (Saaty 1986) that can be

deployed. Shtub et al (2005 p242) are very positive about the benefits of AHP saying “the

strength of the AHP lies in its ability to structure a complex, multiperson, multiattribute problem

hierarchically and then to investigate each level of the hierarchy separately, combining the

results as the analysis progresses.”

3. Alternative problem construal. This recognises that individuals may see situations

differently and believe they are responding to their view of reality in a logical way whereas

someone holding an alternative view may not concur because they are judging performance

against a different standard (Stanovich 1999). In section 3.2.2, the list of PMM performance

criteria contained a hierarchy of categories and factors. Similarly, section 3.2.3 discussed how

differing perspectives can have a defining role in how problems are seen and the effect this has

on subsequent actions and decisions. If organisations do not set out and agree on the criteria

they are pursuing for their PMM or the problem they are trying to solve, it is perfectly possible

for the situation to occur where some managers will make rational decisions in pursuit of their

view of the criteria which are seen by other managers as irrational because they hold their own

perspective on the criteria or the problem.

43

One explanation for the different views held by individuals is that people are playing a power

game. Instead of a rational structure and process for making decisions, Crozier (1964) saw

organisations as a collection of intertwined games where the players or actors exercise power

and make decisions based on individual goals, relationships and personal agendas. Games are

played at many levels within an organisation, for example between departments and sections

and between managers and subordinates. Viewed in this way, decision-making is a tool in

power games that people exercise to gain advantage.

A further explanation for how individuals view a situation is the influence of their past (Johnson

et at 2008). The impact of what has occurred in the past, or path dependency, is a concept

from the strategy literature and is defined as the situation where past decisions or events limit

the choices available in later decisions and events (Johnson et at 2008). In PMM terms, an

example of this would be how an earlier decision to train and certify project managers in one

method is likely to dissuade managers from changing to a different method in the future. This is

a potential problem because, as Taleb (2007) points out, flawed accounts of the past can define

our view of the present and expectations about the future, the so-called narrative fallacy. The

cognitive bias of sunk cost (Thaler 2015) may encourage managers to give too much emphasis

to the resources invested in the old method and persuade them not to change even though a

change may be the ‘better’, that is, more rational decision. Training and education and

technology are two examples of path dependency and a further four have been identified by

Johnson et al (2008).

All the path dependencies are shown in Figure 7 and described in Table 16.

Figure 7. Path dependency (Johnson et al 2008)

44

Dependency Description

Technology Where technology failed to be optimised, for example, by using outdated tools and techniques.

Objects Examples include expensive capital equipment or the decision to build open plan environments when a different layout may have been preferable.

Behaviour The attitude that ‘this is how we have always done it’. Behaviour that is entrenched in the organisation can be supported by processes and systems that make it difficult to change.

Training and education

For example, training or building knowledge and expertise in a particular PMM.

Standards and rules

Standard operating procedures are an example of an institutionalised rule that may be long standing.

Value system Working in the same way can create or reinforce a set of values about how work should be done, how decisions are made.

Table 16. Path dependency (Johnson et al 2008)

Path dependency, if unknown to decision-makers, may be another form of cognitive bias,

changing decisions without knowledge that rationality is being curtailed.

3.2.7 How strategic is the selection of a PMM?

In the introduction it was stated that adopting a PMM is a strategic decision for an organisation

(Charvat 2003). As there are levels of strategy, it is important to be clear to which of the three

main levels a PMM strategy relates (Johnson et al 2008). The highest level of strategy is

corporate strategy which is concerned with the overall purpose and scope of the organisation.

The next level is business-level strategy which expresses how an organisation will compete in a

particular market. The third tier which is concerned with how the component parts of a

company organise themselves and contribute to the higher level strategies is the operational

strategy. As operational strategies include information and plans about resources, processes

and people (Johnson et al 2008), this is the level at which decisions about PMMs are taken.

As there is a hierarchical link between the three strategy levels, the decision to implement a

PMM will contribute to business-level and corporate–level strategies and be linked to

organisational goals and objectives. Decisions are made in the context of a clear strategic

direction which guides decision-makers in the appropriate decision to be made. Depending on

the level of decentralisation in the organisation, a decision to implement a PMM could be taken

at the corporate level (for example all parts of the organisation will use a standard method) or

the decision may be taken at the business level (for example the US division uses PMBOK and

the European division uses PRINCE2). In either situation, the implementation would happen at

the operational level. It is the case that the configuration of resources, processes and activities

does generate a strategic capability (Johnson et at 2008) so Charvat (2003) was correct to say

that PMMs are strategic.

45

3.2.8 Summary

The normative decision-making model offers a basis for analysing how decisions are taken in

organisations. It has a logical, sequential set of steps that can help to make rational decisions.

However, the normative model may be no more than a theoretical framework that has little

validity in reality. If asked how they came to a decision, some managers may retrospectively

identify clear, logical steps that were followed in coming to a decision whereas no such structure

was discernible during the process (Vroom and Yetton 1973). This view is totally

understandable. The external factors that can influence decision-making are both numerous

and powerful. Conscious factors such as time, expertise and power are very evident whereas

cognitive biases may be less readily identifiable. This raises the question about how decisions

are taken with regard to PMMs and the first research question:

Research question 1: How are PMMs selected?

Attention now turns to organisational change and to the first step of the embedding process

according to the conceptual model, the diagnosis of the change situation.

3.3 Diagnosing the change situation

The need for organisations to change was a necessity identified at the very beginning of this

research. It is a popular expression that the pace of change is ever-increasing (Cadle and

Yeates 2008). Organisational change is complex (By 2005) and the popular view is that 70% of

change initiatives fail although this figure has been challenged by Hughes (2011). Before the

exploration of the change situation, it is necessary to set the scene by assessing the types of

change that are possible in organisations because this activity can provide an appropriate lens

and frame thinking that gives meaning to the stages that follow (Beach and Connolly 2005;

Thaler 2015).

3.3.1 Types of change

The term ‘change’ encompasses distinguishable types of change that have been observed in

organisations. Grundy (1994) identified three major types of change (discontinuous, smooth

incremental and bumpy incremental). Change that evolves systematically and predictably is

called smooth change. Bumpy change describes periods of stability interleaved with change

and discontinuous change is characterised by rapid changes in strategy, structure or culture.

Major technological or product breakthroughs would constitute discontinuous change, events

that Strebel (1994) calls ‘divergent breakpoints’. Grundy’s (1994) categorisations have been

criticised because there is little research to support his trinity of change types. A more detailed

change type model by Balogun and Hailey (2008) uses the dimensions of the nature of change

and the end result to identify four types of change (evolution, adaptation, revolution and

reconstruction) as shown in Figure 8.

46

Figure 8. Change types (Balogun and Hailey 2008)

Plowman et al (2007) devised a 2x2 matrix which has pace of change and scope of change as

the two dimensions which is similar to Balogun and Hailey’s (2008) model. These models have

in common that they try to categorise change into distinct types so that the organisation can

understand the basic characteristics and manage the situation accordingly. Whilst in reality few

change initiatives will slot objectively into one category, all of the change models have merit

because they offer a way to frame the change for stakeholders which can facilitate more

successful outcomes (Thaler 2015).

What type of change is the implementation of a PMM? In the author’s experience,

organisations either introduce a PMM where no method existed before or a transition is made

between methods. In either case, the change is more incremental than big bang, using the

terminology of Balogun and Hailey (2008). The risk associated with any big bang change is

likely to mean that managers take a more incremental approach to pilot the change, introduce it

slowly because change brought about this way is more successful than radical transformation

(Plowman et at 2007; Balogun and Hailey 2008).

Beyond models that identify the type of change being considered, there are techniques that

provide managers with diagnostic information on the change situation.

3.3.2 Diagnostic tools

Models have been developed to help organisations understand the change situation and the

interrelationships between elements in the workplace. Such models are useful because they

help managers to have a better understanding of the effects of their changes. Usefulness is

founded on the underlying principle that the better the understanding and preparation for

change, the more likely it is to be successful (Pettigrew and Whipp 1993; Strebel 1994). Two

models that have been in use for many years and thus have credibility are the 7S model and

force field analysis.

47

The 7S framework was first published in 1980 by Waterman, Peters and Phillips from their

empirical consulting experience at McKinsey and Company with 70 large corporations. 7S is an

analytical framework of seven interconnected elements that, the authors argue strongly, need to

be aligned if that organisation is to be successful. The representation of the framework, shown

in Figure 9, reflects the connections between components and led to the term ‘managerial

molecule’ being applied to describe it. With no starting point and no hierarchy, the authors

implied that any of the elements or levers, as they were also called, may be more dominant than

others in driving organisational change (Waterman et at 1980). For example, a new strategy

might be the driving force for change or the introduction of new skills to allow an organisation to

compete might equally be the spur to change.

Figure 9. 7S model (Waterman et al 1980)

The elements of the framework are described in Table 17.

Element Description

Structure The function of structure is to divide work into specialised tasks and then coordinate the activities.

Strategy The organisational goals and plans. “The way a company aims to improve its position vis-à-vis competition” (Waterman et al 1980 p20).

Systems The formal and informal business processes, ways of working, knowledge management and ICT.

Style The managerial style and culture in the organisation.

Staff The human resources in the organisation, their background, diversity and the processes surrounding their management (recruitment and development).

Skills The knowledge, capabilities and experience within the organisation.

Shared values ‘Superordinate goals’ in the original model, this element was meant to represent guiding principles for the organisation that were at a higher level than the other elements, “a set of values and aspirations, often unwritten, that goes beyond the conventional formal statements of corporate objectives” (Waterman et al 1980 p24).

Table 17. The 7S framework (Waterman et al 1980)

48

The model was provoked by the authors’ belief that too much emphasis was being placed on

the hard elements (strategy, structure and systems) and that this overemphasis was the reason

for the high failure rate of change projects (Waterman et al 1980). Up until that point in

organisational theory, the mantra had emphasised the primary importance of the hard elements

as exemplified by Alfred Chandler’s famous pronouncement that structure follows strategy

(Chandler 1962).

The 7S framework has validity because it has stood the test of time. It can be deployed to

define the desired state in the design stage of a change and also to identify gaps between the

‘as-is’ and ‘to-be’ states of organisations (Cameron and Green 2015). Writing in 2011, Peters

commented on the robustness of the model and how organisations need to consider all seven

elements if they want to avoid ineffective implementation of change, a view borne out in the

literature. In her study of organisational excellence, Singh (2013) applied the seven elements to

build a comprehensive understanding of the role of transformational leadership. Similarly,

Jesseph and Morris (2013) used the lens provided by the framework to assess the connection

between social capital and social media.

During the 1930s and 1940s, the German-American sociologist and one of the most cited 20th

Century psychologists, Kurt Lewin, developed another diagnostic tool for organisations, force

field analysis. Explaining a ‘field’, Lewin (1952 pxi) said “all behaviour (including action,

thinking, wishing, striving, valuing, achieving etc) is conceived of a change in some state of a

field in a given unit of time” and that “the life space of a group .. consists of the group and its

environment as it exists for the group.” In was Lewin’s belief that the current state or equilibrium

of an organisation was the result of competing forces, driving and restraining. To bring about

change in an organisation, it is necessary to alter the forces. Driving forces encourage change.

Restraining forces act to maintain the equilibrium and make change more difficult.

Force field analysis is often depicted diagrammatically as shown in Figure 10. Driving forces

are shown on the left of the equilibrium and restraining forces on the right. Arrows containing

the name of the force are added to the relevant side. Some depictions of the analysis do not

differentiate between the forces. Figure 10 shows one style where the length of the arrow

reflects the strength or magnitude of the force. In other depictions, the width of the arrow

reflects the magnitude and the length depicts how long the force has been in existence.

To give examples in terms of PMMs, a driving force might be management’s desire to

implement a new method and a restraining force could be the past experience of project

managers that makes them less willing to adopt a particular method perhaps because they have

seen it fail in an organisation in which they have previously worked. According to Lewin, to

implement lasting change it is necessary for the driving forces to exceed the restraining forces,

either by increasing the driving force, decreasing the restraining force or both. Not all the forces

have a similar impact on the equilibrium but all have a part to play. If the driving forces far

outweigh the restraining forces, it is likely that the management team will need to do little to

49

implement the desired change. If the restraining forces are stronger, the management team

may decide to do nothing as the change is unlikely to be successful or they may seek ways to

bolster the driving forces and/or weaken the restraining forces.

Figure 10. Generic force field analysis diagram

From business, change and project management literature, it is possible to construct a list of the

driving forces and restraining forces relevant to PMMs. These are shown in Tables 18 and 19

respectively.

Driving forces Source

Benefit orientation. This refers to the desire and resolve within the organisation to meet any performance criteria that were identified in the ‘Select’ stage. For example, the leadership from the executive or management team to ensure the change process completes successfully.

See Table 14

Capability building. For example, providing tailored training to users to use the new PMM and identifying PMM champions in the organisation. Ensure resources are in place, for example, budget, well-designed and targeted templates, comprehensive operator’s manual containing step-by-step processes, a project management office.

OGC (2002a, 2005); Cadle and Yeates (2008); Burke (2011); PMI (2014a)

Project orientation. The implementation is planned as a project. For example, the roles and responsibilities are defined, the new method is piloted, adoption of the method is gradual and phased. Audits are scheduled and carried out to objectively measure the deployment.

OGC (2002a, 2005); Charvat (2003); Burke (2011); Parker et al (2013); PMI (2014a)

Culture. A culture supportive of the change is created. For example, time is allowed to change the attitudes of staff reluctant to support the change.

OGC (2002a); PMI (2014a)

Good understanding of the change situation. For example, from carrying out diagnosis of the change situation.

Lewin (1952); Waterman et al (1980)

Table 18. Driving forces for change

50

The list of potential driving forces represents those factors that can encourage, promote and

assist the change. The driving forces are also linked to the resolve within the organisation to

achieve the benefits of the PMM as defined by the performance criteria listed in Section 3.2.2.

Against the driving forces are the restraining forces which are shown in Table 19.

Restraining forces Source

Risk. For example, the lack of perceived benefits, the risks associated with deploying any new method and changes to the standard operating procedures. A list of risks at the ‘Embed’ stage was identified in Table 12 and the risk from the ‘Select’ stage listed in Table 11 will also be relevant here, for example, the choice of an inappropriate PMM.

Listed in Tables 12 and 13

Weak understanding of the current situation. For example, structures, hard/soft systems, technology and resources that are not understood and which may restrict the change.

Lewin (1952); Vroom and Yetton (1973); Waterman et al (1980); Strebel (1994)

Culture. For example, closed mindsets, entrenched positions, the alienation of users and employee resistance.

Vroom and Yetton (1973); Strebel (1994); Cadle and Yeates (2008); Burke (2011)

Resource deficit. For example, inadequate resources such as the funding for external support, marketing and communications to support the change, research into different methods, resources required to train and certify project managers, teams and management. Another example is not allowing sufficient time to embed the change.

Senge et al (1999); Lientz (2013)

Table 19. Restraining forces for change

3.3.3 Summary

The conclusion to be drawn from Tables 18 and 19 is that there is a wide range of factors that

can be identified as the output from the diagnostic phase some of which, such as resolve,

culture and risk, may be major influencers either positively or negatively on the implementation.

The enquiry into this area is encapsulated in the second research question:

Research question 2: How is the change situation diagnosed?

Beach and Connolly (2005), Plowman et at (2007) and Balogun and Hailey (2008) all attest to

the need to understand these factors to enable the change situation to be managed

successfully. Once the change situation has been analysed and the organisation has a better

understanding of the characteristics relating to starting to embed the PMM, the next step is to

manage the change.

51

3.4 Change management

Change management can be defined as “a comprehensive, cyclic, and structured approach to

transitioning individuals, groups, and organizations from a current state to a future state with

intended business benefits” (PMI 2013d p7). The importance of change management is

recognised by the PMI (2017b p7) in their definition which explains how it “helps organizations

to integrate and align people, processes, structures, culture and strategy.” The definition goes

on to claim that successful organisation evolution is achieved through purposeful action which is

at the very heart of change management.

Change management is a younger field of study than project management and has its own

body of literature despite the overlap between change and project management. There is a rich

and consistent literature on change management that is applicable to PMMs because the

embedding of a method within an organisation can be underpinned by the philosophy and

perspectives that change management can offer (Boddy and Macbeth 2000; Winch et at 2012).

However, the reason that change and project management are not more closely related is

because change management has typically focused more on strategic alignment, vision and

engagement than the tools and techniques more usually associated with project management

(Lehmann 2010).

Change management can be problematic. As Rogers (2003 p1) points out “Getting a new idea

adopted, even when it has obvious advantages, is difficult”. Work by Daryl Conner classified

workers into two types: opportunity people (O-type) and danger people (D-type) (Cadle and

Yeates 2008). Opportunity people are characterised as seizing new opportunities whereas

danger people view change as presenting a threat to them and may therefore resist change. In

the questionnaire-based research undertaken by Conner, most leaders and managers were

identified as O-type. However, the people that managers and leaders seek to influence were

predominantly found to be D-type, a fact that provides additional evidence for the difficulty of

carrying out effective change.

A recent Gartner report (Head and Spafford 2016) highlights the difficulties of making effective

change when it concludes that “many do not attain the expected benefits, or, even worse, they

find that their service metrics and reputation with the business have moved in the wrong

direction.” O’Donovan (2018) noted how the “dismal results achieved by organizational change

initiatives .. drive home the need for a step change in how we deliver projects.”

Based on empirical studies in industry and force field analysis that was discussed in Section

3.3.2, Strebel (1994) suggests there are four basic responses to the results of the situation

diagnosis dictated by the strength of the pro-change and resisting forces as shown in Figure 11:

52

Figure 11. Situation diagnosis responses (Strebel 1994)

Eight different paths have been identified that depend on the strength of the change or resisting

forces and the feasibility of the change and the level of openness to change. These are shown

in Figure 12.

Figure 12. Change paths (Strebel 1994)

The end destinations of the paths are described in Table 20 (Strebel 1994).

53

Strategy Description

Resistance The end of this path is that there is little or no change.

Renewal The difference between Resistance and Renewal is that there are still opportunities despite the strength of the resisting forces.

Revitalisation On this path, the force for change is stronger than the resisting force and there is significant time available to be devoted to the change.

Restructuring In the situation where there is overwhelming support for change but little time is available, the change will be like a jolt where there is rapid change across a subset of the business.

Corporate realignment

Corporate realignment happens in the situation where the change force is easy to identify but the organisation is closed to change.

Cascading implementation

For this path, the forces of change are easy to identify and there is openness to change with the result that there is progressive change within the organisation.

Focused re-engineering

Where the change forces are difficult to identify and there is no openness for change, Strebel (1994) suggests that any changes will only come from benchmarking and comparison with others.

Bottom-up experimentation

If the organisation is open to change but the change forces are difficult to identify there will tend to be bottom-up, smaller scale changes that may be copied and replicated within the organisation.

Table 20. Change strategies (Strebel 1994)

Other than the Resistance path along which no change happens, the other seven paths involve

reducing the forces of resistance so that there is more opportunity for the forces of change to

succeed. This analysis can be useful because it helps organisations to identify appropriate

change strategies that are relevant to them. It is a logical next step which takes the outputs

from techniques such as force field analysis to generate a rational and defendable current state

view, which is surely the necessary foundation for implementing change in any organisation.

3.4.1 Change models

There are many change models that have been created over the last 60 years to support and

guide managers in the successful execution of their change initiative. The short history of

change management is often cited as the reason why there are so many models (Pollack 2017)

and in many ways this lack of maturity in the field mirrors the number of PMMs in project

management. This immaturity is exemplified by the continuing creation of new PPMs (for

example by Burke in 2011) and new change management models (for example by Mento et al

in 2002).

Fifteen of the most popular models have been chosen and these have been reviewed and

categorised into three to identify their underlying assumptions and thereby to better understand

how and why they might be used by change agents. The three categories are models that are

process-based, outcome-focused and definitive; models that are allow for evolution and

acknowledge uncertainty; models that are evaluative and diagnostic. Table 21 provides a

summary of the models, listed by category. A full description of the models can be seen in

Appendix 4.

54

Category Model Author(s)

Definitive Three steps Planned change

Eight steps

Managing transitions

Systematic

ADKAR

4 step dimension

Lewin (1952)

Bullock and Batten (1985)

Kotter (1996)

Bridges (1991)

Senge et al (1999)

Prosci (2018)

Pettigrew and Whipp (1993)

Evolutionary Change management

Switch framework

Complex response

Orders of change

Carnall (2014)

Heath and Heath (2011)

Stacey (2006)

PMI (2013d)

Evaluative Change formula

Change formula

Change formula

Congruence

Gleicher (1969)

Beckhard and Harris (1977)

Dannemiller and Jacobs (1992)

Nadler and Tushman (1997)

Table 21. Change model summary

It is not clear from the literature on change models whether there is a predominant category or

model as the empirical evidence on the use of change models is sparse. In their retrospective

review of 30 years of change management, Jick and Sturtevant (2017) concluded that the field

needed to rethink both its methods and frameworks as current practices are ineffective.

3.4.2 Summary

The diversity and number of models in each category would suggest that change agents have

access to a wide range of models to suit their requirements. There is little evidence in the

literature on the frequency or rationale for choosing one model over another. This situation is

reminiscent of the normative model of decision-making issue presented in Section 3.2.1 and it is

therefore possible, even probable, that the plethora of normative change management models

suffer the same criticism that they are not descriptive models of how people carry out change in

reality. More recent research, with a basis in psychology and behavioural economics,

supported by empirical data, has focused on more subtle ways of influencing behaviour that are

less overt and potentially more successful than the change models listed in Table 21. The

concept of nudging people in the desired direction while still retaining their freedom to choose,

or “libertarian paternalism” as the authors call it, is an alternate way of looking at how to embed

change (Thaler and Sunstein 2008 p5). With many normative models available to support the

embedding process and newer techniques possible, this research seeks to understand if and

how they are used.

Research question 3: What is the change process for PMMs?

One of the problems with change as has been demonstrated by Strebel’s (1994) model is that

the desired outcome is not always achieved because of the dynamics of the situation. Burgan

and Burgan (2012) make the case for human behaviour being the cause of organisational

change failure. This may well be true because, at its core, change is an attempt to replace one

55

set of behaviours with another by asking, encouraging or compelling staff to work in new ways

and, where possible, for staff to cognitively support the change of PMMs. This brings to mind

the acronym PINO which is used in organisations who have stated their adoption of a method,

in this case PRINCE2, but who do not, in reality, follow it and instead may carry out different

processes for managing projects. PINO stands for PRINCE-in-name-only but the acronym

could just as readily be applied to any PMM that has only surface-level adherence to its

processes. The next section explores the reasons why PINO exists and begins by looking at

how organisations become aware of and adopt new ideas.

3.5 Espoused and in-use processes

How new ideas and new ways of working penetrate and are absorbed by organisations is a

growing area in academic study (Alvarez and Mazza 2017; Wedlin and Sahlin 2017). Sturdy

(2004 p155) notes how “the adoption of new management ideas and practices has become an

important and substantial area of study and debate within organizational studies, often under

the label of management fads. … A whole host of studies have emerged exploring how and why

ideas and practices are adopted by organizations and to what extent these processes are

concerned with improving organizational performance.” These studies, collectively classified as

translation theory in which the word translation is not used in its linguistic meaning but refers

instead to the transfer and modification of ideas, consists of a set of theoretical notions and

concepts derived from Latour’s (1984) Actor-Network Theory (ANT) which sees everything in

the social world existing in a constantly changing network of inter-relationships. The theory

highlights the processes of change in the organisational discourse as a result of the introduction

and adoption of a ‘new management fashion setting’ which Abrahamson (1996 p257) defines as

‘the process by which management fashion setters continuously redefine both theirs and the

fashion followers’ collective beliefs about which management techniques lead national

management progress’. Within the context of this research, the fashion setting can be thought

of as the espoused ways of project working that managers are seeking to establish. The

translation element of the theory refers to the complex process of adaptation whenever a new

management fashion enters an existing organisational environment. Instead of adopting the

new fashions, actors continually evaluate new ways of working from the perspectives of their

current project management practices and also with regard to their project management

axiology. Doorewaard and Bijsterveld (2001 p55) argue that the translation of management’s

organisational vision into the organisation “resembles more the process of ‘osmosis' than it

does the process of ‘cloning’”. In this view, the actors’ perspectives are shaped and reshaped

resulting in a mix of new and existing ideas fused into the way projects are managed. The

processes of circulation, of the interaction of ideas with other ideas and of translation leads to

both homogenisation but also variation and stratification (Drori et al 2014)

Professional project management bodies such as the APM, PMI and IPMA use standardised

methods, certification and evolving professional standards to create the ‘fashion setting’ and

exert a strong influence on the project management community. Networks and formal

institutions such as these facilitate the flow of ideas to and between organisations (Røvik 2011).

56

The growth in certification (see Figure 2, Section 2.4) testifies to the dominance of these bodies

and the prevalence of the working practices they promote. Meyer and Rowan (1977) showed

how organisational structure is constructed using widely known ideas and that, over time,

homogeneity is the outcome. Similarly, authors such as Powell and DiMaggio (1991) argue that

there is pressure on managers to conform to the accepted or espoused working practice in

modern organisations. They trace this back to Weber’s view that bureaucracy is the dominant

organisational structure because it is the most efficient way to achieve desired goals and the

view is still current today. Wedlin and Sahlin (2017 p102) comment how “organisational

institutionalism grew from observations of a widespread expansion, rationaization and

homogenization of organisations across sectors and continents.” Powell and DiMaggio note

that organisations display considerable variety at inception but that, once established, move

towards bureaucratic homogeneity or, as they term it, ‘institutional isomorphism’ (1991 p66).

Rather than being the most efficient structural form, Powell and DiMaggio contend that the

convergence is the result of environmental pressures on managers to become more similar,

regardless of the effect this has on organisational efficiency. The authors identified three

mechanisms that lead to conformity:

1. Coercive isomorphism (caused by pressures from the environment).

2. Mimetic isomorphism (caused by uncertainty).

3. Normative isomorphism (the professionalisation of managers).

Powell and DiMaggio’s idea of isomorphism makes sense when they are applied to PMMs,

especially the second and third concepts. One of the key benefits of PMMs is a reduction in

uncertainty (listed in Table 7, Section 2.3.2). This means that organisations seeking to reduce

project uncertainty are more likely to look to established methods of working. The widespread

engagement of managers in academic and professional training and development (PWC 2004,

2007, 2012; PMI 2017a) and the trend towards certification in project management can be seen

in terms of the professionalisation of project managers whose similar experiences may well

nudge them more towards conformity.

In this section the focus narrows from the more general ideas explored by translation theory to

look in more details about whether, in reality, staff in the organisation follow the processes set

out for them once the ‘fashion’ or PMM has been chosen. The literature in this section comes

from practice theory which Nicolini (2012 p1) argues is “increasingly popular among work and

organizational scholars and, in recent years, we have witnessed a dramatic growth in analyses

utilizing such terms as practice, praxis, interaction, activity, performativity and performance.”

Feldman and Worline (2016) argue that practice theory is very relevant to management

because it helps those looking into this field to develop intuitions that are useful in complex and

dynamic environments. Some authors go further and argue that current practices need to be

interrogated if new opportunities for practice are to be created (Mahon et at 2017). As PMMs

comprise processes and ways or working, an assessment of them through the lens of the

affordances of practice theory is warranted. This section assesses why it can sometimes be the

57

case that the intended new processes involved in PMMs are not always the processes being

used by staff.

3.5.1 PMMs as recurring action patterns and a source of organisational memory

Organisations are shaped and characterised by the recurrent action patterns that are followed

day after day. Nelson and Winter (1982) identify three categories: cognitive demands;

paradigms; strategies, heuristics and routines. Paradigms are mental models that frame an

individual’s understanding of the world. Strategies and heuristics provide guidance and

structure for dealing with work tasks and have the effect of reducing the time taken to find a

solution to a problem. Routines are more automated and require less cognitive processing for

their execution. Nelson and Winter (1982) say that routines originate from the repeated

observance of heuristics and resemble individual habits. Past routines influence future

behaviour because they act to limit the search for alternatives (Nelson and Winter 1982). More

recent research by Hodgson and Knudsen (2004) confirmed this view, seeing routines as stored

behavioural capacities that influence behaviour choices. The simile of routines as computer

programs (Cyert and Marsh 1963; Nelson and Winter 1982) is apt as the action is processed

automatically and has a start and an end. In this context, PMMs can be seen as the dominant

paradigms for carrying out the tasks necessary to manage projects.

Repeated organisational routines distribute the information on how work such as managing

projects is carried out and make it available to other project staff, referred to as actors in the

language of practice theory (Cyert and March 1963; Levitt and March 1988). If routines are

considered to be mindless, that is, a person carries out the routine without thinking about it, a

routine becomes a source of organisational stability because no thought is given to how or why

the routine is being performed (Cyert and March 1963; Nelson and Winter 1982; Cohen et al

1996). For example, to solve the original problem of how to manage projects, the organisation

tested options, dispensed with those that did not work and retained a viable solution. This

solution can then become fixed (Levitt and March 1988). To change an established routine

requires the involvement of new actors (who do not know the routine) and cost to implement it

(Nelson 1995; Becker 2004; Drori et al 2014). While mindless routines are characterised by

stability, they are also a cause of deviation. The introduction of a new actor to a routine

presents an opportunity for the routine to be changed in response to the new actor’s

understanding of the role or the routine (Nelson and Winter 1982; Wedlin and Sahlin 2017).

The repetitive nature of routines is questioned by authors such as Nelson and Sampat (2001)

who perceive an element of idiosyncrasy on the part of actors which results in variation of the

routine. Overall, the essential characteristic of routines is the stability they offer to

organisations. The opposing view, in which actors are mindful, presents the counter-intuitive

opportunities for the routine to contribute to change or contribute to stability depending on how

the individual views the process.

By storing the solution to past problems, routines can be conceptualised as the memory of an

organisation (Nelson and Winter 1982). Created as a response to a past problem, the routine is

58

re-executed each time a similar set of circumstances is presented (Paoli and Principe 2003). In

this way, organisations “remember by doing” (Nelson and Winter 1982 p99). The knowledge of

how an organisation operates is stored in three ways: routines; members’ memory (where

repetition creates memory); blueprints (formal information repositories) (Nelson and Winter

1982; Paoli and Principe 2003). The recording of operational experience and problem solutions

in routines and blueprints ensures there is continuity of access to the encoded information that

is not affected by changes in personnel (Nelson and Winter 1982; Levitt and Marsh 1988).

Within the context of PMMs, the concept of blueprints is brought to life by the manuals and

guides that are either generated by the suppliers, as in the case of the PRINCE2 manual (OGC

2009), or written by the organisation to enshrine the ways in which projects are managed in the

organisation. The idea of member’s memory accords with the concept of path dependency

(Johnson et at 2008), discussed in Section 3.2.6, and acts to emphasise the strong influence

that past experience has on present-day actions and behaviours. Although past experience

may seem trivial, its repetition in the literature demonstrates it to be a cogent factor that needs

to be considered in this section because it may be one of the reasons why people working in

projects divert from the defined PMM processes by substituting routines from their past

experience.

3.5.2 PMMs as vehicles of co-ordination

In carrying out a routine task, the actor can limit the cognitive processing needed for the task,

essentially seeing it as mindless (Cyert and March 1963; Nelson and Winter 1982) and thereby

devote their attention to non-routine tasks (Simon 1957). The view may be valid for individual

actors (Cohen et al 1996) but when multiple actors are involved there is a need for co-ordination

between them. In this case there must be compatibility between the actions of all actors

(Narduzzo et al 2000) to deliberately accomplish a task (Pentland 1995; Feldman 2000;

Feldman and Pentland 2003). Routines enable the actors in an organisation to understand how

a task can be broken down into a sequence of routines (Feldman 2000; Kellogg et al 2006).

Sequences such as these are very common in PMMs, for example, processes are listed

throughout the PRINCE2 manual (OGC 2009). Those responsible for the different routines of

the organisation interact to create a “common perspective” (Okhuysen and Bechky 2009 p478)

of the work required to complete an organisational task. In developing a framework that

explains organisation co-ordination, they identify three requirements: accountability (the

understanding that one actor’s role contributes a component to the whole task and that each

actor’s work is connected with the work of another actor); predictability (an actor’s ability to

replicate the routine); and common understanding (allows actors of independent activities to

share a common perspective of the whole task) (Okhuysen and Bechky (2009). These three

factors: accountability, predictability and common understanding, are at the very heart of PMMs

and have already been discussed in Section 2.3 when the benefits of PMMs were described.

Through defined roles and responsibilities for project actors (OGC 2009; PMI 2017b), process

descriptions (OGC 2009; PMI 2017b) and a common understanding of how projects are

managed, the PMM can be seen as an attempt to define the dominant way of co-ordinating

work. For those organisations on the right of the PMM continuum with close alignment to the

59

defined methods, it is more likely that their project staff will have less latitude to deviate from the

defined way of working but as organisations move to less strict compliance to the suppliers’

models, that is to the left of the continuum, it is possible that less compliance will be evidenced.

3.5.3 Ostensive versus performative aspects

Structuration theory by Giddens (1979) and the terminology developed by Latour’ ANT (1984),

led Feldman and Pentland (2003) to differentiate between ostensive (structure) and

performative (action) aspects of routines. The ostensive aspect refers to the sequence of

events that comprise the routine and which allow for a degree of contextualisation. The

performative aspect of the routine refers to the specifics of one actor performing the routine

using specific actions in a specific iteration of the routine. Performative routines interact with

one another and are integrated in artefacts. “We call attention to artifacts here because they

have been particularly prominent as a means of collecting data about routines. Artifacts such

as rules and written procedures can serve as a proxy for the ostensible aspect of a routine”

(Pentland and Feldman 2005 p796).

Becker (2004) suggests that the interpretation of organisational routines offered by Feldman

and Pentland is superior to the concept of mindless and mindful routines. The ostensible

component operates as a reference for the performative aspect while the performative

component is needed to generate, maintain and alter the ostensible aspects (Feldman and

Portland 2003). Acknowledging that routines can be changed, Feldman and Pentland (2003

p113) suggest that actors may produce variants on a routine, select between the alternatives

and then retain the new actions as the constituents of the routine. Both the contingencies of the

situation and what the actor understands the routine to be, their representation, can cause this

change to occur. Becker (2004) notes how actors can use the ostensible aspects of a routine in

one iteration and introduce innovation and variation in the next iteration. In a similar way,

Winter (1985 p109) notes how “mechanistic decision making does not necessarily diminish the

opportunities for genuine deliberate choice”. Feldman and Pentland (2003) observe that each

actor has an incomplete awareness of the actions comprising the routine. As a result, different

actors will have their own representation of a routine. While variations in the performative

aspects are not automatically entrenched into the artefacts, they become available for

incorporation into new performances of the routine. Organisational managers can identify

artefacts in the ostensible aspects or monitor the performative aspects (Feldman and Pentland

2003). Actors shape the ostensible aspects as they find better ways to complete the routine. In

the context of this research, PMMs can be seen as the ostensible aspect of the routine, the

processes, tools and procedure that are written down in organisational manuals. Depending

where organisations are located on the PMM continuum (Figure 3, Section 2.5), the ostensible

routines will be viewed differently by project actors. Towards the right of the continuum, the

difference between the ostensible and performative perspectives will be small but, as

organisations move to the left on the continuum, it is likely that the gap will widen as the

difference between what is expected and what is done diverges. This is another convincing

explanation for why project staff may substitute their own processes and procedures for those

60

defined in the organisation. As organisations move to the left of the continuum, the importance

of ostensible routines diminish and performative routines can become increasingly dominant.

3.5.4 Summary

This section has reviewed the literature initially of translation theory and then of practice theory

to explore the reasons why project staff might choose not to follow their PMM and be classified

as an ‘in-name-only’ organisation. The section began by considering how management ideas

circulate around organisations (Drori et at 2014; Wedlin and Sahlin 2017) and then discussed

PMMs in the context of recurring action patterns and a source of organisational memory, using

the work of Nelson and Winter (1982) and Paoli and Principe (2003) as the primary sources.

Here, the importance of past experiences was highlighted as a possible explanation for project

staff deviating from their PMM. Next, PMMs were discussed from the perspective of co-

ordinated activity and the aspects of accountability, predictability and common understanding.

These concepts were linked back to the PMM continuum to hypothesise that organisations

without strong adherence to a defined method may be more likely to see their project staff

deviating from the PMM in use. Lastly, the ideas of Feldman and Pentland (2003) were used as

the basis for exploring differences between ostensible and performative routines to again

suggest that where the gap is largest between these two phenomena there is likely to be a

greater difference between the in-use and espoused PMM routines in the organisation. This

section has provided a number of different hypotheses for why there might be a difference

between in-use and espoused PMM routines. The fourth research question seeks to

understand:

Research question 4: Are espoused PMM processes different to in-use PMM processes?

In this chapter so far, the focus has been on the first two stages of the PMM life cycle.

However, recognising that the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages operate in a wider environment, the

more static context of PMMs warrants investigation. This view is supported by the large OGC

study (Sargeant et al 2010) which found that the main factors constraining the success of PMMs

came from the environment and Joslin and Müller (2016 p365) who warn about the naivety of

assuming that project management can “occur without the influence of context.” Fernandes et

at (2014 p958) recognised this importance when they said “PM is highly contingent on the

organisational context, such as structure of business or industry sector, size, and its

environment.” Similarly, Winter et al (2006 p640) note the importance of organisational

structure as a means of achieving integration and task accomplishment”. In the next three

sections, attention switches to three aspects of the environment in which PMMs operate that

could have an effect on them: maturity, organisational culture and organisational structure.

61

3.6 Maturity

In project management terms, maturity is a process view of project management and concerns

the consistency with which processes are carried out (Shtub et at 2005). Maturity can be

defined “as the degree to which an organisation practices systematic project management of its

projects, programs, and portfolios in line with its strategic goals” (Mitchell et al 2008). The

notion that maturity is linked to a level of consistency is echoed by Cooke-Davies (2004 p214)

when he says that maturity is “the extent to which an organisation has explicitly and consistently

deployed processes that are documented, managed, measured, controlled and continually

improved”. The differentiated steps in maturity are recognised by the PMI (2013a p548) in their

definition of maturity as “the level of an organisation’s ability to deliver the desired strategic

outcomes in a predictable, controllable and reliable manner”.

The global increase in project management in the last three decades has generated interest in

project management maturity as organisations increase their expectation from and appreciation

of project management (Pinto 2013). Figure 13 shows the frequency of appearance of maturity

in PM literature and that in the last decade approximately 70 articles a year discuss this topic.

Figure 13. Maturity in the PM literature

A popular way to assess maturity is through the use of an established model whereby an

organisation can review and improve its project management performance and capabilities

(Mitchell et al 2008). The term ‘maturity model’ was first used in the 1980s by a US government

research group and the Software Engineering Institute of Carnegie Mellon University (Khatua

2011). The work was prompted by the government’s desire to predict the success rate of

development projects carried out by organisations and resulted in the Capability Maturity Model.

From this initial work focused on software development, the concept of producing maturity

models spread to many other areas and was adapted for project management.

Num

ber

of

public

atio

ns

62

Maturity models recognise that organisations are at different levels of sophistication in their

project management processes and procedures (Pinto 2013). Maturity models provide

organisations with assessment frameworks, allow organisations to benchmark themselves

against the best practice of successful project management firms and highlight areas for

improvement (Bryde 2003; Chrissis et al 2003; Andersen 2008; Mitchell et al 2008; Pinto 2013;

Sargent 2016; Meredith et al 2016; Sargent and Ferreira 2018). The OGC (2010) and PMI

(2013a) recognise that projects, programmes and portfolios can each have their own maturity

models and assessments. For this research, the unit of assessment for maturity is

organisational maturity and the type of maturity measure relates to project management in IT/IS

departments.

There is no one standard for maturity models. Grant and Pennypacker (2006) estimate there to

be more than 30 models available and their use and number is expanding (Mullaly 2006;

Meredith et al 2016). The most popular models for project management are PMI’s

Organisational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) (PMI 2013a) and OGC/Axelos’s

Project, Programme and Portfolio Management Maturity Model (P3M3) (OGC 2010; Axelos

2017).

Despite their popularity, maturity models are not a panacea for organisations. While maturity

models are based on the principles of total quality management (Bryde 2003), some principles

such as commitment and employee engagement are allocated lower priority in the project

management maturity models (Mitchell et al 2008). Project management maturity models focus

on the hard aspects of projects. For example, the categories in the OGC P3M3 model (2010)

are management control, benefits management, financial management, stakeholder

engagement, risk management, organisational governance and resource management. The

soft side of project management, that is, leadership, communication, teamwork, commitment

and involvement have only recently been acknowledged as core to the discipline (Morris et al

2011; Pinto 2013) and have yet to be reflected in the models of maturity. These shortcomings

were further investigated and expanded by Pasian (2011, 2018) who identified the important

role of culture and values in maturity assessments, factors that are supported in empirical

research (Ahmed 2018). These exclusions from the scope of maturity assessment mean that

the results derived are likely to be partial and possibly incomplete. Maturity models have thus

been criticised for not proving a usable concept of maturity (Andersen and Jessen 2003). A

final concern with maturity models relates to time. Organisations use maturity assessments as

the basis for managing improvements to their processes over time (Chrissis et al 2003; Grant

and Pennypacker 2006) thus maturity is a constantly changing phenomenon that is complex for

organisations to manage (Silvius 2018). Not only is the overall maturity level in flux but the

elements that comprise maturity will also be changing. Each of these elements could be a

different level of maturity to the others and this fact would be masked when the overall maturity

of the organisation is aggregated.

63

These concerns with the models may be unknown to organisations or the benefits may

outweigh the possible limitations. The evidence is that maturity assessment continues to be

popular as demonstrated by the investment by Axelos (2017) in an online, version 3 of the

P3M3 assessment tool. The position of the PMI with regard to maturity models has changed in

recent years and is still in flux. The previously public domain elements of the assessment

model have been restricted and the maturity process is now promoted as a consulting

opportunity for PMI-accredited professionals rather than the self-service, independent model

that existed before (Schlichter 2015). That both PM bodies are pursuing maturity modelling

supports the view that it is a necessary element in the PMM sphere.

It makes intuitive sense that the more experience and skill an organisation possesses in PMMs,

the better will be their performance. Table 22 lists evidence to support this hypothesis.

Year Author(s) Linkage

2004 PWC Demonstrated a correlation between strong performance and the level of maturity in the organisation.

2008 IBM Corporation In a study of 1,500 project professionals, the top 20% of professionals (the change masters) achieved 80%.

2008 Mitchell et al Case studies concluded that “there are organisational benefits for organisations to perform maturity assessments” (Mitchell et al 2008).

2012 Swanson Based on the feedback of over 1,000 project managers concluded that there was a correlation between those organisations with higher levels of project maturity and the ability to deliver projects successfully.

Table 22. The link between maturity and performance

3.6.1 Maturity in project management

The desire to operate more efficiently and effectively stems from the improvement principles of

quality management in the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle espoused by Deming (1993). For

organisations looking to improve, an element of the check step in the cycle is to look externally

at how competitors or the industry is performing. The problem is that the desired performance

information is often proprietary and not available. To circumvent this information gap,

organisations benchmark themselves against a scale that ranges between 1 and 5, matching

their level of performance against a number of different criteria. The criteria are combined into a

model that encompasses the main characteristics, factors, processes and capabilities of project

management.

The criteria for measuring maturity tend to use a similar scale consisting of 5 levels (OGC 2006,

2010; PMI 2013a; Kerzner 2013). These are described in Table 23:

64

Level Label Description

1 Awareness of process / Initial

Projects are run differently from normal business.

2 Repeatable Projects are run with their own processes and procedures to a minimum standard. At this level, PRINCE2 may be used in the organisation but not consistently.

3 Defined The organisation maintains central processes for projects. Projects tailor the processes as required.

4 Managed The organisation measures its ability to carry out the processes and operates quality management processes to improve future performance.

5 Optimised The organisation uses continual improvement processes in order to optimise processes and further improve future performance.

Table 23. Maturity levels

It is understandable that organisations with a maturity of Level 1 are unlikely to be able to

implement or sustain a PMM. It is only at Level 2, ‘repeatable’ that a project management

approach becomes feasible. Indeed, a method may be adopted to help the organisation reach

Level 2. Kerzner (2013) suggests that a single method is achievable by organisations at Level

3 in his five level maturity model. As an organisation progresses through the levels of maturity,

for example, Level 3, ‘defined’ and Level 4, ‘managed’, the method is being increasingly

integrated into the culture and processes of the organisation.

At the global level, research by Pells (1997) concluded that project management was mature in

Australia, North America and Western Europe. The merit and accuracy of such high level

conclusions is dubious because the summarisation of information necessarily obscures both the

detail and the variety. Most maturity analysis is undertaken at the organisation level, at which

point it is more useful. Table 24 and Figure 14 show the maturity of organisations from self-

reported questionnaires. The table demonstrates a wide range of maturity levels which is an

indication of measurement variability emanating from a plethora of models and also the

subjective nature of self-reporting and self-assessment.

Year Source Sample Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

Level 4

Level 5

2004 PWC 200 33% 20% 26% 9% 12%

2006 Mullaly 22 - 96 57% 40% 3%

2006 Grant and Pennypacker 42 14% 53% 19% 7% 7%

2012 PWC 133 4% 15% 19% 43% 19%

Table 24. Data on maturity levels

The sample sizes for the findings in Table 24 are small so it is important not to read too much

into the information.

65

Figure 14. Organisational maturity levels

The data in Figure 14 indicate an upward trend in maturity over the 8 years of records so all that

can be concluded is that maturity may be increasing in organisations. Two of the studies were

undertaken by the same organisation (PWC) which may indicate reliability in their findings if the

same companies and the same models were used.

Organisations track their maturity because the underlying belief is that increasing maturity is

beneficial (Richardson 2010; Spalek 2014; Katane and Dube 2017). A 2012 PWC study

reported that 32% of organisations sought to reach a higher level of maturity. The figure

suggests that 68% of companies are happy with their level of maturity but no information was

given on the starting levels of these organisations. However, striving for a higher level of

maturity may not be in an organisation’s best interests. One of the possible explanations is that

aspiring for the next maturity level may add little value to the organisation. Research by

Wheatley (2007) dismisses the concept that higher is always better and demonstrates instead

that the level of maturity appropriate for an organisation was dependent on their needs. These

findings were supported by the qualitative study of Christoph Albrecht and Sprang (2014) which

concludes that the ideal level of maturity for an organisation was linked to the complexity of its

projects. However, the picture is complicated by differences in maturity discernible across

industries and indeed between different divisions of the same organisation (Pells 1997).

3.6.2 Summary

From this section, it is clear that maturity may have an effect on how organisations select and

embed methods. There is, however, a lack of consistency in the research findings with support

for a link being found between maturity and project performance by some (Moraes and Laurindo

2013, Christoph Albrecht and Sprang 2014; Spalek 2014) but not by others (Yazici 2010; Aydin

and Dilan 2017). As a result, the next research question is defined to address this potential

relationship.

Research question 5: How does maturity relate to PMMs

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5

PWC 2004 Mullaly Grant PWC 2012

Perc

ent

66

3.7 Organisational culture

Ever since its earliest mentions in literature (Pettigrew 1979) and in popular management books

of the period (Ouchi 1981; Peters and Waterman 1982), culture has been mentioned as a driver

of organisational performance. While the early evidence was sceptical of the culture-

performance correlation (Rousseau 1990; Siehl and Martin 1990), evidence has been growing

that such a link does exist (Hartnell et al 2011; Sackmann 2011). Culture has been added as a

factor in this research project due to its demonstrable influence on organisational performance

and, by extension, to project management. The growth in research into project management

and the globalisation of projects brought with them the realisation that projects exist within a

host organisation culture that can have profound influences on projects and how they are

managed (Cadle and Yeates 2008; Richardson 2010; Larson and Grey 2011; Buttrick 2013;

Lientz 2013; PMI 2014a; Battistella et al 2017). From his work in management consultancy,

Turner (2008) underscored its importance, concluding that culture was the cause of the greatest

resistance to change in organisations.

3.7.1 Defining culture

Originating in social anthropology, culture was first defined as “that complex whole which

includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, customs and the many other capabilities and habits

acquired by a person as a member of society” (Tylor 1871 p1). Initially referring to the societal

level, culture was first applied to organisations by Pettigrew (1979) and since has been

investigated at many levels. Schein (2010) identifies four categories of culture: macrocultures

(at national, ethnic or religious group level, which equates to Tylor’s definition), organisational

culture (that exist in corporations), subcultures (in occupational groups) and microcultures

(described as microsystems inside and outside organisations).

This section takes an organisational culture perspective and investigates its origin, importance

and how it can impact on change in the embedding stage. Organisational culture is defined as

the attitudes and behaviours characteristic of a particular group (Oxford Dictionaries 2018).

Schein (2010 p3) gives a more detailed definition using such words as ‘dynamic phenomenon’,

‘coercive background structure’, ‘constantly re-enacted and created by our interactions’ and ‘the

foundation of social order’. Culture can be used to predict people’s behaviour and provide rules

that stabilise and order organisations. Over time and by practice, unique organisational cultures

develop (PMI 2017b). The oft quoted definition of culture that is “the way we do things around

here” (Cameron and Green 2015) provides a more succinct definition of culture as something

that is easier to perceive and feel than it is to define with precision.

Culture is a recurring topic in the PM literature with 2,934 articles mentioning culture with

approximately 150 articles published per year in the last decade as Figure 15 shows.

67

Figure 15. Culture in PM literature

It is important to understand the ways in which cultures evolve especially as managers often

seek ways to change the culture. Six evolutionary paths have been suggested (Johnson et al

2008; Schein 2010). These are shown in Table 25.

Path Evolution

1 Culture is the result of an organisation adapting to the environment (industry or profession).

2 Teams and groups develop their own cultures in response to their local environment.

3 Leaders create and inculcate the culture.

4 Managers encourage the adoption of cultures from teams and groups seen to be better adapted to their environment.

5 A top down approach by which culture is planned and managed.

6 New leadership imposes a new culture as a result of catastrophic change (for example business failure, bankruptcy etc)

Table 25. Culture origins

It is clear from Table 25 that some cultures are more amenable to managed change than

others. Those cultures such as 1 and 2 evolve slowly and in response to external stimuli over

which the organisation will have little control. The remaining paths in the table do suggest it is

possible to direct and lead culture change. However, research suggests that it is not possible to

directly change culture but instead that culture change is a by-product of organisational change

(Schein 2010, Boonstra 2013). This impossibility echoes the earlier comments that culture is an

immaterial concept that can only be felt and perceived.

Culture matters because it can support or inhibit change in an organisation. Bresnen and

Marshall (2000 p234) drawing on the work of Hofstede, Schein and Kotter express the

Num

ber

of

public

atio

ns

68

sentiment well when they make the point that “organisational culture is a complex and multi-

faceted phenomenon that arises and develops through on-going social interaction among

members of a community. It is not simply something that can be imposed from on high, and

frequently attempts to do so simply provoke resistance or produce unintended and undesired

consequences”. The opposing view is presented by Groysberg et al (2018 p49) who conclude

from their research that “when aligned with strategy and leadership, a strong culture drives

positive organizational outcomes.”

Table 26 lists authors who have written about the importance of culture:

Year Author(s) Importance

1980 Waterman et al Mergers frequently fail because the different cultures cannot be merged into one.

1986 Hai As culture creates behavioural norms, it impinges on all aspects of the organisation.

1986 Barney Culture can be a source of sustainable competitive advantage.

1990 Hampden-Turner Culture reflects corporate beliefs.

1992 Kotter and Heskett Identified a correlation between culture and performance.

1993 Marcoulides and Heck Found a strong relationship between culture and performance.

2003 Doolen et al Project teams are influenced by the environment through the attributes of their parent organisation.

2004 Silverthorne Culture determines how well an employee fits into the organisational context. A good fit is important.

2004 Kaplan and Norton Culture is the most complicated dimension to understand and describe.

2007 Rigby and Bilodeau Culture has equal importance with organisational strategy. It affects process improvement and decision-making.

2008 Turner Culture influences every facet of an organisation.

2010 Schein The “dynamic processes of culture creation and management are the essence of leadership” (p3).

2011 Cameron and Quinn Excluding culture for any change plans can lead to usually negative outcomes.

2013 Boonstra Argues that it is impossible to achieve lasting change without cultural change.

2013 PMI (2013a) Project managers need to understand the effects that culture can have on projects.

2018 Groysberg et al Strategy and culture are among the primary levers at top leaders’ disposal.

Table 26. The importance of culture

Given that culture is difficult to pin down and yet important, many authors have attempted to

describe or conceptualise culture.

69

3.7.2 Analysing culture

Table 27 shows these conceptualisations and is based on Demir et al (2011) and referenced

sources.

Year Author(s) Conceptualisation

1972 Harrison The degree of formalisation and centralisation.

1982 Deal and Kennedy Culture defined by communication networks and

values, heroes, rituals and rites.

1983 Hofstede Culture classified by five dimensions.

1985 Ernst Human orientation and response to the environment

are key.

1986 de Vries and Miller Dysfunctional dimensions.

1988 Quinn Managers satisfy competing expectations and work in

complex, contradictory environments.

1986 Graves Levels of bureaucracy and managerial-ego drive.

1990

Robbins Key dimensions of culture; individual initiative, risk tolerance, direction, integration, management contact, control, identity, reward system, conflict tolerance and communication patterns.

1993 Handy Culture types vary from centralisation/distribute

authority and formal/informal.

1998 Goffee and Jones Sociability and solidarity.

2002 Parry and Proctor-Thomson

Attitude to change (transformational and transactional).

2011 Cameron and Quinn Dimensions of control/flexibility and internal/external

focus.

2013 Boonstra Culture is long-lasting, static and difficult to change.

Table 27. Conceptualisations of organisational culture

The variety of ways of thinking about culture that are listed in Table 27 serve to underline the

need to gain a better understanding of culture. Models have been proposed and become

established which enable the analysis of culture leading to improved understanding.

While the 7S framework encompassed culture within the element ‘style’, it was not given equal

importance with the other six elements. The Johnson and Scholes model focused on just those

elements that comprise culture in organisations and which act as levers, in an identical way to

the elements of 7S, to facilitate organisational understanding and support change through the

identification of the elements that comprise the prevailing culture. The culture web is shown in

Figure 16 and described in Table 28 (Johnson et at 2008; Cameron and Green 2015).

70

Figure 16. Cultural web (Johnson et al 2008)

Element Description

Paradigm At the centre of the web are the taken-for-granted core values and assumptions. This is identical to the shared values of 7S.

Stories How the past history and current events in the organisation are communicated.

Symbols Artefacts and events that embody the values of the organisation.

Power structures Where power is exercised in the organisation, centrally or dispersed and the basis of power (role, knowledge or charisma).

Organisational structures

The hierarchy, roles and responsibilities and corporate communication.

Control systems How the organisation chooses to monitor its operational performance and rewards its staff.

Rituals and routines

The norms that have come to be established over time.

Table 28. The cultural web (Johnson et al 2008)

Johnson et al (2008) argue for the importance of undertaking cultural analysis as it helps to

identify the workplace behaviours and unspoken assumptions so that these can be exposed for

scrutiny and included in any change process.

The authors of the culture web (Johnson et al 2008) provide examples of how organisations

have conducted their own analyses of the web and how this information has been used within

the organisation to inform change initiatives. Other authors have created their own culture

frameworks, either as 2x2 dimensional matrices or as lists of attributes that can be used in

organisations. These frameworks are listed in Table 29.

71

Year Author(s) Framework

1982 Deal and Kennedy Proposed a dimension based on speed of feedback and a risk dimension.

1983 Hofstede Focused on power distance, uncertainty avoidance, individualism, masculinity and long-term vs short term.

1985 Arnold and Capella Proposed a strong-weak dimension and an internal-external focus dimension.

1985 Ernst Argued for people orientation and response to the environment.

1985 Albert and Whetten Dimensions: holographic versus idiographic.

1986 de Vries and Miller Focused on dysfunctional dimensions of culture.

1992 Martin Proposed cultural integration and consensus, differentiation and conflict, and fragmentation and ambiguity.

1993 Handy Dimensions: centralisation versus formalisation. Leads to 4 cultures: task, role, person and power.

1998 Goffee and Jones Dimensions: sociability and solidarity.

2001 Trompenaars Developed the dimensions: universalism vs pluralism, individualism vs communitarianism, specific vs diffuse, inner-directed vs outer-directed, achieved status vs ascribed status and sequential time vs synchronic time.

2011 Cameron and Quinn

Competing values framework. Dimensions; control-flexibility versus internal-external.

Table 29. Culture frameworks

In this research, Cameron and Quinn’s (2011) model, the Competing Values Framework (CVF)

has been used to capture data about culture in organisations. This model has been chosen due

to its high construct validity. It is well established, there is a validated data capture tool in the

Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI) and there are published data from using

the OCAI that can provide useful benchmarking and comparative information for the primary

data of this study (Heritage et al 2014). Cameron and Quinn (2011) support their framework by

asserting it “has been found to have a high degree of congruence with well-known and well-

accepted categorical schemes that organize the way people think, their values and

assumptions, and the ways they process information” and quote a high level or congruence with

earlier foundation work carried out by researchers including Jung and Myers and Briggs.

There are two dimensions or continuums in the CVF:

▪ Stability to flexibility. The vertical dimension differentiates cultures that are either

recognisable by their flexibility and dynamism from those recognisable by their

preference for control, stability and order.

▪ Internal to external focus. The horizontal dimension differentiates cultures that have

an internal focus that favours integration and unity from cultures favouring an external

focus which emphasises rivalry and differentiation (Cameron and Quinn 2011).

The two dimensions intersect to give the 4 quadrants depicted in Figure 17. Each quadrant is a

distinct organisational culture type.

72

Figure 17. The Competing Values Framework (Cameron and Quin 2011)

The four cultures identified by Cameron and Quinn are named Clan, Adhocracy, Market and

Hierarchical and are described in Table 30 (Cameron and Quinn 2011; Cameron and Green

2015).

Culture Description

Clan (CC) With its focus on unity and flexibility, the Clan is so called because the culture is that of an extended family that espouses nurturing, mentoring and participation.

Adhocracy (AC) The Adhocracy culture has an external focus and dynamic orientation making it entrepreneurial and innovative with a risk-taking mentality.

Market (MC) The Market culture also has an external focus but is more controlling which means the culture emphasises task completion, a focus on results and the valuing of competition.

Hierarchy (HC) The Hierarchical culture has high control and the internal focus means it is characterised by structure, coordination and efficiency.

Table 30. CVF cultures

The framework is ‘competing’ in that the four quadrants generate tension. It is the

organisation’s response to these tensions that defines its culture. How the tensions are

resolved is answered uniquely by an organisation and its profile on the framework will

encompass all four quadrants and contain some measure of each quadrant (Cameron and

Quinn 2011).

Based on the framework, the authors developed an instrument to predict the cultural type of an

organisation using a questionnaire, the OCAI (Cameron and Quinn 2011). The OCAI has been

used as the basis for studies where it has demonstrated high reliability as demonstrated in

Table 31:

73

Year Author(s) Outcome

1991 Quinn and Spreitzer

Cronbach’s alpha exceeding .70. Sample of 800 participants from 86 public utility organisations.

1991 Yeung, Brockbank, and Ulrich

Cronbach’s alpha around .80. Sample of 10,000 business executives.

1999 Kalliath, Bluedorn, and Gillespie

Reported “excellent validity and reliability estimates” (p. 143).

2000 Colyer Cronbach’s alpha range of 0.58 to 0.88.

2014 Heritage, Pollock and Roberts

Cronbach’s alpha range of 0.70 to 0.90.

Table 31. OCAI reliability

While reliability is demonstrated by the high values of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, the studies

were less clear on the validity of the OCAI, a common issue with all cultural measurements.

3.7.3 Summary

While this section has discussed the importance of culture to organisations, it is interesting to

note that the word ‘culture’ does not appear in the PRINCE2 manual (OGC 2009). However,

the importance of culture is undeniable based on the evidence presented in this section and it is

therefore important that culture is assessed alongside PMMs. This section on culture has

established the importance of culture in organisations and explored different concepts of culture

and models that can be used to explore and understand organisational culture. The CVF was

introduced and its use in this research was justified. The wide use and acceptance in literature

of the CVF made it a suitable tool to measure culture in this research. The availability of other

studies that used the same framework enabled comparisons and contextualisation of the

findings and also added validity to the research.

The research question within the area of organisational culture is therefore defined as:

Research question 6: How does organisational culture relate to PMMs?

A further element in the project environment that may have an influence on PMMs is

organisational structure. Culture and organisational structure were identified as crucial to

project management by Larson and Gray (2011 p79) when they said “our observation of other

firms, and research suggests there is a strong connection between project management

structure, organizational culture, and project success”. The next section discusses the topic of

organisational structure.

74

3.8 Organisational structure

3.8.1 Defining organisational structure

Structure is the means by which the actions of corporate staff are co-ordinated and their

activities controlled (Winter et al 2006). To co-ordinate and control, tasks are allocated, roles

and responsibilities are defined, authorities are assigned, reporting lines are established and co-

ordinating mechanisms are prescribed (Robbins and Barnwell 2006). The organisational

structure is the formal, documented way in which the corporation is organised and how people

operate within it. Structure is important because of the influence it has on the reporting lines,

processes, systems and procedures used in the organisation (Gardiner 2005). Structure is

therefore included in the scope of this research due to the relationship it may have with project

management methods.

Within the PM literature in the last 50 years, there have been 726 articles that mention

organisational culture. The number of articles by year is shown in Figure 18:

Figure 18. Organisational culture in PM literature

3.8.2 Determinants of organisational structure

The work of Burns and Stalker (1961) on organisational structure represented a third

perspective on organisations that was neither classical nor human relations. In asserting the

primacy of the environment, Burns and Stalker had ushered in the contingency theory approach

which has proved more influential than either of the two predecessors (Burnes 2009). Like

Burns and Stalker, Lawrence and Lorsch (1967) found that the structures used at the

department level were influenced by their environment with, for example, the production

department operating in a stable environment with a short term focus favouring a more

mechanistic structure whereas research departments were more concerned with long term

objectives and favoured more organic structures. There were few IT departments in existence

Num

ber

of

public

atio

ns

75

at the time of the study but it can be postulated that, had there been IT departments they were

likely to have more long term perspectives and thereby tend towards organic structures. Perrow

(1970) developed the work further by linking mechanistic structures with routine and stable

environments and organic structures with environments characterised by less routine and less

predictability. One more tenet of contingency theory was added by the Aston Group’s research

which identified organisational size as a key factor (Robbins and Barnwell 2006). The Aston

Group found that large organisations were more mechanistic, small organisations were more

organic and that size was the strongest influence on structure. While all of these studies are

dated, they do demonstrate the contingency perspective that structure is strongly affected by

the environment. One of the issues faced when trying to use contingency theory is the lack of

agreed definitions for environment, technology or size (Burnes 2009). Donaldson (2006 p23)

questions how organisations will know when they have attained fit when the environment is

constantly changing and proposes that organisations have a “quasi-fit” at any one time rather

than a “full fit”. Another issue is that the cause and effect relationship between structure and

performance is difficult to establish in practice because there are many variables that could

affect performance.

A common feature of the studies of structure is their use of management’s definition of the

organisation’s structure, often in the form of a hierarchy chart, as the basis of the research.

However, as Woodward et al (1965) correctly points out, an organisation can use important

informal structures and relationships that are not shown on any organisation charts. The

existence of these relationships was first exposed in the Hawthorne Experiments (Mayo 2004)

where it was found that the workers’ informal structures had more effect on performance than

the structures put in place by management

3.8.3 Range of structural forms

Structure and working practices may be strongly influenced by external forces such as

legislation and the power of non-governmental regulators and agencies (Shtub et al 2005;

Mullins 2007; Cadle and Yeates 2008). Internal factors may be just as influential with

organisations choosing structures that align with their strategic aims (Shtub et al 2005; Cadle

and Yeates 2008). After the rise in importance of the contingency approach, organisations

began to look at external influences as the basis for organisational structures (Robbins and

Barnwell 2006). As a result, there is now a spectrum of forms that organisations can adopt

(Gardiner 2005; Turner 2008; Cadle and Yeates 2008; Burke 2013; Buttrick 2013; PMI 2017b).

At one extreme are functional, more traditional organisations and at the other end are

projectised organisations whose structure is dictated by the projects they carry out as

exemplified by large auditing companies. In between functional and projectised structures are

matrix structures which represent an intermediate organisational blend between the two

extremes. The strength in the matrix (weak, balanced and strong) reflects the balance of power

between the project manager and the functional manager.

The range of structural forms as defined by the PMI (2017b) is presented in Table 32:

76

Factor Functional Weak matrix

Balanced matrix

Strong matrix Projectised

PM’s authority Little-none Low Medium Moderate-

high High

PM’s control of resource

Little-none Low Medium Moderate-

high High

Budget manager

Functional manager

Functional manager

Shared Project

manager Project

manager

Role for PM Part-time Part-time Full-time Full-time Full-time

Project support staff

Part-time Part-time Part-time Full-time Full-time

Table 32. Five types of structure form (PMI 2017b)

Scarce resources may require matrix structures to make optimal use of the available skills and

the varying composition of matrix teams may well lead to different forms of the matrix structure

in accordance with the team members and their experience, background and expectations (PMI

2017b). The factors affecting the structural form are listed in Table 33.

Factor Source

Project manager’s level of authority Hobday (2000); Gardiner (2005); PMI (2017b)

Resource availability Shtub et al (2005); PMI (2017b)

Who controls the project budget PMI (2017b)

Project manager’s role Gardiner (2005); PMI (2017b)

Project team composition PMI (2017b)

Nature of the projects carried out Hobday (2000); Kerzner (2013)

Organisational communications Ruuska and Vartiainen (2005); Shtub et al (2005)

Degree of project management maturity PMI (2017b)

Organisation size Robbins and Barnwell (2006)

External environment Lawrence and Lorsch (1967). PMI (2017b)

Table 33. Determinants of structural form

The factors in Table 33 show the wide range of factors that influence the choice of an

appropriate organisational structure.

3.8.4 Summary

Many organisations use all of the structures ranging from functional through matrix to

projectised at various levels in the company, referred to by the term composite organisation

(PMI 2017b). While the IT/IS department which is the focus of this study will possibly have only

one structural form, it is possible that multiple forms are in use, for example if the department is

large and carries out a wide range of project types.

It is notable that the PMI believe structure merits inclusion within the PMBOK but there is no

mention of ‘organisation structure’, ‘matrix’ or ‘functional’ in the PRINCE2 manual (OGC 2009).

The PMI (2017b) lists structure as one of the organisational influences on project management

(the others being culture, communication, process assets and the environment). Structure is

77

not assigned any level of importance by the PMI (2017b) and instead noted for the effect it can

have on the availability of resources and how projects are conducted. From this treatment of

the topic in the PRINCE2 manual and PMBOK, it can be concluded that structure is an influence

on project management but that its influence is modest.

It can be hypothesised that organisations favouring a structural format that is more projectised

than functional would make more use of PMMs as the benefits from a shared way of working

would be critical as teams are continually forming and reforming. There is some existing

research which confirms such a link, for example Hyväri (2006) and Lecoeuvre (2016). To

explore this question and the wider relationship between organisational structure and PMMs,

the final research question is defined as:

Research question 7: How does organisational structure relate to PMMs?

3.9 Revising the conceptual map

This chapter has developed the initial conceptual map that was shown in Figure 4 by exploring

the literature related to the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages. As a result, a set of research questions

has been developed which link both to the goals of the research and the conceptual model as

shown in Figure 19.

Figure 19. Research question linkage (Maxwell 2013)

The two-way arrows demonstrate the inter-relationship between these three areas of a research

project. While the over-arching goals have not changed since the start of the project, the

research questions and the conceptual models have evolved and it has been necessary to

ensure the three were in alignment so that the research project is cohesive and consistent. The

revised and expanded model is shown in Figure 20.

78

Figure 20. Revised conceptual model

The grey box in the centre of the model represents the scope of this research. Any boxes

outside the grey box are outside the scope of this research. The five stages of the project life

cycle are shown in sequential order: Select; Embed; Tailor; Model; Develop and the model

reflects the focus on the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages. The text in red highlights the four theories

that form a foundation for this research: decision-making, force field analysis, change

79

management and practice theory. The blue boxes depict the main elements of the theories.

Finally, the purple boxes contain environmental factors that may influence the application of the

theories in this PMMs research project.

Conceptual models are frequently represented visually as this aids comprehension. According

to Creswell (2014) there are different visual representations of conceptual model from which a

researcher can choose: ecological or social determinant framework (investigates levels of

effect, for example from the personal to the group to the environment; overlapping domains

(used where multiple factors must occur simultaneously for an outcome to occur); sequential

(demonstrates causal pathways from causes to outcome and is often used when testing a

certain hypothesis). Of the three potential representations, this research has used a sequential

template as this aligns with the lifecycle approach to PMMs and the particular focus on the first

two stages of ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’.

The location of a conceptual model within a thesis is a matter of some debate. The model can

be placed in the introduction, literature review, after hypotheses or research questions or in its

own section (Creswell 2014). By locating the model here at the end of the second literature

chapter, the reader is presented with a model that flows logically from the contents of the

chapter. As a deductive research project, identifying the theoretical models as part of the

conceptual model enables the reader to better understand the project’s and the researcher’s

perspectives on the research topic. A further advantage of early communication of the

conceptual model is that many readers are likely to be familiar with this structure from deductive

journal articles that use this convention.

3.10 Conclusion

This chapter has provided a more detailed review of the areas encompassed in this research

and synthesised the literature from many and diverse sources to form a connected whole.

The first section investigated the ‘Select’ stage from the perspective of decision-making. The

suitability of a normative model for decision-making was discussed, giving the pros and cons of

such an approach and explaining why the approach is a suitable starting point if there is no

better information available. Diagnosing the current situation was highlighted as the first step in

the ‘Embed’ process. The diagnosis step helps to frame the implementation and can provide

managers with an awareness of the issues they are likely to face. Following the diagnosis, the

next step is the change process for which a variety of change models were shown to be

available for use. Embedding seeks to change the working practices of project staff and to

replace old behaviours. To investigate whether project staff might deviate from the espoused

processes, the next section applied practice theory to PMMs to investigate possible

explanations for compliant and non-compliant behaviour.

The next section focused on the three environment variables: maturity; culture and

organisational structure. The link between maturity and performance was assessed and the

80

methods, advantages and disadvantages of measuring maturity were discussed. Various

conceptualisations of culture were listed and the Competing Values Framework developed by

Cameron and Quinn (2011) was discussed and its measurement instrument, the Organisational

Culture Assessment Tool, was explained. The organisation structures ranging from functional,

through three types of matrix, to projectised were reviewed in terms of their characteristics.

Throughout the chapter, the research questions that have arisen have been inserted into the

text at the appropriate points. The questions that comprise this research and the life cycle

stages into which they are categorised are listed in Table 34.

Stage Area Research

question

Question

‘Select’ Decision-

making

1 How are PMMs selected?

‘Embed’ Driving and

restraining

forces

2 How is the change situation

diagnosed?

Change 3 What is the change process for

PMMs?

Change 4 Are espoused PMM processes

different to in-use PMM processes?

‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ Maturity 5 How does maturity relate to PMMs?

Culture 6 How does organisational culture

relate to PMMs?

Structure 7 How does organisational structure

relate to PMMs?

Table 34. Research questions

Referring back to the conceptual model (Figure 20), the research question numbers can be

added to the model to map the research questions to the areas within the scope of this

research. This mapping in shown in Figure 21.

81

Figure 21. Mapping of research questions to the conceptual model

How the research questions will be investigated is addressed in the next chapter, the research

methodology.

82

4 Methodology

Research projects can be major undertakings carried out over a long period of time. To guide

the researcher in the steps necessary to successfully navigate the undertaking, a research

process is used. A research process is a series of linked stages that supports the whole

project. The research process is not linear however. The researcher must reflect on previous

stages and revise past work which makes the process more iterative than linear. These

aspects of reflection and revision are required to create a high quality research project (Boud et

al 1994). In addition to giving structure to the project the method is vital because if the research

process described in this chapter is accepted as being valid it follows that the findings and

outputs from the project must also be accepted as valid.

The aim of this chapter is to describe and justify the chosen research process and the methods

used. To do this, the chapter begins with a restatement of the research aim and objectives.

This is followed by an exploration of the underlying research philosophy. The research

approach is then discussed. This leads to an explanation of the methods used to answer the

research questions. Based on the methods, the next section evaluates the different strategies

and explains the choices made. This is followed by an explanation of the data collection and

analysis processes. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the validity, reliability and

ethical aspects of this research project.

This process has been derived from the requirements of the project and generic research

literature by Hussey and Hussey (1997), Walliman (2006), Alasuutari et el (2008), Matthews

and Ross (2010), Bryman and Bell (2011) and Saunders et al (2012). Research specific to the

domain of information systems, including the work of Straub (1989), Galliers (1992) and Garrity

and Sanders (1998), was also reviewed.

The previous chapters have shown that the subject of project management methods is well

established in the literature. As the research aim seeks to understanding how organisations

select and embed PMMs, an exploratory purpose has been adopted for the research.

This research is positioned within the domain of IS/IT projects with a focus on how PMMs are

chosen and implemented. When undertaking research in this domain, there are many options

for the researcher. Some authors suggest that a variety of research methods should be used

(Mumford et al 1994). Galliers (1992) identified the multi-disciplinary nature of IS and believed

that no single research method should be used and instead a range of methods employed to

address the wide subject domain. The research process chosen is inextricably linked to this

study’s aim and objectives with the achievement of these dictating the range of methods that

are appropriate.

83

4.1 Research aim and objectives

The research goal is to understand how organisations select and how they then implement

PMMs to manage projects in the IT/IS function. The examination of the evidence led to the goal

being divided into a number of research questions, which, once answered, will directly address

the aim of this research. The research questions are listed in Table 34, Section 3.10.

In Figure 5, Section 2.10, the goals of the research are linked to the conceptual map and in

Figure 21, Section 3.10, the research questions are connected to the previous two elements.

This research model can now be expanded further to depict how the design created for this

research is connected to the other elements to ensure the research method is appropriate to the

goals of the project. This relationship is shown in Figure 22.

Figure 22. Linking research design to the research model (Maxwell 2013)

In order to address the research goals, it is necessary to involve people in their organisational

settings, taking their views and opinions as well as their behaviours into consideration. In

setting out on their work, all researchers bring with them a set of assumptions underpinning how

they view the world and it is to the philosophy of research that attention is now turned.

4.2 Research philosophy

Business research is shaped both by the practical work that businesses undertake and also by

the intellectual traditions of the social sciences (Bryman and Bell 2011). The identification of a

research philosophy is important because the philosophy affects how the research is

approached, the methods chosen and how the results are interpreted. Making the philosophy

explicit aids the researcher in seeing the research with a clear perspective and also aids the

reader in understanding that perspective in order that the work can be read within the context of

the philosophy and intellectual tradition.

84

The three aspects to consider within research philosophy are ontology, epistemology and

axiology.

Ontology is a branch of philosophy that relates to the ways in which the social world and social

phenomena are viewed (Matthews and Ross 2010). The two dominant ontological positions on

this issue are objectivism and subjectivism: the objectivist position asserts that social

phenomena have an existence of their own, separate from and independent of social actors; the

subjectivist position, on the other hand, asserts that social phenomena only exist because they

are constructed and interpreted by social actors (Saunders et al 2012). The ontological position

for this research is neither purely objectivist nor subjectivist but is based on pragmatism.

Huffman (2016 p19) defines pragmatism as “a tradition of philosophy that focuses on the

connection between ideas and action” and it was popularised by authors such as Pierce, James

and Dewey. It is a “particularly flexible form of social ontology” (Frankel Pratt 2016 p508). A

pragmatic ontology has been adopted because there are objective and subjective aspects of the

phenomena being researched, the answers to the research questions can only be obtained

through a combination of objective and subjective methods and because the research seeks to

be of use to practitioners so that they can take action to improve the management of projects.

Bryman (2012) acknowledged the emergence of the pragmatic ontology in recent years and its

assumption of the correctness of objectivism and subjectivism being contingent on the research

questions asked. Based on their review of papers presented at three International Research

Network on Organising by Projects (IRNOP) conferences, Biedenbach and Müller (2011) noted

the early preference for objectivist studies in project management research and a growing

number of recent subjectivist studies. They also identified that pragmatic research had only

started to appear from the year 2000. Due to its acceptance of different ways of viewing the

social world coupled with the need to adopt different views to address the research questions, a

pragmatic ontological perspective is the most suitable choice for this research.

Epistemology is defined by Matthews and Ross (2010 p476) as “the theory of knowledge and

how we know things”. There are four positions: positivism, realism, interpretivism and

pragmatism. The epistemology of the pragmatist researcher is accepting of different

connotations of the theory of knowledge, is able to integrate objective and subjective knowledge

to produce knowledge that can be applied to the situation and represents a problem solving

philosophy and approach (Farjoun 2015). This epistemology supports practical, applied

research where different perspectives can be integrated to facilitate the interpretation of data.

This choice was appropriate because of the practical approach embodied in this research to

provide information of benefit to academic and practitioner readers and also because of the

employment of techniques from both the positivist and interpretivism domains as the most

appropriate ways to understand the data and answer the research questions. While not a major

trend in project management research, Biedenbach and Müller (2011) have shown that a

pragmatic epistemological approach has been used since the year 2000. In wider,

organizational studies, Farjoun et al (2015 p1787) attest to the “growing interest in drawing on

the philosophy of Pragmatism to address contemporary problems and theoretical questions.”

85

Ontological and epistemological views underline how the researcher’s values and beliefs can

impinge on research. Weber’s view that research should be value neutral is now widely

discredited because of the acceptance that values affect all aspects of life, including research

(Hammersley 2017). Axiology, or the study of values and beliefs, is therefore an important

consideration in the philosophy of research. From a pragmatic epistemological standpoint, the

values of the researcher cannot be separated from the person but the researcher can be both

objective and subjective as required by the situation. The impact of the researcher’s axiology

depends on the research methods chosen; the more subjective the methods, the greater the

role played by the researcher’s values and beliefs. In line with the recommendation made by

Saunders et al (2012) that researchers should declare their values, the author’s role as a project

management practitioner and advocate of PMMs is explained in the introductory pages to this

thesis.

The different philosophical positions can often be seen as opposites on a continuum. For many

researchers, this view can be limiting as it imposes restrictions on research. The researcher for

this project prefers not to be bound by these restrictions and instead to be able to choose the

most appropriate design from the range of appropriate options. This is the pragmatist

paradigm, which adopts a situational approach to research. From this viewpoint, the underlying

concern is that the philosophy adopted should enable practitioners to take action based on the

findings in this research, an approach that aligns with the aim stated in Section 1.3 that this

research should be for practice (Winter et al 2006). The pragmatist researcher is free to choose

methods more usually aligned with the different epistemologies and in this way to address the

research aims through the use of methods most likely to lead to a successful outcome.

4.3 Research approach

The research purpose described earlier has an impact when the researcher decides on the

most appropriate approach. The two main approaches are differentiated by their relationship

with theory, a premise or something known to be true (Ghauri and Grønhaug 2010). Mathews

and Ross (2010 p36) define theory as a set “of ideas that attempt to explain aspects of the ..

world”. The most common view of the relationship between theory and research is the

deductive approach (Bryman 2012). In this approach, the researcher uses what is already

known and what may be theorised in a domain and then deduces research questions that can

be empirically tested to support or disprove the theory and, in so doing, to generate new theory

(Saunders et al 2012). The alternate approach, induction, reverses this process by theorising

based on research and empirical data to generate theory (Creswell 2014). The conceptual

model shown in Figure 20, Section 3.9, demonstrates how the review of the existing literature

led to the creation of a theory about PMMs. The conceptual model drew on foundational and

theoretical concepts from the domains of decision-making, force field analysis, change

management and practice theory to give the research a strong theoretical basis. Research

questions were then generated and data was collected to test the validity of the conceptual

model as an explanation for the nature of PMMs in the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages.

86

While the approach to this research was deductive, it did, as is common in social sciences

research (Bryman 2012), also contain elements of induction. An example is the lifecycle model

within the conceptual model which was generated from theorising about the stages that PMMs

might follow based on observations drawn from the researcher’s practitioner work and discipline

knowledge. In reality therefore, the distinction between deductive and inductive research is

more nuanced with the researcher’s view and approach likely to be influenced by both

approaches, at different times, in different places and as a result of their axiology. It would

therefore be more accurate to declare that this research was predominantly deductive in

orientation given the explicit, initial use of theory and the subsequent empirical testing.

4.4 Methodological choice

One of the main dichotomies in the research process relates to the choice of the method for a

particular research project. The two options are qualitative and quantitative. Qualitative

research emphasises depth and quality. Using this method, the researcher seeks to

understand personal experiences and uses these to infer meaning and understanding.

Qualitative research tends to involve a small group with whom the researcher interacts closely

and extensively. Quantitative research takes a different and wider perspective by seeking to

explain the relationships existing in a phenomenon. Quantitative projects aim to provide

information that can be generalised which requires large numbers of participants to be

successful. The personal involvement of the research that is exemplified in the qualitative

approach is replaced by a more distant relationship typical of quantitative projects. The data

gathered in the two methods is also different. In the qualitative method, information is often in

the form of text collected from interviews, focus groups and meetings that is analysed using a

range of techniques to infer meaning. In the quantitative method, the content can be in the form

of raw data that needs to be processed to turn it into information, often using statistical analysis

as the tool to infer meaning. Criticising the qualitative approach, it can be argued that the small

sample size limits the benefits of the research because it cannot be generalised to a community

beyond that observed. Criticising the quantitative approach, a frequent complaint is that by

being so wide in its remit, the method misses out on the detail that allows the phenomena to be

understood.

Both criticisms are justified and can be addressed to a degree in two ways. One way is to use

more than one technique. This is the multi method approach. The other approach is to pick

from the techniques from both approaches using the mixed methods approach (Saunders et al

2012; Creswell and Plano Clark 2017). While the term mixed methods is conceptually

understandable, a better definition is required to explain what is meant to avoid any

methodological uncertainty. This is particularly important for a method of research that has only

existed in its own right for the last 25 years (Alasuutari et al 2008; Greene 2008). To some

researchers the flexible nature of mixed methods results in it being defined less as a method

and more of a way of thinking (Bliss 2008). It is also argued that one of the benefits of mixed

methods is that it is an elective approach and that to define it too tightly would be a mistake

(Teddlie and Tashakkori 2012).

87

A basic explanation for mixed methods states that the data, the data collection or the data

analysis are being mixed from the available strategies (Small 2011; Creswell and Plano Clark

2017). This variability in approach leads some authors to look at mixed methods by means of a

number of dimensions that can vary by project. In terms of the key dimensions of mixed

methods, seven have been identified by Greene (2008):

▪ Independence. Relates to how and when the strategies are used in the research.

▪ Status. Assesses whether one or other of the strategies is given greater priority or

importance.

▪ Timing. Determines whether the different strategies are deployed at the same time or

sequentially.

These first three aspects are termed the primary dimension of mixed methods design. The

remaining four are the secondary dimensions.

▪ Transformational intent. Relates to the existence of an underlying purpose for carrying

out the work.

▪ Study. The extent to which the mixed methods are used in a single study or across

linked studies.

▪ Strands or phases. The number of strategies used.

▪ Characteristics. Assesses how the strategies are mixed together.

While the perceived benefits of mixed methods are appealing, this methodological choice is not

without potential disadvantages. For example, successful implementation of mixed methods

requires the researcher to have mastery of a wide range of skills and at least a minimum skill

competency to carry them out. Some authors argue the point more strongly asserting that a

team approach is required for a mixed methods approach to be successful (Bliss 2008) because

only a team would have the range of skills needed.

The methodological eclecticism (Teddlie and Tashakkori 2012) of the mixed method approach

accords well with the pragmatist philosophy, ontology and epistemology and is the method

chosen for this research.

4.5 Research strategy

Matthews and Ross (2010) state that data is a representation of the social reality that is being

studied. The research strategy is the way in which this data is collected to answer the research

question and meet the research objectives. Research projects typically employ two types of

data; primary and secondary (Saunders et al 2012). Primary data refers to information that has

been generated by the researcher for a particular project using the methods that are most

suited to the research (Hox and Boeije 2005). Secondary data refers to information that has

been “collected and assembled for a purpose other than the current project” (Stokes 2011 p32).

88

Secondary data provide vital contextual, historical and background information for a researcher,

are more readily available than primary data and has a lower cost of acquisition. The

secondary data used for this project included PRINCE2 and PMBOK and supporting

information, books on project management, relevant journal articles, conferences, websites and

online forums. Secondary data was the source of information in the literature review and it was

used in the analysis and discussion chapters to compare and contrast with the primary data.

Secondary data was used to identify and confirm the validity of the research question and also

to formulate the questions for the interviews and questionnaire. Secondary data is not without

its weaknesses. Researchers need to ensure the secondary data used is reliable and effective

(Maylor and Blackmon 2008).

There is a wide choice of strategies that can be employed to generate primary data including

experiments, surveys, case studies, action research, grounded theory, ethnography, archival

research and narrative enquiry (Saunders et al 2012). The choice of the strategy is an

important decision for the researcher as the strategy must generate information for the research

question and align with the researcher’s approach, philosophy and chosen method (Bryman and

Bell 2011; Maxwell 2013). The pragmatist researcher can choose either qualitative or

quantitative strategies. Even for the pragmatist researcher, the choice of strategy is subject to

constraints. The main constraints in this research were time, resources and participation.

Carrying out the strategies takes time. For example, the number of participants in a survey or

the number of interviews to be conducted will need to be constrained to the time planned for

those activities. The resources available to carry out the strategies will also be a factor. The

location of participants, how they are identified and involved, the need for resources to

administer or process the strategy are all examples of factors that affect which strategy is

chosen and how it is carried out. Lastly, participation relates to the population or sample of the

population who will take part in the survey. Questions about the type of organisation, size,

location, and accessibility are all factors that will influence the chosen strategy. These

constraints have such a powerful influence on the choice of strategy that they have the potential

to dictate which strategies are feasible and how they might need to be configured in a given

research project. For this research, the constraints have been taken into consideration when

choosing appropriate strategies.

The strategy chosen was the survey, using the interview method to collect qualitative data and

the questionnaire method to collect quantitative data. The methods were used in this order so

that the researcher could discuss the research questions with the participants and then conduct

quantitative research as a form of methodological triangulation (Matthews and Ross 2010). By

using the methods in this order, a greater priority was given to the qualitative method to identify

the data that would subsequently be used in the quantitative analysis. Awareness of the

interdependence, ordering and timing of methods are the three primary choices when

implementing mixed methods (Greene 2008).

89

4.6 Sampling

4.6.1 Sampling strategy

The numbers of people involved in project management and organisations that use PMMs is

unknown. The population of interest consisted of the people and enterprises who work with

IT/IS projects in or outside the IT industry. As it was impossible to collect data from the entire

population, a subset of the whole population, or sample, was required. The benefit of a sample

is that it helps the researcher to reduce the collection of data by concentrating on a subgroup of

the whole population, thereby saving time and reducing the costs of collection (Saunders et al,

2012). The process of sampling is also important because it impacts the validity, reliability and

generalisability of the research (Stokes 2011).

4.6.2 Sampling technique

In terms of the sampling technique, Saunders et al (2012) suggest that the choice of an

appropriate method depends on the sensibility and feasibility of data collection. Various

sampling techniques were evaluated. In sampling theory, there is a dichotomy between

probability and non-probability sampling. In the former, the sample can be shown to be highly

representative of the population. In the latter, the sample is selected by random means

(Walliman 2006). The process for identifying organisations to take part in this research,

explained in the following section, uses the non-probability sampling technique known as

convenience sampling where the sample or individuals and organisations are selected because

they are conveniently accessible or in close proximity to the researcher. Convenience sampling

is one of the most commonly used sampling techniques (Bryman 2012) but it prevents the

researcher from controlling the representativeness of the sample and this is a potentially

negative aspect of this technique that impacts the generalisability of the findings (Saunders et al

2012). To negate the effect that convenience sampling could have on the project, three

different samples were used in the research.

4.6.3 Identifying suitable organisations

The intention for this research was to work with organisations who use PMMs in the UK. UK

industry can be characterised as consisting of public and private sector organisations. The

public sector relates to organisations owned by the government or providing government

services. Private sector organisations are not owned by the government and may be privately

or publicly owned. The ONS (2016) defines private sector employment as the difference

between total employment and public sector employment. In March 2016, private sector

employment stood as 26.2 million and public sector employment at 5.3 million (ONS 2016). As

public and private sector organisations can have fundamental differences in their philosophy,

aims and objectives, this research wanted to include participants from both sectors to

investigate whether these fundamental differences affected their choice of PMM.

The organisations that use PMMs tend to be larger in size. This is because the benefits of

using a PMM accrue when there are multiple projects to manage and many people involved in

90

projects. Smaller organisations could see some benefit from a PMM but the cost and time of

implementing a PMM is unlikely to be justifiable with the result that they tend to be used less in

smaller organisations. The organisations in the scope of this research are medium to large

enterprises in the public and private sectors in the UK.

Initially, the researcher made contact with public and private sector organisations to establish

whether in principle the organisation would be willing to participate in the research. The

methods used to identify the organisation included the personal contacts of the researcher, the

contacts of those colleagues, advertisements on project management web sites, for example

the PMI, and the use of social media, for example Twitter and LinkedIn. The author found that

all of the large organisations approached did use some form of PMM. Some organisations were

unable to participate in the research because they could not spare the resources, because they

were undergoing change or because of recent senior management changes.

4.6.4 Sample 1. Participants within organisations

The number of participants from each organisation depended on the size of the project

management function and the availability of suitable participants. Once the initial contact had

been made and a positive response received, the rationale for the research was explained and,

if the organisation was still willing to take part, a list of participants was identified in order that

the project information could be sent to them (see Appendices 7 and 8). The letters included

the participant information sheet which explained all aspects of the project (see Appendix 8).

To be relevant to this research, the participants were required to be involved in projects in the

IT/IS function within an organisation. For the interviews, this research targeted those people

within the organisation who were responsible for selecting and embedding the project method

as the people in these roles would have the necessary knowledge and experience to provide

answers to the research questions. The participants were therefore more senior executives

with roles such as executive, director, programme manager, PMO manager and change

manager.

4.6.5 Sample 2. Organisational project staff

Once the interviews had been completed with each organisation, a request was made to send

the questionnaire to a sample of project staff in that organisation. The questionnaire was more

focused on how the PMMs were used in the organisation and thus it was less applicable to the

people within sample 1 and more relevant to the people who were carrying out projects in the

organisations. For each organisation it was hoped to gain between 3 and 20 completed

questionnaires so that a valid sample was available for analysis. An example of the difference

between the interviews and the questionnaires is with regard to the use of PMMs. Interviewees

are asked which method staff are to use whereas the questionnaire asks to what extent the staff

use the intended method and whether they also use other, non-standard methods. The use of

sample 2 enables the responses from sample 1 to be checked by those people who use the

methods to identify similarities and differences.

91

4.6.6 Sample 3. Other project management professionals

The concerns about the lack of generalisability from convenience samples and about whether

sample 2 would generate sufficient responses for valid analysis led to the targeting of a third

sample, other project management professionals in the UK. Having gained ethical approval to

widen the distribution of the questionnaire, an identical questionnaire to that used by sample 2

was promoted through project management associations (APM, PMI and IPMA) and via social

media (Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter). Respondents were required to identify their role in the

organisation so that responses from people other than project management professionals could

be identified and removed. The advantage of opening the questionnaire to a greater range of

participants enabled the findings from the organisational questionnaires to be compared. If

there was association between the responses from the two samples, it would suggest the

findings were more able to be generalised.

Figure 23 shows the three sample groups in this research and how they related to each other.

Samples 1 and 2 were linked because they worked in the same organisations. Samples 2 and

3 were linked because they completed the same questionnaire. All three sample groups

informed the research questions.

Figure 23. The three samples in this research

92

4.7 Interview

An interview enables the direct communication of two people using questions and dialogue to

enable the interviewer to draw out information, opinions and feelings from the interviewee

(Matthews and Ross 2010). The interview is a popular method used in qualitative research.

Countering some of the drawbacks of the quantitative questionnaire, in which data collection

completes before analysis begins, the interview allows the research to go into more depth, often

combining data collection and analysis at the same time (Walliman 2006).

4.7.1 Interview data gathering

The topic guide in Table 35 provides an outline of the areas and questions asked during the

interviews. The questions were derived from the literature review and structured to align with

the conceptual model. Appendix 6 shows the final version of the interview guide.

Area Questions

Context/introduction

The participant’s role in the organisation.

Role in projects/PMMs.

Definitions

How do you define project management methodologies?

What is their scope in the organisation?

Selection

How did your organisation develop/choose its project method?

What was the process?

What were the goals?

What factors are important in the selection process?

How was selection success measured?

How long did selection take? Who was involved in selection?

Implementation

How did your organisation approach implementation?

What was the process?

How long did it take?

Who was involved?

Were goals defined for implementation?

How successful was implementation? On a scale of 1 to 100?

If I ask the users of the PMM, what would they say about

implementation?

If you were to implement another method, what would you do

differently and why?

Did you certify PMs to use the PMM?

Current performance

How is the PMM performing? How do you know?

How much is the PMM used?

Which elements are used/not used?

How much, where and why has your organisation modified the

method since implementation?

Knowing what you know now about PMMs, what benefits have

they brought to your organisation?

Were there any unintended consequences from using the

PMM?

Table 35. Interview questions

93

4.7.2 Pilot testing the interview questions

Research methods literature is supportive of the benefits of pilot testing (Bryman and Bell 2011,

Saunders et al 2012). The researcher used the interviews undertaken with the first participating

organisation as a pilot, reviewing and reflecting on how well the interviews had been conducted

and the information gleaned. It was found after the first interview that the questions had been

asked in the planned order but that few supplementary questions were asked. As a result, the

interview was short and lacked richness. This learning came from listening to the recording of

the interview and identifying failings that had not been apparent during the interview as the

focus had been on the process (for example completing the list of questions, managing time

and ensuring the recording equipment was operating correctly) at the expense of considering

the quality of the information being received. With more confidence gained about the process

and mechanics of the interview, the second interview saw improvements in quality and process.

Subsequent interviews were similarly reviewed and the learning from each was incorporated

into the next interview. This process of reflection and refinement improved the quality of the

interview process with later interviews benefitting from the review process. One of the main

improvements was the substitution of a mindmap for the linear list of questions. The mindmap

included the main questions and also potential supplementary questions and being graphical

proved easier to use and more flexible for the interviewer.

The interviews were conducted between December 2014 and July 2016. With the agreement of

the interviewees, the interview was recorded and transcribed afterwards. The text of the

interview was stored in a qualitative analysis software package to facilitate analysis.

4.7.3 Analysis of the interview data

There are various methods available for analysing qualitative data. In order that the analysis is

credible and the process is clear to observers, it is important that the tools used are systematic,

comprehensive and grounded (Matthews and Ross 2010). Unlike quantitative analysis, the

process cannot be planned in advance and must instead adopt a more situational approach

which responds to the nature of the data as it is collected. To analyse the interview transcripts,

the analytical strategy that was adopted was thematic analysis which looks for patterns and

factors in the data (Saldaña 2015). Pattern matching is one of the four dominant analytical

techniques listed by Yin (2011) for analysing qualitative data. Thematic analysis attempts to

categorise the data so that it can be better understood before it is interpreted (Matthews and

Ross 2010).

The themes used to categorise the qualitative data were informed from the literature review,

structured using the conceptual map and evolved as the data was analysed. By the end the

process, the list of themes in Table 36 had been identified. The iterative nature of thematic

analysis meant that, as new themes were added to the list, the previously analysed transcripts

had to be re-analysed to ensure every transcript was analysed using the same criteria. Table

36 lists the themes and sub-themes, how many of the 18 sources mentioned the theme and

how many times it was referenced. As an example, within the ‘Select’ main theme, the sub-

94

theme ‘Involved in selection’ was mentioned by 4 sources and had 5 references in total. A total

of 622 references were identified.

Main theme Sub-theme Sources References

‘Select’ 11 64

Involved in selection 4 5

Option analysis

Performance criteria 4 16

Problem identification 5 8

Projectised 1 1

Selection criteria 4 12

Selection evaluation 2 4

Selection process 5 17

Selection timescale 1 1

‘Embed’ 17 168

Change type

Change strategy

Communication 8 15

Embedding evaluation 1 1

Embedding goals 5 6

Embedding involvement 8 8

Embedding process 15 64

Embedding success 7 16

Embedding timescale 5 9

Forces - Driving 7 9

Forces - Restraining 12 23

Pre-analysis

Senior management support 7 16

PMM 18 284

Benefits management 3 3

Benefits of using PMM 11 28

Certification 6 13

Definition 2 2

Dis-benefits 2 3

Espoused vs in-use processes 10 25

Future changes 12 24

Method 16 45

- Agile 12 25

- APMBOK 2 2

- PMBOK

- PRINCE2 9 13

- SDLC 1 1

Modifications 5 5

Operations and usage 17 57

Organisational history 9 11

95

Main theme Sub-theme Sources References

PM association alignment 4 7

- APM 3 4

- PMI

PM experience 10 22

Programme - Portfolio 1 2

Success measurement 10 29

Unintended consequences 3 8

Maturity 10 19

Culture 13 35

Measures of culture 1 1

Organisational structure

3 3

Functional

Matrix 3 3

Context 1 1

Table 36. Themes used in qualitative analysis

NVIVO was used to analyse the data. How the data was interpreted is discussed in the next

chapter.

4.8 Questionnaire

The questionnaire, one of the most popular instruments for data collection, was chosen as the

best way to elicit the views of those involved in project management within the target

organisations because of the numbers of people involved. It would not have been feasible from

a time perspective to interview the number of people who completed the online questionnaire.

In a questionnaire a set of questions are presented to a group of people who answer the

questions. This data is then analysed to help answer the research questions. Questionnaires

are an inexpensive data collection method that can be distributed and collated using a variety of

media. Data is collected in the same way for all respondents in a form that can readily be

coded and analysed (Matthews and Ross 2010). The many advantages of using the

questionnaire method allowed the experience and opinions of many people involved with PMMs

to be consulted.

While questionnaires can be simple to use, they are far from simplistic and need to be

constructed with care. As the unit of analysis was the individual, the questions were formatted

to collect self-reporting data from individuals. Consideration was given to the type of

investigative question asked so that the response could be collected in the most appropriate

way and the data used to help answer the research questions. The three types of question

used in the questionnaire sought information on the respondents’ attributes, behaviours and

opinions (Saunders et al 2012). Attributes relate to characteristics possessed by the participant

such as a project management qualification or position. Behaviours relate to actual experience

and activities that the participant has done in the past, does now or will do such as tailoring a

method for a particular project. Opinions ask the participant how they feel about an issue.

96

Many of the questions were closed-ended questions that either provided a list of permissible

answers to the respondent or, for opinion questions, used a seven-point Likert range. In the

scale 1 equated to strongly disagree and 7 to strongly agree. A score of 4 was neutral either

signifying that the respondent neither agreed nor disagreed or that the respondent equally

agreed and disagreed. In addition to the Likert range, a ‘N/A’ (Not applicable) option was

offered to distinguish between answers that were skipped and those which were in reality not

applicable. The respondent was able to add a textual answer to a few questions to cater for the

situation where the permissible answers did not allow the question to be answered. However,

these additional textual answer options were used sparingly due to the issues they can cause

when the data is subsequently analysed. These decisions were taken to make the

questionnaire easier to answer and more straightforward to process as recommended by

Hussey and Hussey (1997).

The questions were based on the literature review and were grouped into 13 sections. The

process of grouping, arranging and sorting the many factors identified from literature was

undertaken by the researcher and therefore liable to author bias. The questionnaire can be

seen in appendix 11. The sections and the source of the information is shown in Table 37:

Section Derivation of questions

Personal information General questions to elicit information about the respondent.

Organisational information A set of questions about the organisation was created from

generic questions used in many surveys for example PWC

(2012).

Projects in general General questions about projects based on the literature.

PM generic information General questions about PM.

‘Select’ stage Questions about the ‘Select’ stage based on literature.

‘Embed’ stage Questions about the ‘Embed’ stage based on literature.

Organisational maturity To derive information on the maturity level, the OGC 5 level

scale was used to evaluate the areas listed in the PRINCE2

Maturity Model (OGC 2006, 2010).

Organisational culture The Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument (OCAI)

(Cameron and Quinn 2011) was used for this section.

Organisational structure The structure questions were derived from PMBOK (2017b).

Embedding success General questions about how successful the participants

thought the method was implemented.

Table 37. Question source

The questionnaire method is not without potential problems. Table 38 lists the issues that have

been identified in research literature (Walliman 2006; Dillman 2007; Beins 2009; Matthews and

Ross 2010; Saunders et al 2012) and how these issues were addressed in this project:

97

Sources of questionnaire error Action taken to mitigate the error

Researcher bias. In creating the

questions, the researcher recognises the

opportunity for bias in this process.

Awareness of the potential problem was used to

guard against unintended bias.

Survey purpose. Respondents may

approach the survey in different ways

depending on what they perceive the

purpose to be.

This was addressed through the text that

introduced the questionnaire. Potential

respondents were made aware that the survey

was for research purposes as part of academic

study with the aim of improving project

management practice.

Survey length. Asking too many

questions can be a problem as it can

reduce the number of responses received.

Survey length was of critical importance. A

balance needed to be struck between capturing

all the data needed to answer the research

questions and facing a poor response rate. To

address this issue, the number of questions

was kept to a minimum.

Order of the questions. The order is an

important consideration to prevent the

respondent being primed with answers to

later questions.

Question order was repeatedly reviewed to

ensure the risk of earlier questions influencing

later questions was minimised.

Questions unclear. If the respondent is

not clear what is being asked, they may

possibly answer in an unintended way and

this would have an impact on the research

results.

The wording of questions was checked to

ensure it was relevant to the audience and

expressed in a clear and unambiguous way.

Incorrectly completed responses Discrete sections were created in the

questionnaire to make it clear to the respondent

which part of the questionnaire was being

completed.

Table 38. Sources of questionnaire error and mitigating actions

Once the questionnaire had been drafted it was validated. The first stage of the validation

process suggested by Straub (1989) was to pre-test the instrument. The questionnaire was

sent to four project managers who fitted the profile of the target respondent. The testers were

asked to test and evaluate the questionnaire in terms of the clarity of language, length, flow and

any other criteria they wished to highlight. As a result of the pre-test, the questionnaire was

modified and improved to take account of the feedback. For example, the wording of some

questions was clarified and a contents page was added to give respondents an overview of

what to expect. The revised questionnaire was then piloted by an extended sample of 10

project managers including some who had participated in the pre-test. Based on the feedback

from the pilot, a third version of the questionnaire was created which incorporated as many of

the suggestions as possible. It was not possible to address all the issues raised as some

feedback was contradictory. Fewer recommendations were received for the modified pilot

questionnaire which demonstrated that it had been improved during the pilot phase. Once the

questionnaire had been finalised, the next issue to address was to identify the people who

would be asked to complete the questionnaire, that is, the sample population.

98

4.8.1 Questionnaire data gathering

As the sample population were likely to be technically aware and thus had access to the internet

and because the population had a national dispersion, the decision was taken to use an on-line

questionnaire to collect data and this was undertaken between December 2014 and June 2017.

On-line questionnaires have many positive benefits including low cost to produce, low cost to

administer, potential access by a large sample, prevention of influence by the researcher and

the convenience for respondents in terms of when and how long they take to complete the

questionnaire (Walliman 2006). The benefits explain why on-line surveys are increasing in

popularity but they have disadvantages too. Research by Millar and Dillman (2011) showed

that the response rate for self-administered, internet questionnaires is lower than for other

media.

Social researchers have identified potential problems with questionnaires that are relevant in

the data gathering stage (Dillman 2007; Matthews and Ross 2010). These issues and how they

were addressed are shown in Table 39:

Sources of questionnaire

error

Action taken to mitigate the error

Sampling error. This is

caused when too few

participants are surveyed.

The questionnaire was sent to the two sample groups via PM

websites and using social media to ensure sufficient responses

were received for analysis.

Nonresponse error. This

is caused where people

respond to a questionnaire

who are not in the survey

population.

The definition of the population of interest included project team

members, project managers, programme and portfolio

managers, functional managers, executives and other project-

related personnel that worked in allied areas such as the project

management office, internal audit and management accounts.

The identification of the participant’s role was an important

attribute of the questionnaire to minimise nonresponse error.

Moderator effect. How

the influences that are

specific to the individual or

temporary in nature affect

their completion of the

questionnaire.

The moderator effect can be an issue in cross-sectional

questionnaire design as used in this research. Longitudinal

questionnaires can help to minimise this effect as answers can

be averaged over time but this is not a possible for instruments

delivered once to an individual. As a result, no action was

possible. It was acknowledged and accepted that the

moderator effect would be present in the questionnaire results.

Coverage error. This is

caused when not all

members of the

questionnaire population

have an equal opportunity

to participate.

By promoting the questionnaire on project management web

sites, leaving the questionnaire open for many months and

capturing the responses online, many members of the

questionnaire population would have had an opportunity to

participate.

Table 39. Sources of questionnaire data gathering error and mitigating actions

4.8.2 Analysis of the questionnaire data

The data from the questionnaire was exported from the online questionnaire tool and imported

into Statistical Program for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 24. Initial data screening and

cleansing tests were carried out in the data as suggested by Pallant (2010). There were 169

99

completed questionnaires and of these 161 contained usable data. The other 8 records were

discarded because they were not completed fully. As the research focused on the UK,

respondents who were not linked to the participating organisations or who were based outside

the UK (using the currency field as the indicator) were removed from the data. This reduced the

number of valid responses to 71, 28 from sample 2 (employees in the participating

organisations) and 43 from sample 3 (other UK PM professionals).

The analyses carried out on the quantitative questionnaire data are listed in Table 40 with

definitions from Pallant (2010), Tabachnick and Fidell (2014) and Field (2018).

Statistical procedure Description

Descriptive statistics Descriptive statistics provide basic information about a variable

including mean and standard deviation and, where appropriate,

frequency information, percentages and cross-tabulations.

Correlation Correlational tests, for example the parametric Pearson’s

product-moment correlation coefficient and a non-parametric

Spearman’s rank order correlation, test for a relationship

between two variables.

T-test A t-test assesses whether there is a statistically significant

difference between the means of two independent groups on a

continuous variable.

Paired sample t-test This test assesses whether there is a statistically significant

difference between the means of data collected twice from the

same individual on continuous variables.

One-way analysis of

variance

ANOVA is used to determine whether there is a statistically

significant difference between the means of three or more

independent groups on a continuous variable.

Kruskal-Wallis test This test is used to determine whether there is a statistically

significant difference between the means of three or more

independent groups on a non-parametric variable.

Chi-squared test for

independence

This tests for a relationship between two categorical variables

that have two or more categories each.

Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient

Cronbach’s alpha is a test of internal reliability across groups of

similar questions. The range of possible values is 0 (no

correlation) to 1 (perfect correlation). Burns and Burns (2013)

provide a rule of thumb for interpretation: <0.6–Poor; 0.6<0.7–

Moderate; 0.7<0.8–Good. The minimum value for reliability;

0.8<0.9–Very good; >0.9–Excellent.

Table 40. Statistical analysis tests

Data transformations and new variables were required to enable data analysis. The

transformations performed are listed in Appendix 12.

100

4.9 Validity

Validity is an important element of all research projects. Validity is an assessment of the degree

to which a study provides information on the intended subject (Beins 2009). Validity is the final

element needed to complete the research model (Maxwell 2013) which is depicted in Figure 24.

Figure 24. Complete research model (Maxwell 2013)

In the research literature, there are established tests for validity which are different depending

on the methodological choices made in the research. As this research used both quantitative

and qualitative methods, the assessment of the validity of the research has been separated into

two sections.

4.9.1 Quantitative data validity

There are several methods that can be used to establish the degree of validity when using

quantitative methods. Bryman and Bell (2011) identify face, concurrent, predictive, construct

and convergent validities. The first gauge of validity that this research attains is face validity

which is established on the basis that the questionnaire reflects the concept of PMMs.

Concurrent validity assesses the degree to which the responses differ in a way that is expected

and this is demonstrated by two examples. First, the culture types for the two participating

organisations that was assessed in detail in Section 6.2.6 varied along the lines expected from

working within these organisations. Second, the positive correlation identified in samples 2 and

3 and described in Sections 6.2.3 and 6.3.3 demonstrated the expected link between PMM

implementation success and PMM benefit.

While concurrent validity assesses the results received, predictive validity, which was not

evaluated in this research, would be used to form valid prediction for cases based on the data,

for example predicting the scores for how PMMs were deployed based on the organisation’s

structure or current level of success. As the questionnaire included questions and variables

drawn from established instruments in other studies (to assess maturity, success and structure)

101

it also demonstrated a high degree of convergent validity because it facilitated comparison with

the earlier uses of the instruments. The process undertaken to build the life cycle for PMMs and

identify factors for each of the stages is a reflection that the quantitative research also has

strong construct validity.

Cameron and Quinn’s OCAI has demonstrated reliability and validity as shown in Section 3.7.1

and was therefore an appropriate tool for assessing organisational culture.

4.9.2 Qualitative data validity

The interpretivist underpinning of qualitative research has generated many views on how to

assess its validity. LeCompte and Goetz (1982) applied their internal and external perspectives

to validity. They defined internal validity as being present when there is a close link between

the observations made by the researcher and the ideas that evolved. If readers are able to see

linkages between the interview transcripts, the analysis and the interpretations would conclude

that the work has high internal validity but interpreting exploratory data can be problematic (Yin

2011). The fact that the interviews were conducted with a relatively small number of people is

related to the issue of external validity and the extent to which the findings can be generalised

to the wider population. The interview research on its own would not demonstrate high external

validity because of this problem but, as the qualitative data supports and reinforces the

quantitative data, it is possible to conclude that there is more external validity than would have

been the result had only mono methods or multi methods been used.

Not everyone agrees that the validity criteria proposed by LeCompte and Goetz is adequate

because that in itself is a positivistic viewpoint of an interpretivist method of data capture.

Alternative ways to assess that are less aligned to positivism include the concepts of

trustworthiness and authenticity (Bryman and Bell 2011). Using this perspective,

trustworthiness is about the credibility, transferability, dependability and confirmability of

research (Bryman and Bell 2011). This perception accepts that there can be many views on the

validity of research.

Using two or more methods to collect data can aid the validity of the research. Triangulation is

a measure of research quality (Matthews and Ross 2010). It is a process in which data from

one method is used to check the data from a different method. Triangulation is an aid to validity

because it can increase confidence in the conclusions reached. Based on the use of

triangulation to confirm the quantitative data and the assessment of the various measures of

quantitative and qualitative validity, the conclusion could be reached that the study

demonstrated both reliability and validity and could therefore be considered good quality

research.

102

4.10 Ethics

Research theory emphasises the importance of considering ethical issues when conducting a

research project. Harm to participants, lack of informed consent, invasion of privacy and

deception are listed as the four main areas concerning ethics by Bryman and Bell (2011). To

avoid these challenges, the researcher followed the University of Manchester’s ethical

guidelines and processes. Following the defined process, ethical approval was gained from the

University of Manchester to conduct the survey research. As the approval was limited to a

narrow sample, a request was made to expand the sample and this was approved. This

allowed the questionnaire to be sent to a wider range of project management professionals.

All participants completed a consent form either on paper, verbally in a telephone interview or

online. A copy of the consent form can be seen in Appendix 10. Participants agreed that they

had been informed about the purpose and nature of the research, that they participated

voluntarily and that their responses were confidential.

During the project, care was taken to avoid ethical issues and none were apparent.

4.11 Conclusion

This chapter has detailed and explained the research process used in this research. The

chapter has provided a justification for why the method was chosen and explained the step by

step processes followed to answer the research aims using the survey method. The importance

of reliability and validity to research in general was emphasised and the steps taken to ensure

this research was both valid and reliable were discussed.

103

5 Qualitative findings and analysis

5.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the findings from the primary qualitative data capture and the analysis of

that data. The data was obtained from interviews with the participating organisations.

The structure of this chapter derives from the set of interview questions that can be seen in

Appendix 6. The questions were structured into five areas. The first section was introductory

and established the participant’s role in projects and within their organisation. The findings from

this section were used to validate the participants as described in Section 5.1.1. The second

section asked questions about the ‘Select’ process including how the organisation chose the

PMM, the process that was followed, the factors considered, the success measures and other

characteristics of selection. Next, the interview moved on to the ‘Embed’ stage and asked

questions about the process, duration, involvement and success.

In the following section the interviewees were asked about the current performance of the PMM

including the extent to which the PMM is used, what is used/not used, how it is maintained and

whether there have been any unintended consequences from using the PMM. Finally,

questions were asked about the effect of the environment variables: maturity, culture and

organisational structure. The interview process was semi-structured and the plan in Appendix 6

was used as a guide for the interview. The experience of the interviewees and their knowledge

of PMMs in their organisations were critical factors in deciding the extent to which the guide was

followed and how much time was spent in each area.

This chapter will commence by looking at the validity of the participants to contribute to the

research topic. Next, the ways in which organisations select their PMMs will be reviewed based

on the responses to the interview questions and in the context of the literature review. A similar

structure will be used to analyse the responses about embedding. The three environment

variables will then be discussed. The structure therefore aligns with and follows the literature

review in Chapter 3 by looking at the selection of PMMs, then at how they are embedded and

finally at the environment variables to provide the reader with a clear and compelling narrative

from the data that has been collected (Braun and Clarke 2012).

5.1.1 Participant validity

Table 41 provides a summary of the interviews that took place, listing the organisations and job

titles. Each participant is given a number and each organisation is allocated a letter which is

used to refer to them in this and subsequent chapters.

104

Organisation Interviewee Role

A. Higher Education Institution

1 PMO Practice Manager

2 Head of PMO

3 IT Services Programme Manger

4 Programme Manager

5 Head of Programme and Client

Engagement

B. Central Government Department

6 PPM Manager

7 Departmental Investment

Appraisal Team Manager

8 Departmental Investment

Appraisal Team Manager

9 Deputy Head Project and

Programme Management

10 Departmental Assurance

Coordinator

C. Multinational manufacturing

company

11 Project Office Manager

D. Insurance company

12 Programme Manager

13 CIO Portfolio Manager

14 PMO Practice Manager

15 PMO team manager

E. Telecoms company 16 Solution Delivery Manager

F. Health Provider 17 Programme manager

G. Multinational technology company 18 Head of Project Management

Table 41. Interviewees and roles

Table 42 provides a brief overview of the 7 organisations, A to G:

Organisation Sector Overview

A. Higher Education

Institution

Public A UK-based university with 20,000 students and

2,000 staff. This university has a centralised

PMO which directs projects.

B. Central Government

Department

Public A central government department with over

50,000 employees and a core focus on IT/IS.

C. Multinational

manufacturing company

Private A multinational conglomerate with headquarters

in Germany and a workforce exceeding

300,000. As this organisation works in

technology, IT/IS projects are key to its success.

D. Insurance company Private A UK-wide insurer with 6,000 staff and a

department focused on the delivery and

maintenance of IT/IS solutions for the business.

E. Telecoms company Private A UK-headquartered and FTSE-100 quoted

multinational telecommunications company

which operates in 150 countries. As a

telecommunications company, IT and IS

projects are key to the company’s operations.

105

Organisation Sector Overview

F. National Health Service Public A UK-based and very large health service

provider for whom IT/IS projects are a key

aspect of their business.

G. Multinational technology

company

Private A Japanese multinational conglomerate with

over 125,000 employees. The interviewee

came from the UK-based interactive

entertainment division which supplies IT/IS

solutions to internal customers.

Table 42. Overview of participating organisations

The interviewees all worked in the project sphere, all within an IT/IS environment of

organisations with a reliance on IT/IS solutions and all had experience of PMMs. Table 42

reflects the fact that many interviewees were senior managers in their organisations and

therefore possessed the necessary expertise and experience to participate in this research.

Three organisations were in the public sector and four in the private sector. 11 interviewees

were from the public sector and 7 from the private sector. Both public and private sector

organisations and employees have been included so that a balance was obtained.

Having established the validity of the interview sample, the next section will report on and

analyse the findings relating to sample 1 and begin with the selection of PMMs.

5.2 Sample 1 findings and analysis

5.2.1 The ‘Select’ stage

The normative decision-making process (depicted in Figure 6, Section 3.2.1) begins with the

organisation setting out goals and objectives for the PMM. None of the organisations working in

the ‘Select’ stage had clear organisational goals passed to them. The senior management team

in Organisation A asked for a PMM that was “really easy” (Interviewee 2) but this approach was

not the usual experience. Rather than senior management setting goals as the normative

model would suggest, the project staff in this research were found to create the requirement

which they researched and proposed to senior management for approval. Interviewee 5,

organisation A, gave a typical response when he described the goals and selection process:

Talking to a number of team members within the small team that I had at the time,

thinking logically about the stages of a project, from the initial idea through to delivery

and beyond, thinking about what is important to the success or delivery of a project and

bring all of that together really and starting to draft an overall overarching paper in terms

of what my thoughts were in terms of the various key stages, .. a number of which

follow elements of PRINCE2, ITIL and so on, so it is a bit of an amalgamation of

different concepts really. (Interviewee 5, Organisation A)

This bottom-up approach in which members of the project management team research and

propose a method engages the team in the process and invests responsibility for the decision

106

with the team. Interviewee, organisation F provided an enlightening explanation of the process

because it contains the underlying acceptance of this way of working. He said:

There was a task and finish group set up, which was basically a little group around,

okay, we need to establish a project management methodology. (Interviewee 17,

Organisation F)

By creating a ‘task and finish group’ interviewee 17 was indicating that they intended the team

to research the options and provide a solution. Once that work had been completed, the group

would be dissolved. Interviewee 17 did not mention any guidelines, parameters or performance

criteria that could be used to guide the work of the group. It was left to the teams to define the

problem, analyse the options and make a choice or recommendation. The output from the task

and finish group was a mandate for how projects would be run in organisation F. Interviewee

17 explained how the mandate that was produced scoped the policy for PMM use and the

boundaries but said nothing about how the PMM would be implemented:

It described exactly what the issues were; the things around, sort of, like, governance -

how we were going to run governance, how … what we were going to do and what we

weren’t going to do, specifically. (Interviewee 17, Organisation F).

To gain a deeper understanding of the performance criteria that were considered, the interviews

were analysed in terms of the 32 criteria that were collated from literature and described in

Table 14, Section 3.2.2. The interviewees were not shown a table of possible criteria nor

prompted during the interview with any factors. Instead, their responses to the question about

the reasons for choosing the PMM were categorised using thematic analysis and aligned, where

there was a match, to the list of performance criteria.

The results, shown in Table 43, list the criteria and use a tick to show where a factor was

mentioned by at least one interviewee from the organisation (A to G). Only the criteria

mentioned by the interviewees has been shown in the table. If the number of mentions of each

factor is totalled for the organisations, it shows the following frequencies: A: 9; B: 5; C: 5; D: 3;

E: 3, F: 2; and G: 1. It was the case that different numbers of people were interviewed from

each organisation (between 1 and 5 people) and this could mean that there was more

opportunity for greater reporting of performance criteria from those organisations in which more

interviews took place. That said, if a performance criterion had been identified by the

organisation, it is more likely that it was mentioned more than once by interviewees which

increased the frequency of reporting of individual factors rather than the number of different

factors that were identified.

107

Item Factor A B C D E F G

Business Management

2 The PMM is required by senior management

✓ ✓

7 The organisation is exposed to less risk and uncertainty

✓ ✓

People

11 Appropriate staff involved ✓ ✓ ✓

12 Staff productivity improves ✓ ✓

13 Staff turnover reduces ✓

14 Staff development/certification ✓

Process

16 The process improves standardisation ✓ ✓

17 The process improves credibility of the organisation

✓

18 The process promotes professional standards

✓ ✓ ✓

19 Process control of projects improves ✓

20 Process is flexible/adaptable ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

21 Project delivery is improved ✓

22 Improved communication ✓

23 Best practice can be adopted ✓

24 Weaknesses in the current PMM are addressed

✓

Technology

29 The same/similar method is in use by allied organisations

✓

Table 43. Organisations' performance criteria (sample 1)

The 32 performance criteria are grouped into the four Gartner categories (Scott et al 2007) as

described in Section 3.2.2. Summing the mentions of individual factors allows the relative

importance of the groups to be assessed. The resulting pie chart is shown in Figure 25.

Figure 25. Pie chart of performance criteria groups (sample 1)

Business Management, 4,

14%

People, 7, 25%

Process, 16, 57%

Technology, 1, 4%

108

Figure 25 shows that Technology issues are of minor importance to organisations when

selecting a PMM. Selecting a PMM based on external influences or because of a top-down

requirement from senior management which comprise Business Management accounts for 14%

of the factors in this research and this accords with the quotations given earlier in this section.

This would suggest that PMMs are selected for more internal, operational reasons. This is

supported by the 25% of factors that emanate from the People category (staff productivity,

retention and development) and the largest category, Process, at 57% which links to the key

benefits of PMMs listed in Table 7 in Section 2.3.2, for example, providing standardisation,

credibility to the organisation and best practice operations. The number of performance criteria

identified by the participating organisations are few in number, averaging only 4 per

organisation. It could be concluded from reviewing Table 43 that organisations are taking a

structured approach to deciding why they need a PMM but this would be a mistake. The

process of determining the criteria and generating Table 43 involved searching the transcripts

for key words mentioned by the interviewees and then mapping them to the table of

performance criteria in Section 3.2.2. The set of criteria that had been created before the

interviews proved to be more than adequate because many of the potential factors were not

mentioned during the interviews.

It was expected that the performance criteria would continue to be applicable over time within

the organisation but this proved not to be the case. The changing needs of the senior

management team can be seen as the reason why organisation A has experienced so much

change in its PMM, as Interviewee 1 summarises:

So what has happened here during the time I've been here, so five years, there have

been cycles where the senior organisation has wanted to see much more detail and

much more rigour around the method and the documentation and the artefacts, if you

like, around the whole project management process. Other areas, points in the cycle,

where it's wanted to be very lean and has wanted maybe just two or three key artefacts

to be used, and we're kind of at that point in the cycle at the moment where the desire

for the organisation is to be very lean in our methods, with the anticipation that frees

peoples' attention up for delivery as opposed to control. (Interviewee 1, Organisation A)

Here, Interviewee 1 highlights a performance criterion, that a lean PMM allows PMs more time

for delivery and thus speaks to the need for staff efficiencies. Rather than the organisation

setting out clear goals for the PMM, the staff using the method are left to surmise why the

processes are being changed.

Not everyone in organisation A saw the lean approach as being positive. Interviewee 3,

organisation A, a certified PM, complained how “they subscribe to a PRINCEesque

methodology in that they occasionally use some of the artefacts but basically they don't really

have a method or a methodology that they follow.” Interviewee 3 was an IT programme

manager and had encouraged his section to develop a much more rigorous method that was

109

diametrically opposed to the method adopted by interviewees 1 and 2 who worked in the

programme management office (PMO). The IT department undertook projects for the PMO and

the PMO undertook projects for the organisation. It was notable how the PMO had few, large

projects and that the IT department was undertaking many smaller projects with staff often

working on multiple projects and having additional responsibilities, for example support. Seen

in these contexts, it is rational that the IT department should seek to have more control over its

work through the use of a more structured PMM but it is less clear whether the PMO has made

the correct choice. Neither the PMO nor the IT department had assessed the success of their

selection decisions as neither had clear initial criteria on which to judge.

In analysing the interview transcripts, attention was paid to any mention of problems in the

organisation that the PMM was intended to resolve or address. The problem identification or

diagnosis stage in the normative decision-making model guides users to be clear about the

problems they face in order that potential solutions can be assessed against it (Jennings and

Wattam 1998). The five problem scenarios identified in Table 15, Section 3.2.3, have been

reproduced here and combined with quotations from the interviewees as a way to identify if and

how clearly any problem statements were made. The results of this analysis are shown in

Table 44.

Scenario Quotation

The organisation has no approach

April of 2015, there was a mandate written … it described exactly what the issues were; the things around, sort of, like, governance - how we were going to run governance, how … what we were going to do and what we weren’t going to do, specifically. (Interviewee 17, Organisation F)

Problems with the current method

A reaction to the previous orthodoxy which was seen to be overly engineered and a bureaucracy at the expense of delivery. (Interviewee 1, Organisation A)

Process improvement

A number of areas that were lacking structure, one of which was the programme and how we organised that and how we managed projects. (Interviewee 5, Organisation A)

Senior management requires the project management method

During the time I've been here, so five years, there have been cycles where the senior organisation has wanted to see much more detail and much more rigour around the method and the documentation and the artefacts, if you like, around the whole project management process. Other areas, points in the cycle, where it's wanted to be very lean and has wanted maybe just two or three key artefacts to be used, and we're kind of at that point in the cycle at the moment where the desire for the organisation is to be very lean in our methods, with the anticipation that frees peoples' attention up for delivery as opposed to control. (Interviewee 1, Organisation A)

External factors are forcing the change

One of the big problems we have had with the third party supplier … is the prompt to follow a method but they don't follow that method and they don't provide the artefacts they say they are going to provide and key artefacts like release notes so they will consequently with most of the products they produce for use, they slip by three months and

110

Scenario Quotation

obviously there is a consultancy cost for that. (Interviewee 3, Organisation A).

There are certain sets of criteria that [the organisation] pretty much live by so, you know, about customer experience, there’s a big focus on customer experience, there’s a big focus on financial viability in terms of, you know, whether or not a project should go ahead really, so I suppose they would have been in place. (Interviewee 16, Organisation E)

Table 44. Problem scenarios (sample 1)

Table 44 shows that, even from the small sample of organisations, there are diverse reasons for

selecting a new PMM or revising an existing method. The interviews provide evidence to

support and validate the five problem scenarios produced in Table 15, Section 3.2.3 but shed

little light on any diagnostic process used nor the accuracy or validity of that activity.

A recurring theme in the interviews was the importance of experience in those appointed to

select the PMM. The path dependency model of Johnson et al (2008), described in Section

3.2.6, provides a useful framework to explain how the standards, training and past behaviour

can have a strong influence on decision making. Decisions appear to be heavily influenced by

the past experience and affiliations of the group members as exemplified by Interviewee 15 who

mentioned both of these factors in their response:

They were defined and written by individuals who were employed by [the organisation]

but very much based upon APM. (Interviewee 15, Organisation D)

Similarly, Interviewee 8 emphasised the importance of individual experience in the process.

[Person A] and [Person B] from my team were the main stakeholders to create the

change framework and they were very mature in all sorts of business appraisal, case

appraisal and exactly what project and programme should be doing so they were quite

steeped in it. (Interviewee 8, Organisation B)

Reliance on past experience was justified by Interviewee 18 on the basis that he knew the past

solution had been successful:

I’d used Agile methods as well, and I had used the Managing Iterative Software

Development Projects book. So I guess one criteria was I personally was familiar with

them and yes, past experience and proven to work. (Interviewee 18, Organisation G)

Moving back to the decision-making process, option analysis, the final step in the normative

model in Figure 6, Section 3.2.1, appears to have been left in the hands of the experienced

individuals or task groups with considerable freedom with regard to what they chose to include

or ignore as can be seen from the response from Interviewee 15 in terms of using the APM

111

Body of Knowledge. Interviewee 17 explains how the task group evaluated the PMMs but does

not mention the basis for this evaluation.

That task group looked at all the different options .. different members of the

organisation sort of sat down and worked through all of the different types of, you know,

methodologies if you like. (Interviewee 17, Organisation F)

It is notable that the options analysis sub-theme in NVIVO (shown in Table 36, Section 4.7.3)

was not linked with any of the transcripts because it was not mentioned during the interviews.

When it came to choosing the PMM, this also appeared to be the responsibility of the individuals

or task groups in terms of the recommendation they presented to senior management for

approval.

Only one interviewee commented on the evaluation of the selection process. Interviewee 1

made the point that organisations rarely make time to evaluate decisions such as these and his

comments appear to be supported by the silence on this question from other interviewees. The

same person went on to ponder whether the evaluation may be included in individual post

project reviews and concluded that the evaluation would be in terms of the suitability of the

PMM to support delivery rather than of the decision to select the PMM in the first place, ie it

would be an evaluation of tailoring much more than of the process carried out to choose the

PMM. He said:

I don't think the approach as such is ever really evaluated. I think it is something that is

possibly reflected upon during post-project reviews … the evaluation is always seen in

terms of delivery. (Interviewee 1, Organisation A)

This section has presented and analysed the qualitative feedback that related to the ‘Select’

stage. While the normative decision-making model provides a useful framework by which to

look at the selection process, the evidence from the participants in sample 1 is that the model

has little relevance. It is not that there is an alternative model for the select process that is used

in preference to the normative model but, instead, that none of the organisations in sample 1

appear to use any structured approach to selecting their PMM. The picture of PMM selection

that emerges from sample 1 is that organisations decide they need a method for managing

projects because they do not have a method, senior management require a method, their

current method is inappropriate, they want to improve how they manage projects or there are

external forces influencing adoption. After this stimulus has initiated the process, experienced

individuals or small working groups set about looking for suitable alternatives before

recommending one for approval. In this process, past experience is a very powerful influence

on the selection of a PMM. The goals for the PMM, if they exist at all, are very high level, for

example process improvement and better communication. None of the organisations

interviewed evaluated their selection choice to investigate either the process itself or the

outcome.

112

This section has been based on the qualitative primary data and it should be noted that this was

limited in scope because not every organisation was able to explain the processes used. This

paucity of information was caused by the fact that the information was no longer available in the

organisation because the individuals who had the knowledge were no longer available and

there is no organisational memory of the process. Organisations emerge from the select stage

with a chosen PMM and then begin the process of embedding the new method. The next

section explores how the organisations in sample 1 managed the ‘Embed’ stage.

5.2.2 The ‘Embed’ stage

Embedding is the process in the PMM lifecycle in which the chosen method is brought into the

organisation. Embedding encompasses how users are involved, how organisations surmount

hurdles and take advantage of opportunities during the process, how the change is managed

and the extent to which project staff follow the new method. The conceptual model in Figure 20,

Section 3.9 uses the theoretical underpinnings of Force Field Analysis (Lewin 1952), change

management theory and practice theory to analyse and make sense of the interview transcripts.

The analysis begins with an assessment of change type which was described in Section 3.3.1

using the model of Balogun and Hailey (2008). This model identified four types of change:

evolution; adaptation; revolution; and reconstruction). The responses of the organisations A to

G have been reviewed by the author and, using the rationale for the PMM evident in the

interviews, mapped to the most closely fitting option in the model. The shortcoming of this

process is that it is subjective based on the author’s interpretation. The author wanted to avoid

presenting the interviewees with the range of four options from which to choose as it was

believed this would bias the outcome. The resulting matrix is shown in Table 45.

Change type Organisation

Evolution None

Adaptation A, B, C, D, E, F, G

Revolution None

Reconstruction None

Table 45. Application of the change model to the sample data (sample 1)

With such a small sample and the subjective nature of the allocation to change type, it is

important not to read too much into Table 45. None of the organisations in the sample saw the

embedding of the PMM as a ‘big bang’ approach which ruled out both Revolution and

Reconstruction. The two incremental approaches, Evolution and Adaptation are differentiated

on the basis that the first is transformational and the second is realignment. To be

transformational, Balogun and Hailey (2008) suggest the organisation would need to set out

with very clear goals on what it wanted to achieve with its new method. Transformational

contains within it connotations of importance, something the organisation has a clear plan to

achieve that will bring about much needed benefit to the organisation. No evidence was

presented by any organisation to suggest that the PMM selection and implementation met the

criteria to warrant this label. A pattern of adaptation was however visible in all the

113

organisations. Adaptation in terms of responding to senior management calls for a new way of

managing projects (Organisation A); raising the standard of project management and making

the department more professional (Organisation B); working to industry and corporate

standards (Organisation C); to add value (Organisation D); supporting the “customer

experience” (interviewee 16, Organisation E); a “need to establish a project management

methodology” (interviewee 17, Organisation F); and finding a method suitable for senior

management and project staff (organisation G). On the basis of this analysis, all the

organisations were seen to use an adaptation change type.

Having assessed the change type, the next step in the conceptual model is to investigate the

driving and restraining forces for embedding the PMM in the organisation. This area of enquiry

was prompted by Lewin’s (1952) Force Field Analysis model (described in Section 3.3.2) and

this model is used to structure the responses. According to the coding in NVIVO (Section

4.7.3), 7 participants mentioned driving forces and 12 mentioned restraining forces. The

responses from participants have been analysed and individual responses collated into

common categories to present a clear picture of the interview responses. Table 46 separates

the responses into driving and restraining forces, groups responses into categories within these

two headings and provides supporting quotations from the interviewees.

Force Category Quotation

Driving Compulsion They won't have a lot of choice once we have decided to roll it out on a project because these will be the actual activities they have to book against in their timesheets. So if they are booking against an activity and not doing it, then that's not a good place to be. (Interviewee 3, Organisation A)

It’s compulsory for us. (Interviewee 8, Organisation B)

Leadership [It] was visible that it was considered to be necessary by the person in charge of this department. (Interviewee 18, Organisation G)

Reduction in functional barriers

Functional barriers, even within the IT team, are lessened because people are having a broader view of what is happening. (Interviewee 4, Organisation A)

Experienced staff

I have now got more permanent members of the team who are project managers who are bringing much more experience to the team on that front as well and so they are versed in the process that we need to follow and they will be looking to influence that. (Interviewee 5, Organisation A)

Self-interest You see behaviours slightly change when they know that their role’s about to end. There’s a couple of big programmes that are coming close to closure, and it’s interesting that they suddenly get a bit more interest. (interviewee 9, Organisation B)

Help to PMs and process improvement

Some people within the bigger projects openly admitted that they needed help and so the acceptance by the people who I was working with, that this was likely to help them and that they wanted somebody to sort it out for them. (Interviewee 18, Organisation G)

The intention is to try and reduce the, sort of, duplication and look at the overall programme of works. (Interviewee 17, Organisation F)

114

Force Category Quotation

Restraining Time There was a lot of just general unease in the department that absolutely spilled out onto anything that was new, of which the method is, so it was very difficult to win the hearts and minds of these people.. (Interviewee 3, Organisation A)

I mean our biggest challenge at the moment is trying to get it put into place. (Interviewee 4, Organisation A)

Obviously, sometimes it takes a while to get everybody on board for the single, you know, the single purpose but I think the building blocks have been put in place. (Interviewee 6, Organisation B)

It’s very time consuming and it’s very rare that we just have one project that’s due. (Interviewee 16, Organisation E)

Management understanding

Some of that is trying to persuade them the only intervention is not a five-day training course with an exam at the end; so to think slightly more outside of the … a little more widely about what they’re training. (Interviewee 9, Organisation B)

Motivating individuals

I think any change naturally makes people nervous until they can see the benefits of it so I am just emphasising that we have to give this a try really. (Interviewee 5, Organisation A)

You just can’t get people to be bothered. It’s quite frustrating really. (Interviewee 9, Organisation B)

Process is easy, behaviours are difficult. (Interviewee 9, Organisation B)

The vast majority of people that I’m dealing with are not PM’s. They are doing a bit of PM as part of their day job. (Interviewee 11, Organisation C)

We’ve probably got a mix of behaviours in there in terms of some people that get it and are trying to do something and others that aren’t and are holding it back. (Interviewee 13, Organisation D)

Poor process There is no one kind of overseeing body that can do that so as a group of PMO’s we would agree and then we’d roll out through our PMs. (Interviewee 15, Organisation D)

I feel like the process is very rigid and it’s very heavy in documentation. (Interviewee 16, Organisation E).

Business priorities

The business priority overrides the process when things are tight like that and the process gets side-lined to some extent. (Interviewee 16, Organisation E)

Culture General cultural distrust of project management and perhaps suspicion of me as a new person. (Interviewee 18, Organisation G)

Table 46. Driving and restraining forces (sample 1)

The driving forces in Table 46 show a range of forces from very strong (compulsion) and weak

(more holistic perspective) and from individual forces (what’s in it for me?) to more external

forces (leadership). Despite the small sample, the dimensions of power (strong-weak) and

locus (internal-external) are perceptible in the responses.

It became apparent from the interviews that culture could be both a driving and a restraining

force. Interviewee 6 said the implementation of their PMM was made easier because they

already had a supportive culture whereas Interviewee 3 had the opposite view and felt that the

change was taking longer because the culture did not support the PMM change.

115

There were more restraining forces identified than driving forces and this is reflected in the

analysis. PMMs, like all major change, take time to embed and those involved need to see the

benefits if they are to embrace the change. The omission of these factors presents the change

with restraining hurdles that have to be overcome, delaying or imperilling implementation. If the

chosen process is not clear, does not fit the organisation or is not supported or understood by

senior management, additional barriers can be thrown up. A key factor was the motivation of

individuals and the vital necessity of gaining support and desire for the change. What is

surprising is that none of these factors is unknown in change initiatives which means that all of

the factors could be avoided rather than having to be addressed. Risk management theory is

very clear on the benefits of avoidance over any type of mitigation strategy (Kerzner 2013).

Where an implementation is poorly managed, it is possible to gain a sense of why people start

to deviate from the defined ways of workings and a gap appears between the espoused and in-

use project management processes.

Table 21 in Section 3.4.1 lists the most well-known strategies that have been developed for

managing change. The approach taken to the interviews was, once again, not to prompt the

interviewees with a list from which to choose but instead to try to elicit whether a defined

strategy was adopted from their responses. It was the case with every organisation that no

established change strategy could be identified.

From the interviews, it was clear that the way in which PMMs were implemented was more

reactive, ad hoc and situational and less planned than the literature would suggest is optimal for

managing large scale change. Based on this research, no evidence was found that change

models are used in this context.

From what has already been learnt about the informal approach adopted to change by

organisations in this study, it should not be a surprise to discover that there is little in the way of

formal evaluation of the change. Interviewee 1 expressed a view that encapsulated the

approach of the majority of organisations studied:

I don't think the approach as such is ever really evaluated. I think it is something that is

possibly reflected upon during post-project reviews. (Interviewee 1, Organisation A)

The possible evaluation of the PMM implementation as part of another project’s evaluation

underlines the ad hoc nature of evaluation. In addition to being unstructured, the appraisals can

also be subjective as Interviewee 3 highlighted:

116

I unofficially ran [a] stage using these artefacts and these methods and I believe,

although stage 2 wasn't successful, I believe the use of this trimmed-down methodology

was successful and helped us with the success we did have. (Interviewee 3,

Organisation A)

In this last case, there may be extraneous variables that inhibited the success of a project stage

while still allowing the method to be considered successful but this assessment is doubtful

because the assessor is the same person advocating the new method. More formal

assessments tend to be more objective and generate outputs that have more credibility.

Interviewee 3 raised the valid issue of when to undertake the evaluation. From the changing

situation in organisation A over time, it is clear that very different outcomes from the

assessment would have resulted depending when the assessment was made.

It took a long time to get the process through so I would have said, for about a year, up

till about six months ago, there was a lot of just general unease in the department that

absolutely spilled out onto anything that was new, of which the method is, so it was very

difficult to win the hearts and minds of these people. In the last six months that has

changed drastically, I think, and people are much more acceptant that it’s going to

arrive. (Interviewee 3, Organisation A)

Interviewee 15 has considered the issue of evaluation and concluded “It’s very hard, isn’t it, to

measure the benefit of having the framework in place.” His organisation, F, has considered

metrics including the number of projects using the new method (or Framework using

organisation F’s language), the number of training sessions and the number of audits

conducted. Clearly these are important metrics in the evaluation of the uptake of the method.

However, it is relatively easy to identify process-based metrics from the method but, without

clearly thought out performance criteria at the beginning, it becomes very difficult to have any

meaningful overall assessment of the effectiveness of the method.

The exception to this trend was organisation B who used task groups and project audits to

feedback and improve the implementation process. Interviewee 10 commented how:

It is very difficult [to measure effectiveness] though the benefits of recommendations

has actually helped. How do you measure that; they could argue well we are aware of

it anyway, does it just reinforce what the SRO [Senior Responsible Officer] thought,

that’s added value - how do you measure it? So it just comes back to that SRO

feedback sheet I think, so hoping that they actually complete it and are honest, so

where it doesn’t offer value, we can look to try and improve the service that we offer.

(Interviewee 10, Organisation B)

117

The process is evidently successful because Interviewee 6 (Organisation B) was proud to

announce “across government we’re seen as, you know, one of the exemplars”.

Having looked at how organisations embed PMMs, the attention now switches to the extent to

which those processes are used by project staff. The item of interest here is whether staff

follow the defined or espoused way of working as defined in the PMM or use other processes to

carry out their project work. Over half (60%) of respondents commented on the potential

difference between how an organisation professes to manage projects and what happens in

reality. This was a feature of operating PMMs that was first identified in Section 3.5. When

asked this question, a recurring theme amongst the interviewees was that organisations have

defined methods but there is considerable flexibility in how closely they are followed.

Interviewee 4 gave a typical response:

Most of the companies I have worked for use PRINCE2 in name only rather than in

practice so they kind of take the principles but they don’t follow all of the best practice

that is laid out in there so it's a bit difficult so it is probably a bit of a mishmash of

everyone’s experiences elsewhere. (Interviewee 4, Organisation A)

‘PRINCEesque’ in the next quote echoes PINO from Section 3.4.2 where the processes in use

do not match the espoused method.

So, with my organisation and within PMO they subscribe to a PRINCEesque

methodology in that they occasionally use some of the artefacts but basically they don't

really have a method or a methodology that they follow. (Interviewee 3, Organisation A)

Interviewee 14 suggested that flexibility was widespread in their experience.

The framework that we currently use was set up about eight years ago and it gets used

in various different levels of fidelity across the organisation as I think you’ll find in most

places. (interviewee 14, Organisation D)

Several interviewees highlighted the fact that the key principles of the PMM were followed in

their organisations.

In general, the high level principles are adhered to, maybe the detail isn’t quite as much

as it should be. So, we tend to have, a mix is a way people want to do this.

(interviewee 12, Organisation D)

A variety of reasons are provided to why this gap exists. These have been collated in Table 47.

118

Reason Quotation

Personality

The generalisation is that we’re not as strict as we think we are. (Interviewee 18, Organisation G)

Efficiency It’s something that’s not formalised but is widely accepted as a way of being more efficient. (Interviewee 16, Organisation E)

You might flex some of the products, you know, if they’ve done something slightly different and it’s a low risk project but it’s still got the detail it need it might be in a slightly different … you’re not going to die in a ditch over here. (Interviewee 6, Organisation B)

PMM lacks relevance

I think what’s happened is that people have stopped taking it quite so seriously if I’m completely honest and are taking it more of a, it’s a good thing to be doing but let’s not get hung up on particular elements of it. (Interviewee 14, Organisation D)

Table 47. Why practice deviates from process (sample 1)

The first two reasons in Table 47 are individual and efficiency explanations for why someone

might deviate from the defined processes, that it is their nature to work to their own rules or that

they are working in a particular way as it is more efficient. The final reason represents an

organisational factor. If the PMM does not offer benefit to the staff using it, use will decline.

The third stage in the PMM life cycle is ‘Tailor’. PMs are expected to tailor their method to the

needs of the project so the final factor in Table 47 is an entirely acceptable reason for deviation

from the PMM.

It is to be expected but also evident in the data that there is a close correlation between the

reasons why performance can deviate from the standard and the restraining forces on PMMs.

To combat the deviation, organisations use a variety of techniques. For example, organisation

B, who are strongly process-based, use internal assurance teams to carry out ad hoc

compliance checks on projects.

When business cases are reviewed, particularly for the change framework gates three,

four and five, that’s an opportunity to see whether they’re following the change

framework appropriately. (Interviewee 6, Organisation B)

From the responses from participants it is reasonable to conclude that deviation from defined

processes is widespread and there are multiple factors involved. Although the practice may be

widely accepted, negative outcomes may result, for example from a negative audit as might

occur in organisation B. Interviewee 3 noted how the search for more efficient ways of working

should only be permitted when adequate experience had been gained and linked deviation from

the defined processes with experience.

In my mind you can’t take shortcuts until you know the long way round. There may be

some reasonable, let’s say, cost cutting techniques they can employ, because shortcut

never sounds a good phrase, and I think in my experience that’s what I think I bring and

119

that’s what I see other experienced PMs bringing whereas your more junior project

managers need to follow the guidelines very closely. (Interviewee 3, Organisation A)

A further potential downside but this time from not deviating when deviation would be beneficial

is explained by Interviewee 13.

We’ve kind of created this culture where we’ve got a process and the project managers

follow the process. They do what the process says and they stop thinking, they

stopped … it’s almost kind of narrow field of vision. So they’re not getting that pace and

agility that we need to think about and that’s not necessarily the processes inhibiting us

but they’re not thinking about the process. So, the process says, yes we go through

these different gates, so they’re forcing it through all of these different gates.

(interviewee 13, Organisation D)

Here, following the process leads to a loss of creativity and the process was followed even after

it ceased to add value to the organisation. This issue touches on organisational culture and this

particular aspect of conformity versus creativity is discussed in more detail in Section 5.2.4.

The conclusion that must be drawn from this section is that there are gaps between espoused

and in-use processes, that these are widely known and accepted, that there are a variety of

explanatory reasons for the gaps and that the gap can have positive and negative

consequences for organisations.

The importance of context was raised in the interviews which links to the next section where the

focus changes to the first of the three environment variables, maturity.

5.2.3 Maturity

While the majority of the primary data regarding organisational maturity emanated from the

questionnaire because of the incorporation of the maturity assessment, the interviewees were

also asked their views on this topic. The issue was mentioned by 10 interviewees and a total of

19 times (see Table 36, Section 4.7.3).

When selecting a PMM, the participants referenced the need for the method to fit the

organisation. No organisation selected their method in isolation. Instead, the selection process

had to be aware of the environment in which the methods would be used. From the literature

review, this consideration can be framed in terms of organisational maturity and the work of

Kerzner (2013), discussed in Section 3.6.1, who linked the successful deployment of PMMs with

organisations who are at least at level 3 in the maturity hierarchy. While no one made mention

of maturity as a constraining factor, the assumption can be perceived in the responses from

participants. For example, interviewee 5 expressed this requirement concisely when stressing

the need to find the ‘right level’ of features and process for the organisation:

120

It is important to understand what position the organisation is rather than going from

zero to all bells and whistles and too much rigour, it is trying to find the level through

negotiation and discussion with team leaders who represent their teams and others,

whilst insisting upon a minimum kind of process and data set if you will to find out what

the right level is of control that we need to put in place. (Interviewee 5, Organisation A).

None of the interviewees alluded to how the ‘right level of control’ within their PMM was

identified. None reported carrying out any pre-analysis work to provide input to the working

groups as might be expected from the models from authors such as Waterman et al (1980) and

Balogun and Hailey (2008), discussed in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. Explanations for this inability

to identify the appropriate level of control may emanate from a lack of understanding of maturity.

The response from interviewee 1 was typical of organisations that possessed only a vague idea

of their own level of maturity.

I would probably say on a maturity index we are probably quite low in terms of how well

methods are documented, understood, shared, implemented, reviewed and assessed.

(Interviewee 1, Organisation A)

In place of formalised and more objective methods of maturity assessment, organisation A is

using a very subjective method of dubious validity.

What we do do is compare, well, what I have just started doing actually is, been to a

couple of external seminars and compared what we do with other universities. And it

does seem at the moment that we are quite mature in our thinking. (Interviewee 2,

Organisation A)

It is unclear what benefits such an assessment would offer to organisation A and how that could

be translated to the PMM. Other employees in the same organisation display greater

awareness of maturity and a recognition that raising maturity takes time.

We haven’t even thought about that because I don’t even think we’re at a maturity level

1 … where we actually have things written down because we don’t always. We don’t

have the processes all fully documented. Well, documented loosely even and followed

in places so I would have said we’re probably aspirational for one in quite a few areas,

so, you know, we’re a long way from doing any measurements of that sort of thing. …

At the moment, we are probably far from that. (Interviewee 4, Organisation A)

It is evident from organisation A that there is an awareness of maturity and what it involves but

there is no drive or requirement to investigate this area further. This lack of interest in maturity

was mirrored in organisations B, C and D where no maturity assessment had been carried out

in recent years. Interviewee 11 from organisation C apologetically answered “So there are

those maturity models out there, again hand on heart I’ve got to be honest, I haven’t recently

121

used them.” and interviewee 15 from organisation D noted the last assessment was “a few

years ago” and that maturity is not “considered the highest priority at the moment”. The fact that

organisation B had not revisited maturity in the last 8 years could indicate they found little value

in the process. However, interviewee 6 believed their level of maturity to be “somewhere

around the four” which could be interpreted that they have reached their required level of

maturity and needed to assess it no longer but this would seem unlikely given the degree of

change that organisation D is going through (based on the collective interviews from this

organisation).

Where PMM maturity assessments had taken place, and with the exception of organisation D,

they were internal exercises. It was not clear if or how the information has been used.

The questions about the linkage between maturity and industry and project size will be

addressed in the quantitative sections on maturity (6.2.5 and 6.3.5).

While organisation F had not looked into maturity in any way, organisation G had loosely

considered maturity saying “I haven’t measured it in any precise way” (interviewee 17) but then

demonstrated an awareness of the appropriateness of different maturity levels for PMMs. This

echoes the views of Wheatley (2007) and Christoph Albrecht and Sprang (2014) that choosing

the right level of maturity is important. Interviewee 18, organisation G, demonstrated a

preference for more subjective assessment dismissing the notion that higher maturity is better

when she said “I’m kind of not too interested in that kind of stuff [maturity assessment] because

I feel that increasing level maturity … would be aiming to add levels of precision and

repeatability and control that probably, individually our projects don’t warrant”. The literature

review in Section 3.6.1 does suggest that higher levels of maturity are not necessarily beneficial

for organisations but this assessment does require that organisations know their current levels

so that they can make a judgement on the appropriateness of that level for the management of

their projects. It is not clear how interviewee 18 is judging the maturity in her organisation and

may be dismissing the concept purely on the basis of the potential overhead that higher than

necessary levels impose.

The overall view from the participants was that maturity was not a major issue for them and

there was no visible link between maturity and the PMM. While all organisations had a level of

maturity in their project management processes, none knew their level accurately. Few

organisations had benchmarked themselves against others and the benefits of maturity were

known only to a subset. Unawareness of maturity and its impact on performance and PMMs

was also an issue. The extent to which maturity affects the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages was

therefore difficult to determine on the basis of the interview responses.

122

5.2.4 Culture

Culture appeared frequently in the interviews being mentioned by 13 participants and a total of

35 times (see Table 36, Section 4.7.3). The importance of culture in organisations and the

effect this had on PMMs was a recurring theme both from negative and positive perspectives.

In designing the data collection, it had been envisaged that the majority of the information on

culture would have been derived from the questionnaire because of the incorporation of the

OCAI (described in Section 3.7.2). However, the interviews proved to be an unexpectedly rich

source of information in this area.

Interviewee 3, organisation A, highlighted how a negative culture was initially a barrier to

implementing a new PMM. In this organisation, the negative culture was the result of other

changes in the department but the effect was to create a backdrop that inhibited and affected

other initiatives even if they were not connected with those issues originally causing the

negativity. The influence of culture on organisational performance (Hartnell et al 2011;

Sackmann 2011) was expressed very clearly by this participant. This comment suggests that,

even if a PMM will help the organisation, it will be difficult to implement successfully without a

supporting culture being in place. He said:

When I joined two years ago we definitely didn’t have that culture. To be quite honest,

it was a fairly demoralised IT Services group. There were reasons for that. We were

going through a restructure, people were unsure about their future … it was very difficult

to win the hearts and minds of these people. In the last six months that has changed

drastically, I think, and people are much more acceptant that it’s going to arrive.

(Interviewee 3, Organisation A).

The recent change to a more accepting culture in his department has brought about his positive

view of the future implementation of the PMM and the expectation of the linkage between

culture and performance.

The vital importance of culture was summed up by Interviewee 17, organisation F, who

concluded that culture was the most important item in the implementation of their PMM. In this

large health service provider, the need to move to a more collaborative, less departmental, way

of working was seen as a major inhibitor to progress.

Our one biggest stumbling block at the moment, I said that, is our culture. That is

massive. I mean, I think it’s one fundamental thing that we need to tackle because the

way that people work, I’ve never heard the word ‘silos’ used so much here. They work

so much on their own within the organisations … the plan for that is to change the

culture, because that is fundamental to everything we’re doing here. (Interviewee 17,

Organisation F)

123

At the departmental level, multiple participants commented on discrete areas of their

organisation and their intention to create a culture within projects that was specific to these

areas. In this way, culture is being seen more as operational ways of working than a philosophy

and thus something that can be manipulated. The first quote from Interviewee 13, organisation

D, discussed attitudes (rather than cultures but the two are conflated) with regards to project

budget ownership and the desire to change this attitude.

We do have a bit of a silo culture and people get emotionally tied with the money and

they say, it’s my money - I will use it on my stuff and we’re trying to break down some of

those sort of silos and barriers because it’s about doing the right thing for [this

organisation] not necessarily for themselves. We’re trying to get people to see it as

more of the group’s money and value rather than anything else. (Interviewee 13,

Organisation D).

This view of culture is shared by Interviewee 11, organisation C, who made the statement that

“In terms of the culture within the organisation, there’s a very close focus on cost”. Here culture

is seen as being amenable to change based on leadership and management desire in line with

the sources of culture defined by Johnson et al (2008) and Schein (2010) and shown in Table

25, Section 3.7.1. Neither of these two interviewees is using this language to describe their

view of culture but their comments can be interpreted in this way. While some interviewees are

clear on what they want to do to influence their culture, this is not shared by all as this exchange

with Interviewee 13, organisation D, demonstrates:

Interviewer: And do you have a clear view of what culture you’re trying to achieve in

terms of culture change? Do you know where your vision is leading you?

Interviewee: No.

It is possible that this participant had not given thought to how culture can assist or inhibit the

implementation or effectiveness of PMMs. Alternatively, this interviewee may be taking the view

of authors such as Bresnen and Marshall (2000) who suggest that trying to impose culture ends

in failure because of resistance from staff or the creation of unintended consequences, for

example, the substitution of alternate methods, but this interpretation is less likely. As the

interview with participant 13 continued, it became clear that his organisation was working to

influence the culture of the project management team through leadership and encouragement

(steps 3 and 4 in the Culture origins in Table 25, Section 3.7.1) using more of a libertarian

paternalism approach (Thaler and Sunstein 2008). Interviewee 13 said:

The second phase from that was around behaviours. So we took the six attributes of

our new leadership framework and we ran a discussion with the team to say, what do

you think this means to you as a project leader of the future. So it allowed us to take

away and forget that you’re a project manager and you might behave this way or that

way - think about project leader of the future and what might be a positive attribute and

124

a negative attribute. So we tried to get the team sort of talking and discussing and

thinking around that. (Interviewee 13, Organisation D)

The phased approach to the management of projects used by organisation D can be interpreted

as a systematic tactic to influence project culture in their company and it is possible to view this

either as a light-touch implementation of a change strategy or a persistent nudging in the

desired direction. As can be seen from the earlier response from the interviewee, confirmed by

other interviews with the same organisation, this is not seen by organisation D as a systematic

approach but more as a number of phases of work that support the implementation of their

PMM and improve the chances of its success. This is a more likely interpretation than the view

that organisation D sees the influencing of organisation culture as negative.

So far the findings on culture have been descriptive with the interview results being assessed

from different perspectives none of which have displayed any level of conflict. However, as

Cameron and Quinn (2011) suggest in Section 3.7.2, culture, while it may have a dominant type

(based on the OCAI), all organisations have within them a level of conflict caused by the

competing values that exist. No organisation is a pure example of one of the four types but

each will have a level of the other three types within it (Cameron and Quinn 2011). One of

these competing values relates to the potential dilemma between the demands of complying

with the PMM and the need for creativity and problem-solving, two of the key attributes of

project managers (Morris et at 2011). It is contradictory for organisations to, at the same time,

encourage project managers to follow a defined set of procedures and also encourage them to

be innovative and project focused. Interview 18 described this well when he said:

There’s always a certain amount of tension between applying a method across a group

of people and the fact that they’re all very clever and have their own opinions and their

knowledge and all the rest of it so … and you want them to be, by nature of the job,

they’re doing software design which requires them to be creative and R&D which

requires them to be able to challenge things and take risks, and in a sense the project

management is working against parts of the types of people that we want to have, their

mind-sets, so there’s always a tension but I think the tension is as productive and

healthy as it can be. (Interviewee 18, Organisation G)

Reflecting on this section and Section 5.2.2 where this topic also featured, it is clear that culture

has an influence on PMMs. This importance was underlined by Interviewee 17 who

emphasised that culture was the key aspect of the PMM implementation process. Not all of the

different paths of culture that were outlined in Table 25, Section 3.7.1, were reflected in the

interviews. Instead, there was a greater focus on the desire within many of the organisations to

positively influence the culture and thereby make a beneficial contribution to the PMM

implementation. However, as section 3.7 demonstrated, culture is a broad and nebulous

concept and striking the appropriate balance, between for example compliance and innovation,

makes culture a constant tension within PMM implementation.

125

5.2.5 Organisational structure

Only 3 interviewees discussed the issue of organisational structure (see Table 36, Section

4.7.3). Structure did not appear to be an important factor related to PMMs for any of the

participants. Organisational structure for many organisations is a result of prior business

decisions in terms of the organisation of the enterprise. In no interview was the organisational

structure linked to PMMs, either positively or negatively. The use of functional, matrix and

projectised structures had little prominence in the interviews.

The view from the interviews was that PMMs needed to be flexible to cope with a wide variety of

structures and that structure should not be a constraint on managing projects. Interviewee 4

commented on how the matrix structure can be problematic because staff can be involved in

multiple and potentially conflicting projects when he said “they do a mixture of support and

development, which can have issues”, a general response to matrix management rather than

anything specific to PMMs.

Interviewee 15 identified how the structure can complicate communication by saying:

that’s where our organisation structure makes things a bit tricky because you would

have to be targeting the different areas and there is no one kind of overseeing body that

can do that so as a group of PMO’s we would agree and then we’d roll out through our

PMs. (Interviewee 15, Organisation D)

While the creation of a Project or Programme Management Office (PMO) was one structure that

many organisations had adopted, this follows the recent trend in companies that carry out

project management (Morris et al 2011; Kerzner 2013; Pinto 2013). The PMO is frequently

used because of its capacity to act as a central hub for project management related information

and processes that cuts across organisational structures and provides a focal point (Morris et al

2011). Recognising that project management exists in many divisions of an organisation, the

PMO can add benefit in co-ordinating activities. The co-ordinating role of the PMO was

recognised by interviewee 15 who said:

One of the things that we have done in the last 12 months has been to create a

community, a PMO community, so recognising that we’re all in different areas,

recognising that we may be operating slightly differently, but let’s try where we can, to

operate as an [organisation] PMO and see if we can pick up some key areas that we

might focus on and try to do that as similarly as possible and that’s having, you know,

some affect, again with anything, change takes time. (Interviewee 15, Organisation D)

The previous section addressed the issues around culture and PMMs. One interviewee

connected PMOs to culture to demonstrate that culture extends to all facets of the business. In

the same way that culture can be linked to performance, Interviewee 17 makes the point that

126

the success of different organisational structures can be supported or inhibited by culture. He

said:

So, as much as we’re trying to implant the PRINCE framework, or the PMO framework,

I should say, it doesn’t really fit in with the way the culture is at the moment.

(Interviewee 17, Organisation F)

While not strictly organisational structures in the way this question was intended, PMOs are

structural elements in organisations. PMOs, if they exist, are usually the owners of a PMM in an

organisation (Kerzner 2013) and are therefore important organisational elements for companies.

Other than the PMO, the evidence from the interviews is that whether the organisation uses a

functional, matrix or projectised structure, there is little visible relationship to PMMs.

5.3 Conclusion

Interview data is vital to this research because it provides insights that are unlikely to be

available via other means. The questions around ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ have allowed these

stages in the PMM life cycle to be investigated in detail in this chapter, shedding an informative

light on how organisations approach these stages. Based on the literature, models for the

‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages were developed but, in light of the findings in this chapter, these

models proved to be poor predictors of the realities of selecting and embedding the PMM. On

the basis of the organisations in this research, none were found to operate in a structured,

process-driven way with regard to these stages and there was no evident use of the available

models. The impact on PMMs of the environmental variables, maturity, culture and

organisational structure can be estimated by the responses to the interview questions and the

prevalence of related key words in the thematic analysis. Based on the assessment of these

two aspects, it can be concluded that maturity has little influence, culture a strong influence and

organisational structure little influence on PMMs.

Having assessed the qualitative research information, the next chapter investigates the

questionnaire data that was collected.

127

6 Quantitative findings and analysis

6.1 Introduction

This chapter presents the findings from the quantitative primary data from this project and

comprises the questionnaire responses from sample 2 (staff from participating organisations)

and sample 3 (other project management professionals). The data from samples 2 and 3 is

presented separately in order that similarities and differences in the results can be discussed in

the next chapter.

The sections for samples 2 and 3 follow the same structure. They begin with an overview of the

survey participants so that the reader can gain an understanding of the range of people who

participated. Next, there is an assessment of the respondents’ suitability to provide data for this

research. This is followed by descriptive and analytical results for each section of the

questionnaire. The statistical tests, described in Section 4.8.2, were duplicated for sample 3 to

facilitate comparison.

Question numbers are used to provide a link to the questionnaire which can be seen in

Appendix 11.

In order to conduct analysis on some of the response data, new variables were created in

SPSS. A description of the data transformations can be seen in Appendix 12.


Sample 2 comprised project staff working in the organisations that participated in this research.

While the original intention had been to collect data from all seven participating organisations, it

was only possible to collect responses from four of the organisations. These four organisations

are identified by the letter codes defined in Table 41, Section 5.1 and contributed the 28

responses that comprise sample 2.

6.2.1 Descriptive statistics about sample 2

The participants came from the private sector (43%) and public sector (57%). The breakdown

of the data is displayed in Table 48.

Sector Frequency Percent

Public 16 57.1

Private 12 42.9

Total 28 100.0

Table 48. Sector analysis (sample 2)

Table 49 shows that participants reported more industries than there were organisations. All

the diversity in the table derives from the large industrial organisation whose employees report

themselves as working in the different industries in which the company operates.

128

Industry Frequency Percent

Education 3 10.7

Energy 2 7.1

Finance 2 7.1

Government 12 42.9

IT 2 7.1

Manufacturing 2 7.1

Other 5 17.9

Total 28 100.0

Table 49. Industry analysis (sample 2)

The next Table, 50, shows in which department respondents worked.

Department Frequency Percent

IT/IS/ITC 17 60.7

Communications/Telecommunications 1 3.6

Customer Service/Support 1 3.6

Executive/Corporate/General Management/Administration 1 3.6

Financial Services/Accounting/Finance 2 7.1

Other 6 21.4

Total 28 100.0

Table 50. Department analysis (sample 2)

Table 50 shows that a majority of respondents work within IT/IS departments. Other

departments are represented reflecting how project management is no longer concentrated in a

centralised area but is distributed throughout organisations.

Question 8 asked about the number of projects started each year. Sample 2 responses are

shown in Table 51, disaggregated by organisation. It can be seen that organisation A has the

fewest projects but that B and C carry out a large number of projects.

Organisation 6-30 31-99 100-199 >200 Don't know

Org A 2 1

Org B 1 3 4 4

Org C 1 2 5 2

Org D 2 1

Total 3 3 5 9 8

Table 51. Number of projects started (sample 2)

Question 9 asked about the average duration of a project. Table 52 shows the modal duration

to be 7-18 months.

129

Organisation 1-6

months 7-18

months >18

months Don't know

Org A 1 2

Org B 5 2 5

Org C 2 4 4

Org D 3

Total 2 13 2 11

Table 52. Project duration (sample 2)

The next question, 10, elicited information on the number of full time equivalent project

managers working in the organisation. Table 53 shows that organisations B and C had the

most project managers.

Organisation <5 6-25 26-99 100-249 >250 Don't know

Org A 2 1

Org B 2 5 5

Org C 3 1 4 2

Org D 1 1 1

Total 5 2 1 3 9 8

Table 53. Number of project managers (sample 2)

This section has reflected the composition of sample 2 and how they comprise a range of public

and private sector organisations and a number of different industries and departments.

Questions 8 – 10 show that organisations start more than 200 projects per annum, the duration

is 7–18 months and the organisations employ more than 250 project managers.

6.2.2 Validity of sample 2

This section of the chapter assesses the validity of sample 2 based on their responses to

questions about their role, their experience and the time they spend working in projects. It is

vital to establish the sample’s validity if credence is to be given to their responses to the

questionnaire. This section has not been disaggregated by organisation because the question

of validity is looking at sample 2 as a whole. Participants were asked about their role in

question 34. The responses, listed in Table 54, show that 93% of respondents work in projects.

Role Frequency Percent

Project Manager 16 57.1

Programme Manager 5 17.9

Project team member 2 7.1

Project management consultant 2 7.1

Governance/risk staff 1 3.6

Other 1 3.6

Missing 1 3.6

Total 28 100.0

Table 54. Role analysis (sample 2)

130

Question 35 asked for how many years the participants have been employed in their

organisation. Table 55 shows that 85% of participants have been employed for more than 3

years and that 46% have more than 10 years of service.

Years of employment Frequency Percent

<3 4 14.3

3-6 7 25.0

7-10 3 10.7

>10 13 46.4

Total 27 100.0

Table 55. Years of employment (sample 2)

Question 36 was used to identify the number of years the participants have worked in the

project sphere. The results are shown in Table 56.

Years in projects Frequency Percent

<5 5 17.9

5-10 6 21.4

>10 17 60.7

Total 28 100.0

Table 56. Years in projects (sample 2)

While 18% had less than 5 years of experience, over 60% reported more than a decade of

working in projects. The age groups for the participants is shown in Table 57. These data were

sourced from question 42. This Table demonstrates that a broad range of ages were included

in the research with the modal age range being 46 to 55.

Age category Frequency Percent

26-35 5 17.9

36-45 7 25.0

46-55 12 42.9

56-65 4 14.3

Total 28 100.0

Table 57. Age categories (sample 2)

Question 37 identified how many projects the participants had managed. Four options were

available but sample 2 only responded to two. The results are shown in Table 58.

Projects managed Frequency Percent

1-24 22 78.6

>50 6 21.4

Total 28 100.0

Table 58. Projects managed (sample 2)

131

Table 58 shows that the majority of participants (79%) have managed between 1 and 24

projects and the remainder report managing over 50 projects.

Table 59 shows the percentage of time that respondents spent in a project environment

(question 40). Three options were available to participants which segmented time into three

equal portions.

Time devoted to projects Frequency Percent

<33% 1 3.6

33%-66% 7 25.0

>66% 19 67.9

Total 27 100.0

Table 59. Time devoted to projects (sample 2)

The answers to this question show that 68% of respondents spent more than 66% of their time

working in projects.

In addition to the time spent working in projects, participants were also asked how much time

was given to project management (question 41). Again, three equal proportions were available

from which to select.

Time devoted to PM Frequency Percent

<33% 3 10.7

33%-66% 6 21.4

>66% 19 67.9

Total 28 100.0

Table 60. Time devoted to project management (sample 2)

Table 60 shows that 68% of respondents spent more than 66% of their time in project

management.

132

Finally, Question 39 asked participants to rate their confidence in project management on a

scale of 1 (low) to 10 (high). Figure 26 is the bar chart of the responses.

Figure 26. Confidence in project management (sample 2)

Sample 2 had a mean score of 78% confidence in project management (m=7.84, sd=1.4,

n=25).

This section has demonstrated that the participants from sample 2 work in the project

management sphere, spend the majority of their working time in projects and in project

management, have high confidence in project management and have demonstrable project

management and working experience. The conclusion can therefore be drawn that the

participants represent the desired population for this research and that their views can be taken

as representative of the wider population of project management professionals.

The next section assesses the organisational perspective of PMMs.

6.2.3 PMMs – the organisational perspective

In the questionnaire, 11 questions asked the respondents about PMMs in their organisation.

These were questions 11 – 15, 17 (part), 18, 20 – 23. This section describes and analyses their

responses to these questions.

Question 11 asked the respondents to identify the drivers for projects in their organisation. A

number of the more frequent reasons for undertaking projects were included in the list and the

respondents were able to add additional reasons. The drivers are listed in Table 61 with the

frequency with which they were mentioned:

133

Organisation Bu

sin

ess

need

Reven

ue

gro

wth

Co

st

red

ucti

on

Leg

al/

re

gu

lato

ry

Tech

no

log

y

refr

esh

Oth

er

Org A 3 1 2 1 3

Org B 11 9 11 12 10 1

Org C 10 6 9 6 9

Org D 3 2 3 3 3

Total 27 18 25 22 25 1

Table 61. Drivers for projects (sample 2)

This question shows the variety of reasons for initiating a project in organisations. 27 of the 28,

96%, of respondents cited business need as a rationale which demonstrated the link between

strategy and projects that was identified in the normative decision making model (Figure 6,

Section 3.2.1). Cost reduction and profit improvement were identified by 90% of respondents

with public sector respondents being more likely to identify cost reduction as the rationale (10

versus 8) and also more likely (13 versus 12) to identify revenue growth as the rationale. The

financial imperative for private sector organisations is logical but the importance of cost

reduction could be anticipated given the public sector’s need to reduce costs. As the

respondents operated in IT/IS environments, it would be expected that a proportion of projects

were driven by the need to update existing infrastructure. The final major driver for projects was

legal/regulatory requirements which are external to the organisation and emphasise the

importance of the environment to organisations. The additional reason given was ‘ministerial

imperative’ which recognises another legal/regulatory driver for projects.

Questions 12 and 13. From the perspective of who is involved in the process to select a PMM,

the data shows that only 18% from sample 2 were involved. The responses to this question are

shown in Table 62 with the two larger organisations, B & C, showing similar results.

Organisation Involved Percentage

Org A 1 33.3%

Org B 2 16.7%

Org C 1 10.0%

Org D 1 33.3%

Total 5

Table 62. Involvement in the ‘Select’ process (sample 2)

The role of the five people who have been involved in selection was project manager and 45%

of project managers were involved. It was expected that some of the other roles in sample 2

(for example programme manager) would have been involved but this was not reflected in the

data. From the interview feedback, it has been established that the PMMs in some

organisations have been in operation for many years. It is possible that the respondents were

not involved because they were not working in the organisation when the PMM was selected.

134

This explanation is supported by the information on the number of years the respondents have

worked in their current organisation. Question 35 shows that 46% of sample 2 respondents had

been with their current organisation for a decade or more. To better understand the

involvement rates, a cross tabulation was conducted with sector. A new variable called

involved_in_select was created containing the dichotomous answers to whether respondents

were involved to simplify this analysis by removing the ‘other’ category. A chi squared test for

independence of involved_in_select and sector could not be conducted because the

requirements for the test were not met. However, a visual inspection showed some differences

between the sectors with 33% of public sector staff and 9% of private sector staff involved.

There was no follow-up question to ask why respondents were not involved. However,

everyone was asked if they felt project managers should be involved in the process. The

responses are shown in Table 63 and shows that the majority of respondents (71%) agreed on

the desire to be involved in selecting the process they would subsequently be expected to use.

There was a similar pattern of responses across organisations.

Organisation En

tire

ly

dis

ag

ree

Mo

stl

y

dis

ag

ree

So

mew

hat

dis

ag

ree

Un

decid

ed

So

mew

hat

ag

ree

Mo

stl

y

ag

ree

En

tire

ly

ag

ree

Org A 1 1 1

Org B 2 1 2 2 3 2

Org C 1 1 3 4 1

Org D 1 2

Total 3 3 2 7 8 5

Table 63. Should PMs be involved in selection? (sample 2)

The fact that twice as many people believe that PMs should be involved in ‘Select’ than are

involved suggests there is a potential gap between expectation and reality. To what extent the

requests for involvement are valid cannot be answered from the available data.

Question 14 asked respondents about the criteria for using the PMM. Respondents could tick

multiple boxes in the question. The results are shown in Table 64.

Organisation Yes.

Man

dato

ry

Dep

en

ds o

n

bu

sin

ess

are

a

Dep

en

ds o

n

du

rati

on

Dep

en

ds o

n

co

st

Dep

en

ds o

n

PM

Org A 1 1

Org B 11 1

Org C 9 2 1 1

Org D 3 1

Total 24 4 1 1 1

Table 64. Criteria for using a PMM (sample 2)

135

The total number of responses exceeded the number of respondents because some

respondents ticked multiple ‘it depends’ categories demonstrating the use of the PMM was

optional under a number of criteria in their organisation. However, the majority of respondents

only chose the mandatory option demonstrating the uniformity with which PMMs are used in

sample 2.

Question 15 asked which PMMs are currently used in the organisation. Five options were

presented to the participants; PRINCE2 or based on PRINCE2, PMBOK or based on PMBOK,

ISO 21500 or based on 21500, in-house method and other. The results are shown in Table 65.

Organisation PR

INC

E2 o

r b

ase

d o

n

PM

BO

K o

r b

ase

d o

n

ISO

21500

In-h

ou

se

meth

od

Oth

er

Org A 3 1

Org B 10 1 5 4

Org C 1 1 9

Org D 1 2 1

Total 15 2 17 5

Table 65. PMM in use (sample 2)

Table 65 shows the dominance of PRINCE2 in the participating organisations which could be

anticipated given the focus on UK organisations from a region where PRINCE2 is the de facto

standard. The ISO standard for project management, 21500, also featured in the data with 2

respondents reporting alignment to this standard. The most popular choice was ‘in-house

method’, selected by 44% of respondents. ‘Other’ was a popular choice with all five

respondents identifying agile as their project management method.

Question 17 asked for participants’ views on PMMs in their organisation both from an

embedding and personal perspective. The question was divided into sub questions, each a 7

point Likert item question using the range of agreement from Entirely disagree to Entirely agree

and Don’t know. Of the 11 sub-questions, the 6 relating to the embedding of PMMs are

discussed here. The remaining 5 sub-questions are discussed in 6.2.4. Table 66 displays the

organisational results shown as rounded up percentages.

136

Questions En

tire

ly

dis

ag

ree

Mo

stl

y

dis

ag

ree

So

mew

hat

dis

ag

ree

Un

decid

ed

So

mew

hat

ag

ree

Mo

stl

y

ag

ree

En

tire

ly

ag

ree

Do

no

t

kn

ow

17.1 The rationale for using PMMs is understood across the organisation?

4% 14% 14% 14% 32% 21%

17.2 Senior managers fully support the use of PMMs

14% 11% 11% 36% 29%

17.3 Project managers fully support the use of PMMs

4% 14% 4% 4% 36% 40%

17.4 Project team members fully support the use of PMMs

4% 7% 18% 14% 29% 29%

17.5 PMMs contribute to organisational success?

4% 4% 7% 11% 43% 32%

17.9 Your organisation provides adequate training in the PMM(s)?

7% 4% 21% 32% 36%

Table 66. Embedding of PMMs (sample 2)

The most positive response was to the question whether project managers support the PMM.

Most respondents agree that organisation provides adequate training, that the PMM rationale is

understood and PMMs are supported by senior managers and project teams. There was not

universal agreement to the questions however. There was a level of disagreement in all the

questions with the strongest dissent relating to organisational training for PMMs and the most

disagreement came from the rationale for using the PMM.

To be able to conduct statistical analysis on question 17, answers were recoded into new

variables called q17_x_no8 which excluded the final option in the Likert range ‘Don’t know’. A

mean of the six sub questions was computed into a new variable called pmm_embedding to

generate a Likert scale. The possibility for the type questions to form a scale variable was

confirmed by using the Cronbach Alpha coefficient which showed an alpha of 0.941, proving

excellent internal consistency. The mean score of 5.4 (sd=1.5, n=28) demonstrates how

sample 2 is recording 77% agreement on the range of indicators of PMM embedding.

Question 18 was a multi-part question looking at how organisations tailor PMMs. The first part

of this question asked to what extent processes could be tailored. The responses are shown in

Table 67.

137

Organisation No

tail

ori

ng

Lim

ited

ta

ilo

rin

g

Fu

ll t

ailo

rin

g

Org A 2 1

Org B 9 3

Org C 1 9

Org D 2 1

Total 1 22 5

Table 67. Process tailoring (sample 2)

Table 67 shows that only 1 participant reported that the processes in use could not be modified.

5 respondents indicated that all the processes could be tailored. The modal response was that

some of the processes were tailorable, a view consistent across all organisations. If the

processes could be tailored, the second part of the question asked about the rationale. For this

question, respondents could choose multiple options. Table 68 shows the responses.

Organisation Based

on

o

rgan

isati

on

al

rule

s

Based

on

o

rgan

isati

on

al

reco

mm

en

dati

on

s

Based

on

PM

exp

eri

en

ce

Oth

er

Org A 3

Org B 7 4 8 2

Org C 7 3 6 1

Org D 2 3

Total 14 9 20 3

Table 68. Rationale for tailoring (sample 2)

Table 68 shows that tailoring is influenced by primarily based on the experience of the PM and

then by rules and recommendations. The larger organisations, B and C, gave equal weight to

the rules (rather than recommendations) and the experience of the PM. The smaller

organisations, A and D, were more likely to tailor based on recommendations or experience with

organisation A only tailoring based on experience.

The ‘other’ three answers to this question all related to project characteristics for example size

and complexity.

138

Questions 20 and 21 are key to this research. These questions ask how well the PMM was

implemented and the benefit from using the PMM. These variables are used repeatedly as

dependent variables in statistical tests that follow. The first variable is PMM implementation

success. The responses to this question have been tabulated in Table 69 and shown

graphically in Figure 27. In the table, 1 represents poor and 10 excellent levels of

implementation success.

Organisation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Org A 1 1 1

Org B 1 2 3 4 2

Org C 1 1 2 5 1

Org D 1 1 1

Total 1 1 2 2 3 5 11 2 1

Table 69. Implementation success (sample 2)

Figure 27. Implementation success (sample 2)

The average implementation success rate was 69% (m=6.86, sd=1.9, mode=8, n=28). The

larger organisations, B and C, reported higher levels of implementation success than

organisations A and D with the smaller organisations also displaying a greater variability in their

results.

While the variable demonstrates the level of implementation success for respondents, it is also

used as a dependent variable to assess whether other variables such as culture or maturity are

associated with it. As a scale variable in the dataset, preliminary analysis was undertaken to

check the level of normality in the responses. It was important to establish if the variable was to

be used in tests where normally distributed data was an assumption of the test. The skewness

and kurtosis values of -0.967 and 0.527 respectively were within the boundaries which meant

the data passed the normality test.

139

The second variable was PMM benefit. The questionnaire asked respondents to assess how

beneficial the PMM had been for their organisation. The responses to this question have been

tabulated in Table 70 and shown graphically in Figure 28. In the Table, 1 represents very low

and 10 very high levels of benefit.

Organisation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Org A 1 1 1

Org B 1 2 2 5 2

Org C 1 2 4 1 2

Org D 1 1 1

Total 2 1 2 3 4 10 4 2

Table 70. PMM benefit (sample 2)

Figure 28. PMM benefit (sample 2)

Compared to implementation success, there was a moderately more positive view and smaller

spread of results for PMM benefit. The average benefit from PMMs was 72% (m=7.21,

sd=1.9, mode=8, n=28). The pattern seen in implementation success was repeated in the

answers to this question with the larger organisations reporting higher levels of benefit.

The normality of this variable was checked prior to any analysis being undertaken. The

skewness and kurtosis values of -0.845 and 0.234 respectively meant the variable could be

treated as being normally distributed and analysed accordingly.

The relationship between implementation success and PMM benefit was investigated using

Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient. There was a strong, positive correlation

between the two variables, r=0.852, n=28, p<0.0005, with high levels of implementation

140

success associated with high organisational benefit. The association can be seen in the

correlation scatter plot in Figure 29.

Figure 29. Implementation success and PMM benefit scatter plot (sample 2)

This analysis underscores the importance of embedding in the PMM life cycle because the

quality of the implementation process has a strong association for the benefits organisations

gain from using the method. It is not possible to make the statement that a high quality

implementation leads to benefits from the PMM, only that these two variables are highly

associated.

The finding in Wells (2012) that experience was related to the benefit from PMMs was tested.

Wells (2012) found that more experienced staff find more organisational benefit from PMM

whereas less experienced staff find more personal benefit. In this research, project

management experience was segmented into three groups; less than 5 years, 5–10 years and

more than 10 years. No scale is given in Wells’s (2012 p56) research for experience making a

direct comparison impossible. A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted

between years of experience and organisational benefit. No statistically significant differences

were identified, F (2, 27)=2.315, p=0.120, although the ‘U’ shaped result reported in Wells was

partially seen in sample 2 with respondents with more than 10 years of experience seeing

greater organisational benefit that those with 5–10 years of experience.

Question 22 asked about the most valuable aspect of a PMM to an organisation. Respondents

were presented with 7 choices with the option of adding their own aspect. The results of this

question are shown in Table 71.

141

Organisation Overa

ll

meth

od

Co

mm

on

la

ng

uag

e

Wid

e

ap

pli

cab

ilit

y

Co

ntr

ol

– t

imelin

ess

Co

ntr

ol

– c

os

t

Co

ntr

ol

– p

eo

ple

Co

ntr

ol

– q

ua

lity

Oth

er

Org A 1 1

Org B 3 3 1 2 1 1 1

Org C 4 3 1 2

Org D 2 1

Total 7 5 1 3 5 2 4

Table 71. Most valuable aspect of a PMM (sample 2)

Based on the literature, it was expected that the first option, the ‘overall method’ would have

been chosen most frequently because the benefits of PMM can accrue from using all the

aspects. While ‘the overall method’ was the most frequent answer, cost and quality control and

the use of a common language each received five votes. The two organisations that chose the

‘overall method’ were B and C, the larger organisation. The wide range of views on the most

valuable aspect of a PMM reflects how organisations are valuing different component parts of

the PMM and are perhaps using the methods available to help manage those aspects of the

project that are most important to them.

Question 23 asked how PMMs are supported in the organisation. Likert-type responses to five

questions using an agreement scale are shown in Table 72, using rounded up percentages.

Questions En

tire

ly

dis

ag

ree

Mo

stl

y

dis

ag

ree

So

mew

hat

dis

ag

ree

Un

decid

ed

So

mew

hat

ag

ree

Mo

stl

y

ag

ree

En

tire

ly

ag

ree

Do

no

t kn

ow

23.1. The PMMs are kept

up to date 7% 4% 4% 18% 36% 32%

23.2 The PMMs are supported by templates and exemplars

7% 21% 32% 40%

23.3 The PMMs are well documented

7% 4% 29% 18% 43%

23.4 The PMMs are supported by a project support office

7% 4% 4% 11% 7% 68%

23.5 You have the opportunity to suggest improvements to the PMM

4% 11% 4% 14% 18% 50%

Table 72. How PMMs are supported (sample 2)

The overall view from sample 2 is that the PMMs are well supported within organisations

because the majority of answers are in agreement. The modal answers to all five questions are

either ‘mostly agree’ or ‘entirely agree’. The area with the strongest agreement related to the

142

support given to PMMs by the project support office. Keeping the PMM up to date was the area

with weakest agreement.

To be able to conduct statistical analysis on question 23, answers to this question were recoded

into new variables called q23_x_no8 which excluded the final option in the Likert range ‘Don’t

know’. A mean of the five sub questions was computed into a new variable called

pmm_support to generate a Likert scale. These two transformations are described in Appendix

12. The Cronbach alpha coefficient of 0.917 shows that this scale has excellent reliability. The

mean score of 84% (m=5.9, sd=1.3, n=28) demonstrates that sample 2 strongly agrees that

PMMs are supported in their organisations.

As the variable pmm_support passed the normality test, it was used to investigate a relationship

with the PMM implementation success and PMM benefit using Pearson’s product-moment

correlation coefficient. There was a significant but weak correlation between pmm_support and

implementation success (r=0.412, n=28, p<0.05) and no significant relationship between

pmm_support and PMM benefit (r=0.346, n=28, p=0.071).

Concluding this section on the organisational view of PMMs by the participating organisations, it

is clear that a detailed understanding of the use of PMMs in their organisations has been

uncovered. From a ‘Select’ point of view, 45% of sample 2 was involved in the process but 71%

feel that PMs should be involved in selecting the PMM. Sample 2 are deeply entrenched in

PMMs. 86% report that using the PMM is mandatory with the use for other respondents being

dependent on project-related factors. PRINCE2 and in-house methods are the dominant

methods. 77% agree that that the PMM is embedded and 84% that the PMM is supported.

Implementation success averages at 69% and PMM benefit at 72%. The advantages of using

PMMs appear to be linked to organisation size with the larger organisations in this sample, B

and C, frequently reporting greater levels of advantage but the sample size is too small to

suggest this is a significant finding. The main benefits accrue from the overall methods but

other factors such as cost and quality control and the use of a common language are also

highlighted as positive elements of PMMs.

In the next section, the focus changes from the organisational to the personal aspects of PMMs.

6.2.4 PMMs – the personal perspective

While the questionnaire was primarily focused on the organisational perspective as discussed in

the previous section, there were 3 questions that asked about respondent’s own experiences of

PMMs. This personal perspective was investigated in questions 16, 17 (part) and 19. In

addition, page 9 of the questionnaire asked about the respondent. Most of the responses have

been used in 6.2.2 to assess the credibility of sample 2 to participate in the questionnaire and

this section describes the responses to the remaining item (question 38). As this section

focused on personal views, the results have not been disaggregated by organisation as in the

previous section.

143

Question 16 asked how many distinct project management methods the respondent used. The

range of options was none, 1, 2 or more than 2. The responses appear in Table 73.

Distinct PMMs Frequency Percent

None 2 7.1

1 13 46.4

2 9 32.1

>2 4 14.3

Total 28 100.0

Table 73. Number of distinct PMMs (sample 2)

Table 73 shows that approximately half (46%) of respondents use a single method, 32% two

methods and 14% more than 2 PMMs.

Question 17 shed light on the individual experiences of using PMMs. This was a multipart

question with sub-questions 17.6 – 17.8 and 17.10 – 17.11 being relevant to the individual’s

alignment with the PMM in terms of following the method, not finding it restrictive and being

supported with training and certification in the method. The responses, in rounded percentages,

are shown in Table 74.

Questions En

tire

ly

dis

ag

ree

Mo

stl

y

dis

ag

ree

So

mew

hat

dis

ag

ree

Un

decid

ed

So

mew

hat

ag

ree

Mo

stl

y

ag

ree

En

tire

ly

ag

ree

Do

no

t kn

ow

17.6 Using the PMM(s) was a big personal change for me?

11% 14% 29% 4% 25% 14% 4%

17.7 Using PMMs restrict your ability to manage your projects effectively?

18% 25% 21% 7% 11% 14% 4%

17.8 You follow the PMM most of the time?

4% 4% 14% 32% 46%

17.10 You are fully trained in the PMM(s)?

4% 7% 7% 7% 32% 42%

17.11 The organisation supports you in gaining certification in PMM

7% 4% 4% 18% 21% 46%

Table 74. Alignment with PMMs (sample 2)

The data transformations described in 6.2.3 for these questions were also conducted for the

remaining 5 sub questions of question 17. The negatively worded sub question 17.7 was

reversed into the variable q17_7_no8 as described in Appendix 12. The Likert scale

pmm_alignment was tested using the Cronbach alpha technique producing a coefficient of 0.5

which suggest the scale is an unreliable measure of PMM alignment. The scale would be made

more reliable by the exclusion of question 17.6 (alpha of 0.595) or the exclusion of question

17.7 (alpha of 0.677). Removing question 17.6 from the scale is defensible on the grounds that

144

the amount of personal transformation in respondents is probably not an indicator of their

willingness to align with the method. Removing question 17.7 is a more doubtful decision

because respondents are likely to be more aligned to the method if they believe it does not

restrict their ability to manage projects effectively. As a result, the scale variable

pmm_alignment was recalculated to comprise 17.7, 17.8, 17.10 and 17.11. The resulting alpha

coefficient was 0.6 which can be interpreted as moderate reliability. The mean value of

pmm_alignment of 5.6 demonstrates that sample 2 is closely aligned to the PMM with an overall

agreement score of 80%. A paired samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the embedding

and alignment aspects of PMMs. There was no statistically significant difference in the

embedding view (m=5.4, sd=1.5) and the alignment view (m=5.6, sd=1.1), t=(28)=-0.720,

p=0.477 in sample 2 which shows that positive views of embedding are associated with positive

views of alignment and the same for negative views.

Question 19 asked why the participants did not always follow the PMM. There were responses

from 6 people. Not following the defined method, or tailoring, can be considered to be a positive

reason why the espoused processes are not followed. This is what PMM suppliers expect to

happen (OGC 2009; PMI 2017b). However, this concept could have a more negative

connotation where the agreed/defined processes are not being followed for reasons other than

those expected or endorsed by the process. The responses were analysed and grouped in

categories of similar responses. The perspective taken to ascertain whether the reason for the

deviation was positive or negative was that of the PMM process. If an actor varied the process

in a way that made the method less efficient, that was seen as negative whereas a beneficial

change was seen as positive. The resulting analysis is shown in Table 75.

During the analysis of the whole dataset, it became apparent that the rationale for tailoring could

be considered to have a positive or negative direction. The positive direction links to the aspect

of tailoring that has just been discussed. Where respondents were considered to have positive

reasons for deviation, the reasons given included working more efficiently, matching the

process to the needs of the project and varying the degree to which the processes are used

rather than using all the processes all of the time. Changing the process because of constraints

external to the project was categorised as a negative direction.

Direction Rationale Frequency Percent

Positive Tailoring. Meeting the demands of the project. Taking a more flexible approach. Scalability. Included in this category were changes made to the PMM due to customer requirements.

5 83.3

Negative Constraints. “Time, resources and senior management do not always allow for PMMs to be followed to the letter”.

1 16.6

Table 75. Rationale for deviating from a PMM (sample 2)

The predominant view (83%) was that the rationale for deviation was positive in that PMMs

were being tailored to the needs of the project to improve the efficiency of the method. The

145

negative rationale gives voice to the fact that PMMs exist in environments where the priority

may not always be the efficiency of the method or the delivery of the project.

To further complicate the matter, whether an actor in a project is following the defined PMM

may not always be clear so there is an added level of complexity in that a respondent to a

questionnaire may not say they deviated from the process if the deviation was not easily

detectable. This factor might influence the reporting of the level of non-compliance with the

PMM.

Question 38 investigated the use of PMMs, certification and how respondents have benefited

from using PMMs. Table 76 displays the range and numbers of qualifications achieved by

sample 2. As would be expected from a sample drawn from the UK, there is a dominance of

qualifications from bodies that are most active in the UK, the APMG and APM.

Qualifications Frequency Percent

PRINCE2 foundation (APMG) 17 60.7

PRINCE2 practitioner (APMG) 15 53.6

MSP (APMG) 9 32.1

APMP (APM) 6 21.4

In-house 8 28.6

Other 5 17.9

Table 76. Qualifications (sample 2)

The other qualifications encompassed agile, the APM Registered Project Professional, PPSO

(Programme and Project Support Office) and the APMG Change Management Practitioner. As

respondents could possess multiple qualifications, the number of qualifications was summed to

give a total number of qualifications per individual. For sample 2, the average was very close to

2 qualifications per person (m=1.96, sd=1.14, n=28).

The next sub question asked the extent to which project management training and certification

had developed knowledge skills and attitudes on a scale of 1 (little) to 10 (greatly). The

responses are shown in the bar chart in Figure 30. For sample 2, the mean value of 7.4

suggests respondents are seeing value from training and certification (m=7.4, sd=1.5, n=24).

146

Figure 30. Contribution from training and certification (sample 2)

The last sub question asked about the extent to which the respondent had made an increased

contribution to the organisation because of the training and certification, using the same scale.

Figure 31 shows the results from this question.

Figure 31. Contribution to the organisation (sample 2)

The mean value of 7.6 suggest that respondents do feel they are making a greater contribution

because of their training and certification (m=7.6, sd=1.3, n=25).

The relationship between the extent to which training and certification has developed

knowledge, skills and attitudes and the extent to which training and certification in PMMs have

facilitated greater organisational benefit was investigated using Spearman’s rank order

correlation coefficient because the two variables failed the normality test. There was a

147

moderate positive correlation which suggests that training and certification is moderately

correlated with contribution to the organisation (r=0.565, n=24, p<0.004).

The personal perspectives on PMMs have been explored in this section. In sample 2 the

majority of respondents, 46%, used a single method but the same percentage, 46%, used two

or more methods. This was a surprising result because the wide application of a PMM means it

should be appropriate to a broad range of uses in organisations. In sample 2, 80% were found

to be aligned to the method in terms of following the method, finding it was not restrictive and

being trained and certified in its use.

Where respondents were not following the method all of the time, 83% did so for positive

reasons, that is, tailoring or improving the efficiency of the method. Sample 2 averaged 2

qualifications per person and these were aligned with the certifying bodies in the UK: APMG

and APM. The average level of benefit of training and certifications to the individual was 74%

and to the organisation 76%. With the exception of the issue of the number of methods used, it

can be concluded that sample 2 are individually aligned to the PMMs and seeing personal and

organisation benefits from training and certification.

In the next section, the focus changes to the first of the environmental factors surrounding

PMMs, organisational maturity.

6.2.5 Maturity

Core to the questionnaire were questions about the organisation’s level of maturity which

enabled an overall maturity level to be determined using the scale in Table 23, Section 3.6.1.

The measure of maturity focused at the project-level. The areas being measured were;

management control, benefits management, financial management, stakeholder engagement,

risk management, organisational governance and resource management.

The internal reliability of the 6 item scale was assessed using the Cronbach alpha technique.

The scale produced an alpha of 0.895, a highly acceptable value demonstrating excellent

association (Burns and Burns 2013). The alpha score showed that the respondents’ data on

maturity was reliable and could be used for analysis.

Project-level maturity was averaged across these 6 areas with the result that the finer detail was

lost. Before analysis began on maturity, the data was transformed to correct the scale so that

the responses aligned with Table 23, Section 3.6.1, and a new interval variable called

MeanMaturity was created. To allow further analysis, a new nominal variable,

MeanMaturityGroup, was created which grouped maturity into the 5 levels (awareness,

repeatable, defined, managed and optimised as described in Table 23). These transformations

are described in Appendix 12. It is recognised that the process of combining the original,

granular multivariate data into a single number loses detail but this process does facilitate

analysis that would be impractical on the source data due to its size.

148

Figure 32 shows a range of maturity levels which is to be expected. Participants reported

aggregate levels of maturity from 1 (awareness) to 5 (optimised). The modal value of 3 aligns

with the data collated in Table 24, Section 3.6.1, from other studies of maturity and therefore

gives credence to the validity of the data collected for this study.

Figure 32. Maturity level (sample 2)

The grouped data allows a comparison to be made across sector and industry. Table 77 and

Figure 33 show the frequency distribution by sector.

Sector Maturity level

Total 1 2 3 4 5

Public Count 4 3 8 15

% 26.7% 20.0% 53.3% 100.0%

Private Count 2 1 7 1 1 12

% 16.7% 8.3% 58.3% 8.3% 8.3% 100.0%

Total Count 2 5 10 9 1 27

% 7.4% 18.5% 37.0% 33.3% 3.7% 100.0%

Table 77. Cross tabulation of maturity level by sector (sample 2)

The analysis of sector maturity levels shows that the public sector has a higher modal maturity

than the private sector and that only the private sector reports organisations operating at the

highest level of maturity. However, the private sector has a higher proportion of organisations

at the awareness level (17%) which demonstrates that the private sector has a wider spread of

maturity levels whereas the public sector is clustered around levels 2 to 4.

149

Figure 33. Maturity level by sector (sample 2)

A question was raised during the qualitative analysis of maturity in Section 5.2.3. The question

related to the potential link between maturity and industry. Table 78 cross tabulates industry

and maturity level.

Industry

Maturity level Total

1 2 3 4 5

Education 2 1 3

Energy 1 1 2

Finance 1 1 2

Government 2 2 7 11

IT 2 2

Manufacturing 1 1 2

Other 1 1 1 2 5

Total 2 5 9 9 2 27

Table 78. Cross tabulation of industry and maturity level (sample 2)

From the visual inspection of Table 78, all except one industry have no link to a higher or lower

maturity level. Government in Table 78 does show a tendency for higher levels of maturity.

However, the number of cases in each industry is very small and thus the data is unsuitable for

detailed analysis.

The questionnaire respondents were asked about the success of implementation and the

success of the PMM in their organisations. Building on the examination of this information, the

link between these two responses and maturity was investigated in both cases using a one-way

between-groups analysis of variance to explore the effect of maturity on implementation

150

success and PMM benefit. For implementation success, there was no statistically significant

difference at the P < 0.05 level for the 5 levels: F (4, 26)=1.584, p=0.214. For PMM benefit,

there was no statistically significant difference at the P < 0.05 level for the 5 levels: F (4,

26)=0.937, p=0.461. The results show there is no association between either implementation

success or PMM benefit with the levels of maturity reported by sample 2.

This section has explored the relationship between maturity and PMMs. Sample 2, despite its

small size, exhibited the full range of maturities (between 1 and 5). It was found that private

sector organisations have a broader range of maturities than public sector organisations. A

surprising finding in this section was that no relationship was identified either between maturity

and implementation success or between maturity and PMM benefit. Based on the literature

review it was expected that a relationship would have been found, that organisations who had

been more successful in implementing PMMs or identifying benefit being linked to greater levels

of maturity. That no such link was identified may be attributable to the small sample size.

Having explored maturity, the next environment variable to be investigated is culture.

6.2.6 Culture

As the basis for examining culture, respondents were asked to complete the OCAI

questionnaire of Cameron and Quinn (2011), described in Section 3.7. Before any testing was

carried out, the internal reliability of the OCAI item scale was assessed using the Cronbach

alpha coefficient. Prior research into the validity of the OCAI has indicated scores between 0.58

and 0.88 (see Table 31, Section 3.7.2). Cronbach’s alpha for the 24 variables in the OCAI

showed a very good to excellent levels of association, with a score of 0.899, suggesting the

data possessed high validity and was therefore suitable for further analysis.

The OCAI questionnaire requires participants to distribute 600 points across 6 questions, 100

points per question. A measure of the accuracy with which participants completed this section

of the questionnaire can be gained by comparing expected to actual performance. When the

raw data was transformed into the four culture types (described in Appendix 12), the total

number of points per type is equal to 100. However, not all participants entered the data

correctly. Those responses that were ±10% of the target score were removed. For the

remaining 26 participants in the questionnaire (m=99.84, sd=1.0), it can be concluded that the

data had been input to a high degree of accuracy and the data could be used for further

analysis. The results for the four culture types are shown in Table 79.

Culture N Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Clan 26 4.17 70.00 26.5897 12.72829

Adhocracy 26 0.00 30.00 14.5897 7.96928

Market 26 0.00 38.33 21.1667 9.34582

Hierarchy 26 17.50 86.67 37.4936 13.72269

Table 79. Culture types (sample 2)

151

Cameron and Quinn (2011) found that, while organisations often have multiple cultural

dimensions, they tend to develop a dominant culture type. To calculate the dominant type in the

questionnaire responses, the highest scoring of the four dimensions was taken to be the

dominant organisational culture (Cameron and Quinn 2011). Following this method, the

dominant styles for sample 2 are shown in Table 80 which demonstrated that CC and MC are

very similar in the frequency of occurrence in this research and that HC is substantially higher

Clan

(CC)

Adhocracy (AC)

Market

(MC)

Hierarchy

(HC) N

Count 4 6 16 26

% 15.4% 23.1% 61.5%

Table 80. Culture dimensions (sample 2)

Two of the organisations in sample 2, one an international manufacturing company and the

other a central government department, contributed 9 and 11 records respectively. Isolating

these records, using the mean scores for each of the four culture types, it is possible to

investigate the perceptions of culture within each organisation although care is needed as the

sample sizes are small. The results are shown in Table 81.

Organisation Clan

(CC)

Adhocracy (AC)

Market

(MC)

Hierarchy

(HC) N

Manufacturing company 22 18 23 37 9

Government department 23 13 22 42 11

Table 81. Culture dimensions for two organisations (sample 2)

The similarity in the cultures of the two organisations is shown more clearly in the radar plot in

Figure 34.

Figure 34. Radar plot of two organisations (sample 2)

For the manufacturing company, an international organisation in the private sector with its head

office in Germany, the dominant quadrant is Hierarchy and the remaining three quadrants have

01020304050

Clan

Adhocracy

Market

Hierarchy

Manufacturing company Government department

152

a similar weighting. With the strongly dominant type being Hierarchy, it is to be expected that

the polar opposite type, Adhocracy, would score the lowest of the four. The predominance of

Hierarchy is understandable given the control still exercised from the German headquarters.

By far the strongest cultural dimension for the government department was Hierarchy with a

score of 42. Hierarchy is characterized by ‘structure, coordination and efficiency’ (see Table 30,

Section 3.7.2), nouns that fit well with the author’s experience from spending time collecting

data within this large government department. The figures presented in Table 81 are averages

of the respondents in those organisations. As with all averages, they mask the underlying

detail. Table 82 shows the nine individual responses from the manufacturing company,

Organisation C, with the highest ranked culture type highlighted in bold.

Respondent Clan Adhocracy Market Hierarchy

1 12 17 27 42

2 23 23 23 30

3 21 20 18 41

4 20 14 18 47

5 22 25 27 27

6 28 10 27 36

7 21 24 28 28

8 26 7 22 47

9 28 19 20 34

Table 82. Culture responses for the manufacturing company (sample 2)

Table 82 demonstrates that this sample of employees share a very similar view of the culture in

their organisation and this gives credibility to the use of the OCAI questionnaire as a measure of

organisational culture.

Widening out the analysis on culture type, it could be hypothesised that there is an association

between the predominant culture type in an organisation and PMM implementation success. To

test this, a one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted. No statistically

significant differences were identified: F (2, 25)=0.646, p=0.533. The conclusion to be drawn

from this test is that there is no visible relationship between culture and how well the PMM was

implemented in this dataset. A similar statistical test was carried out into the association

between predominant culture and PMM benefit. Again, no statistically significant differences

were identified: F (2, 25)=0.832, p=0.448.

The data from question 14 about the rationale for using PMMs was recoded into a new variable,

pmm_usage (described in Appendix 12), that contained three options: Mandatory; Optional; Not

used. The analysis for this question focused on the 22 respondents for whom the PMM is

mandatory and the 3 for whom it is optional. A cross tabulation was constructed of pmm_usage

and culture type. Table 83 shows a reduced dataset of 25 containing only those respondents

who indicated their PMM usage and completed the OCAI culture questions.

153

PMM usage

Total Mandatory Optional

Culture Clan 3 1 4

Adhocracy

Market 5 1 6

Hierarchy 14 1 15

Total 22 3 25

Table 83. Cross tabulation of PMM usage and culture type (sample 2)

A visual inspection of Table 83 shows that a Hierarchy culture is much more likely to mandate

the use of a PMM but all three cultures (CC, AC and MC) show a dominance of mandating a

PMM.

This section has investigated the role of culture in PMMs. A detailed examination of

Organisation C has given credence to the method used in this section to elicit the culture type

and provided confidence that the OCAI is a reliable tool. Within sample 2, a strong preference

for the Hierarchy culture was revealed. Market culture and Clan culture accounted for 23% and

15% respectively with no respondents identifying their dominant culture as Adhocracy. It was

found that the Hierarchy culture was associated with the mandated use of a PMM. Finally, no

relationship between culture type and either implementation success or PMM benefit was found.

The final environment variable is structure and this is explored in the next section.


Respondents to the question on organisational structure could choose between the range of

structural forms set out in Table 32, Section 3.8.3. 27 respondents answered this question and

the frequency of response is shown in Table 84.

Organisational structure Frequency Percent

Functional 8 28.6

Weak matrix 4 14.3

Balanced matrix 5 17.9

Strong matrix 9 32.1

Projectised 1 3.6

Missing 1 3.6

Total 28 100.0

Table 84. Organisational structure (sample 2)

The predominant organisation form is the matrix if the three types of matrix structure (weak,

balanced and strong) are combined. Functional is the next most frequent and finally the

projectised structure.

In order to analyse this issue further, the responses were recoded into a new variable, OrgType

(described in Appendix 12), combining the three matrix structures and comprising the three

154

main structural types: functional, matrix and projectised. The frequency distribution for the new

variable is displayed in Table 85.


Functional 8 28.6

Matrix 18 64.3

Projectised 1 3.6

Missing 1 3.6

Total 28 100.0

Table 85. Summarised list of organisational structures (sample 2)

A cross tabulation of organisational structure and sector, which is displayed in Table 86, shows

no discernibly different pattern for private sector organisations but a marked preference for

matrix structures in the public sector. A chi squared test for independence could not be

conducted because the assumption that cell sizes exceed 5 was not met.

Sector

Organisational Structure

Total Functional Matrix Projectised

Public 3 12 15

Private 5 6 1 12

Total 8 18 1 27

Table 86. Cross tabulation of organisational structure and sector (sample 2)

To understand if there was a relationship between organisational structure and size, a cross

tabulation was produced. The result is shown in Table 87. The table shows the dominance of

the matrix structure in all organisation sizes with a marked preference in companies with 1,000-

10,000 employees. For organisations with more than 50,000 employees, functional structures

appear much more frequently but matrix remains the dominant form. However, larger

organisations are unlikely to have a single organisational structure across the whole enterprise

(Schein 2010) which makes further analysis of the data in Table 87 unwarranted.

Employees

Organisation Structure


1,001-10,000 1 6 7

10,001-20,000 1 1

20,001-50,000 1 1

>50,000 7 10 1 18

Total 8 18 1 27

Table 87. Cross tabulation of organisational structure and size (sample 2)

A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the effect of

organisational structure on implementation success and PMM benefit. This test was suited to

exploring the relationship between the two variables. For implementation success, there was

no statistically significant difference at the P < 0.05 level for the 3 structure types:

155

F (2, 26)=0.039, p=0.962. For PMM benefit, the result was similar. There was no statistically

significant difference at the P < 0.05 level for the 3 structure types: F (2, 26)=0.116, p=0.891.

These tests found no association between organisational structure and PMM implementation or

PMM benefit in sample 2. A one-way between-groups analysis of variance to explore the effect

of structure on maturity was not possible due to the small size of sample 2. Similarly, a chi

squared test for independence could not be conducted because the assumption that cell sizes

exceed 5 was not met. However, a visual inspection of the cross-tabulation of maturity level

and organisation type showed that functional had higher average maturity than matrix

organisations and matrix was higher than projectised organisations.

The dominant organisational structure is the matrix for respondents in sample 2. The matrix is

the preferred method of organising even accounting for factors such as sector and size. No link

was found between structure type and maturity. Tests to ascertain a relationship between

organisational structure and either implementation success or PMM benefit failed to establish

such a relationship and it would appear that, for sample 2, there is no visible association

between organisational structure and PMMs.

This concludes section 6.2 and the analysis of sample 2 across the seven dimensions of

descriptive information, validity, organisation and personal results and the three environmental

factors of maturity, culture and structure. The analysis is now repeated for sample 3.


Sample 3 comprises project management professionals from UK organisations who were not

part of the participating organisations. The analysis will follow the same structure that was

developed to present the findings for sample 2 in Section 6.2 and will repeat the same tests.

6.3.1 Descriptive statistics about sample 3

All except one participant identified their sector with 33% coming from the public sector, 55%

from the private sector and 10% from the charity sector. The breakdown of the data is

displayed in Table 88.

Sector Frequency Percent

Public 14 32.6

Private 24 55.8

Charity 4 9.3

Other 1 2.3

Total 43 100.0

Table 88. Sector analysis (sample 3)

Table 89 shows that participants came from 13 industries and thereby offered the research a

broad range of experience.

156

Industry Frequency Percent

Charity 3 7.0

Construction 3 7.0

Consulting 2 4.7

Education 5 11.6

Finance 6 14.0

Government 3 7.0

Healthcare 4 9.3

IT 6 14.0

Telecommunications 3 7.0

Transportation 1 2.3

Utilities 1 2.3

Other 5 11.6

Missing 1 2.3

Total 43 100.0

Table 89. Industry analysis (sample 3)

The next table, 90, shows in which department respondents worked.

Department Frequency Percent

IT/IS/ITC 13 30.2

Communications/Telecommunications 3 7.0

Customer Service or Support 1 2.3

Engineering/R&D 1 2.3

Executive/Corporate/General Management/Administration 10 23.3

Financial Services/Accounting/Finance 3 7.0

Legal 1 2.3

Marketing/Market Research/Advertising/PR/Business Development

3 7.0

Other 8 18.6

Total 43 100.0

Table 90. Department analysis (sample 3)

Table 90 shows that 30% of respondents work within IT/IS departments. The next largest

category is executive/general management at 23%.

Question 8 asked about the number of project started each year. The responses, shown in

Table 91, exhibit a wide range from less than five to more than 200 with the modal range being

6-99.

157

Projects started Frequency Percent

<5 8 18.6

6-30 10 23.3

31-99 10 23.3

100-199 4 9.3

>200 8 18.6

Don't know 3 7.0

Total 43 100.0

Table 91. Number of projects started (sample 3)

Question 9 asked about the project duration. The responses are listed in Table 92 and indicate

that 7 to 18 months is the modal answer, accounting for 61% of responses.

Project duration Frequency Percent

1-6 months 8 18.6

7-18 months 26 60.5

>18 months 4 9.3

Don’t know 5 11.6

Total 43 100.0

Table 92. Project duration (sample 3)

The number of project managers in the organisation was the subject of Question 10. As shown

in Table 93, the respondents in sample 3 came from primarily small organisations with fewer

than 5 project managers but ranged up to over 250 project managers.

Project managers Frequency Percent

<5 15 34.9

6-25 12 27.9

26-99 6 14.0

>250 5 11.6

Don't know 5 11.6

Total 43 100.0

Table 93. Number of project managers (sample 3)

This section has described the composition of sample 3 and how they comprise a range of

public and private sector organisations and diverse industries and departments. Questions 8 –

10 show a range of responses with the modal answers being that organisations start 6–99

projects per annum, of 7–18 months’ duration and the organisations are smaller than for sample

2, employing fewer than 26 project managers.

In the next section, the validity of the sample is discussed.

158

6.3.2 Validity of sample 3

This section of the chapter assesses the validity of sample 3 based on their responses to page

9 of the questionnaire. As with sample 2, it is important to establish the sample’s validity if their

views are to be treated as credible. Participants were asked about their role. The responses

are shown in Table 94 and show that 81% of respondents work in a project role.

Role Frequency Percent

Project Manager 20 46.5

Programme Manager 4 9.3

Portfolio Manager 2 4.7

Programme Director 1 2.3

PMO Director/Manager 5 11.6

Project team member 2 4.7

Project management consultant 1 2.3

CEO 2 4.7

CIO 1 2.3

Department Director 1 2.3

Middle/Line manager 1 2.3

Educator/trainer 1 2.3

Other 2 4.7

Total 43 100.0

Table 94. Role analysis (sample 3)

Question 35 asked about the years of employment for participants. Table 95 shows that 53% of

participants have been employed for more than 3 years and that 16% have more than 10 years

of service.

Years of employment Frequency Percent

<3 20 46.5

3-6 9 20.9

7-10 7 16.3

>10 7 16.3

Total 43 100.0

Table 95. Years of employment (sample 3)

The number of years of project experience was the subject of Question 36. The results are

shown in Table 96.

Years in projects Frequency Percent

<5 9 20.9

5-10 10 23.3

>10 24 55.8

Total 43 100.0

Table 96. Years in projects (sample 3)

159

Table 96 shows that the majority of sample 3 (56%) have more than 10 years of working in

projects.

The age groups for the participants is shown in Table 97. These data were sourced from

question 42. This table demonstrates that a broad range of ages were included in the research

with the modal age bracket being 36 to 45.

Age category Frequency Percent

<25 5 11.6

26-35 5 11.6

36-45 13 30.2

46-55 12 27.9

56-65 6 14.0

>65 2 4.7

Total 43 100.0

Table 97. Age categories (sample 3)

Question 37 was used to identify how many projects the participant had managed. 4 options

were available. The results are shown in Table 98.

Projects managed Frequency Percent

None 3 7.0

1-24 13 30.2

25-49 10 23.3

>50 17 39.5

Total 43 100.0

Table 98. Projects managed (sample 3)

7% of participants have managed no projects, 30% have managed 1-24, the modal group for

sample 2, 23% have managed 25-49 and 40% report having managed in excess of 50 projects.

Table 99 shows the percentage of time that respondents spent in a project environment. Three

options were available to participants.

Time devoted to projects Frequency Percent

<33% 6 14.0

33%-66% 8 18.6

>66% 29 67.4

Total 43 100.0

Table 99. Time devoted to projects (sample 3)

The answers to this question show that 68% of respondents spent more than 66% of their time

working in projects.

160

Participants were asked how much time was given to project management.

Time devoted to PM Frequency Percent

<33% 7 16.3

33%-66% 19 44.2

>66% 17 39.5

Total 43 100.0

Table 100. Time devoted to project management (sample 3)

Table 100 shows that 40% of respondents spend more than 66% of their time in project

management.

With regard to the confidence in project management reported by sample 3, the results are

shown in Figure 35.

Figure 35. Confidence in project management (sample 3)

Sample 3 had a mean score of 80% confidence in project management (m=7.98, sd=1.8,

n=43). As was expected, sample 3, drawn from purposive sampling using social media, reflects

a broader range of project management professionals than sample 2. However, it is clear from

this section that the participants in sample 3 are relevant for this research because of their

roles, working experience, confidence and the time spent in the project environment. As the

participants represent the desired population for this research, their views can be taken as

representative of the population of project management professionals.

The next section assesses the organisational perspective on PMMs.

161

6.3.3 PMMs – the organisational perspective

This section describes and analyses the 11 questions relevant to the organisational perspective.

Question 11 asked the respondents to identify the drivers for projects. The responses are listed

in Table 101 with their frequency.

Category Frequency

Business need 36

Revenue growth 21

Cost reduction 22

Legal/regulatory requirement 23

Technology refresh 17

Other 5

Table 101. Drivers for projects (sample 3)

The drivers for projects are very similar to sample 2 with business need being listed as the main

driver and the other drivers being identified by many participants. Five other reasons were cited

for initiating projects, each with a frequency of 1. Many of these can be included in the broad

categories in Table 101. For example, ‘Support for research’, Client requirements’ and

‘Sustainability’ could be sub categories of business need, revenue growth, cost reduction or

technology refresh.

Questions 12 asked about involvement in the selection process. The responses for sample 3

are shown in Table 102.

Involvement Frequency Percent

Yes 16 38.1

No 26 61.9

Total 42 100.0

Table 102. Involvement in the ‘Select’ process (sample 3)

The rate of involvement for sample 3 was more than double that for sample 2. As with sample

2, project managers were well represented with 33% bring involved. What differentiates the

involvement of sample 3 is the roles of respondents. Sample 3 is 54% larger than sample 2 and

has many more roles including more senior roles such as programme director, CEO, CIO and

department director. This greater diversity is understandable given that sample 2 comprises

project managers and project staff whereas sample 3 was open to anyone in the UK with project

management interests. To investigate possible links between involvement in the ‘Select’ stage

and the respondent’s role, a cross tabulation was performed and shown in Table 103.

162

Role

Involved in Select

Yes No

Project Manager 25.0% 75.0%

Programme Manager 100.0%

Portfolio Manager 50.0% 50.0%

Programme Director 100.0%

PMO Director/Manager 60.0% 40.0%

Project team member 100.0%

CEO 100.0%

CIO 100.0%

Department Director 100.0%

Educator/trainer 100.0%

Total 38.1% 61.9%

Table 103. Cross tabulation of involvement and role (sample 3)

The percentages have been displayed to facilitate the comparison of role involvement with the

‘Select’ process and Table 103 shows that 38% of respondents were involved in the process.

Analysing roles in this way can be problematic because the small resulting sample sizes for

some roles can distort the picture, especially when percentages rather than counts are used

(Levitin 2016). Table 103 shows that all the ‘Chief’ roles (ie CEO, CIO) are included in ‘Select’

and this makes intuitive sense to involve senior organisational officers in the process. The data

shows how director level staff have a strong tendency to be involved which would also make

sense. Where director level staff are not involved, the possible explanation given earlier that

staff may not have been working in the company at the time the PMM was chosen still holds

true. Two other figures stand out in Table 103. First that no project team members were

involved and second that the Programme Manager role appears to have very low rates of

involvement despite programme managers being dependent on projects to deliver programme

outputs (Pinto 2013).

Question 13 asked if respondents agree that project managers should be involved in the

process. The responses, in Table 104, show that the majority of respondents (86%) agreed

with this statement.

Involve PMs? Frequency Percent

Mostly Disagree 4 9.3

Undecided 2 4.7

Somewhat Agree 8 18.6

Mostly Agree 16 37.2

Entirely Agree 13 30.2

Total 43 100.0

Table 104. Should PMs be involved in selection (sample 3)

As with sample 2, sample 3 reflected the view that more project managers should be involved in

the process than had been in the experience of the respondents.

163

Question 14 asked about the criteria for using PMMs. Table 105 shows the results.

PMM Use Frequency

Yes. Mandatory for all projects 18

Depends on the business area 16

Depends on the duration 9

Depends on the cost 7

Depends on the risk 5

Depends on the project 8

Don’t know 3

Total 76

Table 105. Criteria for using a PMM (sample 3)

Whereas sample 2 reflected uniformity in their responses, there was much more diversity with

sample 3. While a mandatory PMM was the modal answer for sample 3, the diversity came

from the ‘it depends’ options which included the area of the business and characteristics of the

project, ie its duration, cost and risk as well as the attributes of the project manager.

Question 15 asked which PMMs were used in the organisation. Table 106 shows the results.

PMM in use Frequency

PRINCE2 or based on PRINCE2 26

PMBOK or based on PMBOK 6

ISO 21500 or based on 21500 2

In-house method 18

Other 11

Table 106. PMM in use (sample 3)

As with sample 2, PMMs based on PRINCE2 were popular in sample 3 with 61% choosing this

option. PMBOK also features in sample 3 being chosen by 6 respondents and ISO 21500 was

selected twice. ‘In-house methods’ were not a popular as sample 2 being chosen by 42% of

respondents. Similar to sample 2, the ‘other’ methods identified agile and also includes

methods such as the TenStep process. Answers also included ITIL and lean six sigma which

would not usually be thought of as PMMs. Reflecting the need for organisations to align with

their customer’s requirements, one respondent reported their PMM to be flexible, saying “maybe

the method used by the customer organisation”.

Question 17 asked for participants’ view on PMMs in their organisation. The question was

divided into 10 sub questions each a 7 point Likert range of agreement. Table 107 displays the

results.

164

Questions En

tire

ly

dis

ag

ree

Mo

stl

y

dis

ag

ree

So

mew

hat

dis

ag

ree

Un

decid

ed

So

mew

hat

ag

ree

Mo

stl

y

ag

ree

En

tire

ly

ag

ree

Do

no

t kn

ow

17.1 The rationale for using PMMs is understood across the organisation?

7% 12% 14% 5% 33% 21% 7% 2%

17.2 Senior managers fully support the use of PMMs

5% 7% 7% 5% 28% 26% 21% 2%

17.3 Project managers fully support the use of PMMs

2% 7% 2% 23% 23% 40% 2%

17.4 Project team members fully support the use of PMMs

2% 7% 16% 2% 28% 23% 19% 2%

17.5 PMMs contribute to organisational success?

2% 12% 14% 28% 40% 5%

17.9 Your organisation provides adequate training in the PMM(s)?

14% 9% 21% 2% 19% 9% 23% 2%

Table 107. Embedding of PMMs (sample 3)

The modal answers for sample 3 were all in the ‘agree’ range. While most of the questions

generated positive responses, sub question 17.9 on the adequacy of training produced a more

uniform distribution showing a broad range of responses to this sub question. The internal

reliability of the variable pmm_embedding (described in 6.2.3) was calculated using the

Cronbach alpha technique to be 0.862 which equates to very good consistency. The mean

score of 5.0 (sd=1.3, n=42) demonstrates 71% agreement in sample 3.

Question 18 related to the tailoring of PMMs. Table 108 shows whether the processes can be

tailored. Table 108 shows that tailoring between samples 2 and 3 is similar with the dominant

response being that tailoring is the norm. Where there is a difference between the two samples

it is with regard to the extent of tailoring. With sample 2, limited tailoring account for 79% of

responses whereas limited tailoring in sample 3 accounts for only 49%. The proportion where

all processes can be tailored in sample 3 was double that for sample 2, 38% and 18%

respectively. The response in the ‘other’ category related to sponsor and stakeholder

requirements and also to the nature of the project.

Process tailoring Frequency Percent

No processes can be tailored. 3 7.0

A limited number of processes can be tailored. 21 48.8

All processes can be tailored. 16 37.2

Other. 3 7.0

Total 43 100.0

Table 108. Process tailoring (sample 3)

165

Table 109 shows that the basis for tailoring was split between organisation rules and

recommendations and the experience of the project manager.

Rationale for tailoring Frequency

Based on organisational rules 16

Based on organisational recommendations 11

Based on PM experience/knowledge 31

Total 58

Table 109. Rationale for tailoring (sample 3)

Questions 20 and 21 asked about PMM implementation success and PMM benefit, using the

scale of 1 (very low) to 10 (very high). The skewness was -0.843 and kurtosis 0.557 which

meant the variables passed the normality test. The responses to this question have been

tabulated in Table 110 and shown in Figure 36.

Implementation success Frequency Percent

1 4 9.3

3 2 4.7

4 1 2.3

5 6 14.0

6 13 30.2

7 5 11.6

8 9 20.9

9 2 4.7

10 1 2.3

Total 43 100.0

Table 110. Implementation success (sample 3)

Figure 36. Implementation success (sample 3)

166

For sample 2, the most frequent response was 8 but for sample 3 the most frequent response

was lower at 6. Sample 3 also exhibited a greater proportion of respondents who felt the

implementation of their PMM has been poor compared to sample 2. Overall, the average score

for implementation success was 60% (m=5.98, sd=2.2, mode=6, n=43).

Question 21 relates to the second dependent variable, PMM benefit. For PMM benefit the

skewness was -0.839 and kurtosis was 1.344. This meant the variable fell outside the bounds

of normality which meant it was not suitable for use in parametric tests. Instead, non-parametric

tests were performed where the PMM benefit variable for sample 3 was used. The responses

to this question have been tabulated in Table 111 and shown graphically in Figure 37. In the

table, 1 represents poor and 10 excellent levels of benefit.

PMM benefit Frequency Percent

1 1 2.3

2 1 2.3

3

4 1 2.3

5 4 9.3

6 9 20.9

7 7 16.3

8 11 25.6

9 4 9.3

10 5 11.6

Total 43 100.0

Table 111. PMM benefit (sample 3)

Figure 37. PMM benefit (sample 3)

The average score for organisational benefit was 71% (m=7.07, sd=2.0, mode=8, n=43). The

relationship between implementation success and PMM benefit was investigated for sample 3

167

using Spearman’s rank order correlation. This test was used because the PMM benefit variable

failed the normality test. There was a strong, but not as strong as sample 2, positive correlation

between the two variables, rho=0.675, n=43, p<0.0005, shown in the correlation scatter plot in

Figure 38. For sample 3, high levels of implementation success are associated with high levels

of PMM benefit, a result similar to sample 2.

Figure 38. Implementation success and PMM benefit scatter plot (sample 3)

The linkage between years of experience and PMM benefit, identified by Wells (2012) and

discussed in 6.2.3, was again examined. No linkage was found in the Sample 3 data:

F (2, 42)=0.223, p=0.801.

Question 22 asked about the most valuable aspect of a PMM to an organisation. Respondents

were presented with 7 choices with the option of adding their own response. The results of this

question are shown in Table 112.

Most valuable aspect of a PMM Frequency Percent

The overall method 13 30.2

Common language 6 14.0

Wide applicability 4 9.3

Project control (timeliness) 6 14.0

Project control (costs) 3 7.0

Project control (people) 1 2.3

Project control (quality) 7 16.3

Other 3 7.0

Total 43 100.0

Table 112. Most valuable aspect of a PMM (sample 3)

168

The results for sample 3 were similar to sample 2 in that a wide range of aspects of PMMs were

identified as being valuable. There was stronger support in sample 3 for the ‘overall method’

and also more focus on time than for sample 2. The other options selected included centralised

document storage, the ability to plan on delivering value from the project and the ability to

generate consistent reports about project progress.

Question 23 asked how PMMs were supported in the organisation. Five Likert-type questions

were asked. The results are shown in Table 113.

Questions En

tire

ly

dis

ag

ree

Mo

stl

y

dis

ag

ree

So

mew

hat

dis

ag

ree

Un

decid

ed

So

mew

hat

ag

ree

Mo

stl

y

ag

ree

En

tire

ly

ag

ree

Do

no

t kn

ow

23.1. The PMMs are kept up to date

5% 5% 16% 7% 28% 26% 12% 2%

23.2 The PMMs are supported by templates and exemplars

2% 2% 9% 21% 35% 28% 2%

23.3 The PMMs are well documented

2% 9% 9% 2% 30% 30% 14% 2%

23.4 The PMMs are supported by a project support office

12% 7% 7% 5% 14% 21% 30% 5%

23.5 You have the opportunity to suggest improvements to the PMM

7% 5% 2% 16% 23% 42% 2%

Table 113. How PMMs are supported (sample 3)

Sample 3 shows a wider spread of responses to these questions compared to sample 2

however the predominant view is that respondents agree that PMMs are supported in

organisations which accords with sample 2. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for pmm_support

was calculated to be 0.807 which can be interpreted as a very good level of reliability for this

scale variable. Using pmm_support, the overall figure for sample 3 is 74% agreement that

PMMs are supported in their organisations (m=5.2, sd=1.3, n=42). The weakest area relates to

the documentation of the PMMs and the strongest area to the opportunity for respondents to

suggest improvements to the PMM.

The investigation into a relationship between pmm_support and both implementation success

and PMM benefit was based on Pearson’s product-moment correlation coefficient and

Spearman’s rank order correlation respectively. There was a significant and moderate positive

correlation between pmm_support and implementation success (r=0.570, n=42, p<0.000) and a

moderate positive link between pmm_support and PMM benefit (r=0.452, n=42, p=0.003).

Looking back at the organisational aspects of PMMs for sample 3, it can be seen that the

reasons for initiating projects are for business needs, growing revenue, reducing costs and

addressing regulatory and technology demands. It was shown that 38% of respondents had

169

been involved in the select process but that 86% believed that project managers should be

involved. In terms of PMMs, PRINCE2 was the dominant method with in-house again showing

strongly at 42%. 86% reported being able to tailor their method. The average score for

implementation success was 60% and for PMM benefit was 71%. There is 71% agreement that

the PMM is embedded and 74% agreement that the PMM is supported. The chief benefits

come from the overall methods but other factors such as cost and quality control and the use of

a common language are also highlighted as positive aspects. In the next section, the focus

moves from the organisational to the personal perspective.

6.3.4 PMMs – the personal perspective

The personal perspective was investigated in questions 16, 17 (part) and 19 in addition to

sections of part 9 as discussed in 6.2.4. Question 16 asked participants about the number of

distinct PMMs they used. Table 114 shows the results. The results for sample 3 were in line

with the sample 2 with approximately half (49%) using a single method. 21% of the sample

used two methods and the same proportion used more than two methods.

Distinct PMMs Frequency Percent

None 4 9.3

1 21 48.8

2 9 20.9

>2 9 20.9

Total 43 100.0

Table 114. Number of distinct PMMs (sample 3)

Table 115 displays the results for the five questions related to the personal perspective in

Question 17.

Questions En

tire

ly

dis

ag

ree

Mo

stl

y

dis

ag

ree

So

mew

hat

dis

ag

ree

Un

decid

ed

So

mew

hat

ag

ree

Mo

stl

y

ag

ree

En

tire

ly

ag

ree

Do

no

t

kn

ow

17.6 Using the PMM(s) was a big personal change for me?

30% 14% 16% 2% 12% 12% 9% 5%

17.7 Using PMMs restrict your ability to manage your projects effectively?

38% 38% 16% 2% 2% 2% 2%

17.8 You follow the PMM most of the time?

5% 9% 5% 21% 26% 33% 2%

17.10 You are fully trained in the PMM(s)?

7% 14% 2% 2% 12% 56% 7%

17.11 The organisation supports you in gaining certification in PMM

7% 2% 7% 9% 16% 19% 35% 5%

Table 115. Alignment with PMMs (sample 3)

170

The data transformations described in 6.2.4 for this questions were also conducted for the 5

individual sub options of question 17 for sample 3. The Cronbach alpha coefficient for

pmm_alignment was 0.745 which reflects a good level of reliability. The mean value of 5.6 for

pmm_alignment demonstrates that sample 3 is seeing positive benefits from the range of

factors with an overall agreement score of 80%. A paired samples t-test was conducted to

evaluate the embedding and alignment aspects of PMM. There was a statistically significant

difference in the embedding view (m=5.0, sd=1.3) and the alignment view (m=5.6, sd=1.2),

t=(42)=-3.011, p=0.04 which shows that sample 3 is viewing alignment with a higher level of

agreement than embedding.

Question 19 asked why the participants did not always follow the PMM. This question had 22

responses. The analysis is shown in Table 116.

Direction Rationale Frequency Percent

Positive Tailoring. Meeting the demands of the project. Flexibility and scalability.

10 45.5

Negative Constraints. Imposed by the environment for example “accelerated delivery timescales” and the primacy of “potential commercial benefits”.

3 13.6

Negative The PMM itself is at fault. PMM is inflexible and bureaucratic.

7 31.8

Negative The PMM implementation is at fault. The language used in the PMM is not widely understood. Senior management do not support the PMM or understand its benefits.

2 9.0

Table 116. Rationale for deviating from a PMM (sample 3)

The marginally predominant view (54%) was that the rationale for deviation was negative. The

negative reasons given fell into three areas: the PMM is constrained by factors in the

environment; the PMM was not appropriate for the organisation or the PMM could be

considered to have been poorly implemented. The responses from sample 3 did use language

that could be interpreted directly with practice theory, discussed in Section 3.5, for example

using the language of Feldman and Portland (2003) that the ostensible aspects of some PMMs

were failing to meet their requirements with the result that different performative routines were in

use to cope with the management of projects. The lack of senior management support and

narrow familiarity with the shared language of projects can be understood in the context of the

work by Okhuysen and Bechky (2009), in Section 3.5.2, in that respondents were diverging from

using the espoused PMM because not all the factors were in place for the PMM to be regarded

as a complete means of co-ordinating projects. As a result, this incompatibility between actors

in projects (Narduzzo et al 2000) led respondents to feel they could substitute their own ways of

working.

Qualification in PMMs was the subject of the multi-part question 38. The first part asked about

current PM qualifications with the option to add additional items. The results are shown in

Table 117.

171

Qualifications Frequency Percent

PRINCE2 foundation (APMG) 30 69.8

PRINCE2 practitioner (APMG) 30 69.8

MSP (APMG) 9 20.9

MoP (APMG) 1 2.3

P3O (APMG) 5 11.6

CAPM (PMI) 1 2.3

PMP (PMI) 4 9.3

ICPM (APM) 2 4.7

APMP (APM) 6 14.0

In-house 15 34.9

Other 11 25.6

Table 117. Qualifications (sample 3)

The other qualifications recorded by sample 3 included other professional and academic

achievements. The project management qualifications were limited to agile. The range of

qualifications gained by sample 3 was greater than for sample 2, possibly because the range of

organisations was much greater. The number of qualifications was summed to give a total

number of qualifications per individual. For sample 3, the average exceeded 2 qualifications per

person (m=2.40, sd=1.12, n=43). The second part of the question asked respondents, on a

scale of 1 (little) to 10 (greatly), how much had project management training and certification

developed their knowledge, skills and attitudes. The responses are shown as a bar graph in

Figure 39.

Figure 39. Contribution from training and certification (sample 3)

Figure 39 shows that respondents see personal benefits from training and certification (m=7.5,

sd=2.3, n=43). The modal answer in Figure 39 was 10 which demonstrates that the participants

strongly believe that training and certification is beneficial. The final part of this question asked

172

respondents, using the same scale, how much had training and certification enabled them to

make a greater contribution to their organisation. Figure 40 shows the results.

Figure 40. Contribution to the organisation (sample 3)

From Figure 40 it can be seen that respondents were strongly positive that training and

certification has enabled them to make a greater contribution to their organisation (m=6.9,

sd=2.7, n=42). The standard deviation of the two sub questions for sample 3 was much higher

than for sample 2 which shows a broader spread of views. Only sample 3 recorded responses

of 1 and 2 in answering this question. The relationship between the extent to which training and

certification has developed knowledge, skills and attitudes and the extent to which training and

certification in PMMs have facilitated greater organisational benefit was investigated using

Spearman’s rank order correlation coefficient because the two variables failed the normality

test. There was a strong positive correlation which suggests that training and certification is

strongly correlated with contribution to the organisation (r=0.799, n=42, p<0.000).

The personal perspectives have been reported and analysed in this section. For sample 3, 49%

of respondents used a single method with 42% being the proportion that used two or more

methods. This result was in line with expectations because of the ability of a single method to

cater for a wide range of applications. 80% of respondents were found to be aligned to the

method. Where respondents deviated from the method, this was analysed to be for positive

reasons in 46% and for negative reasons in 54% of the cases. Sample 3 averaged 2.4

qualifications per person and these were aligned with APMG in particular and also with the

other awarding bodies and in-house methods. The average level of benefit of training and

certification to the individual was 75% and to the organisation was 69%. Overall, sample 3 are

individually aligned to the PMMs and seeing personal and organisational benefits from training

and certification. In the next section, the findings and analysis moves on to look at

organisational maturity.

173

6.3.5 Maturity

Maturity for sample 3 was calculated in the same way as for sample 2. The results of analysing

the maturity levels for sample 3 are shown in Figure 41.

Figure 41. Maturity level (sample 3)

Figure 41 shows the range of maturity levels that the literature in Section 3.6.1 predicts.

Participants reported aggregate levels of maturity from 1 (awareness) to 5 (optimised). The

modal value of 2 is below the average from other studies of maturity (see Table 24, Section

3.6.1).

The cross tabulation of maturity level and sector is shown in Table 118 and Figure 42.

Sector Maturity level

Total 1 2 3 4 5

Public Count 1 4 5 2 12

% 8.3% 33.3% 41.7% 16.7% 100.0%

Private Count 3 10 5 3 1 22

% 13.6% 45.5% 22.7% 13.6% 4.5% 100.0%

Charity Count 3 3

% 100.0% 100.0%

Other Count 1 1

% 100.0% 100.0%

Total Count 4 17 10 6 1 38

% 10.5% 44.7% 26.3% 15.8% 2.6% 100.0%

Table 118. Cross tabulation of maturity level by sector (sample 3)

174

Figure 42. Maturity level by sector (sample 3)

The sector analysis shows that private sector organisations have a broader span of maturity

levels with a strong modal value of 2 which is below the average level. Public sector

organisations have a majority at the higher levels of 3 and 4 showing an average maturity that is

higher than the private sector. The analysis also shows that maturity is lower in charity

organisations than the overall modal maturity level but the sample of charities is very small.

The analysis of industry and maturity level is shown in Table 119.

Industry

Maturity level Total

1 2 3 4 5

Charity 2 2

Construction 1 1 1 3

Consulting 1 1 2

Education 3 1 4

Finance 1 4 1 6

Government 2 1 3

Healthcare 2 1 3

IT 1 1 2 2 6

Telecommunications 1 1 1 3

Utilities 0 1 1

Other 2 2 4

Total 4 16 10 6 1 37

Table 119. Cross tabulation of industry and maturity level (sample 3)

A visual inspection of Table 119 shows no discernible pattern. The small dataset prevented the

use of statistical tests on this cross tabulation.

175

The association between the levels of maturity and implementation success was investigated

using a one-way between-groups analysis of variance. There was no statistically significant

difference at the P < 0.05 level for the 5 levels: F (4, 37)=2.021, p=0.114. The association

between the levels of maturity and PMM benefit was investigated using a Kruskal-Wallis test but

found no significant differences: 2 (4, n=38)=6.719, p=0.152.

This section has explored the relationship between maturity and PMMs. Sample 3 reported the

full range of maturities. The analysis showed that private sector organisations have a broader

range of maturities than public sector organisations but that public sector organisations have a

higher modal level of maturity. As with sample 2, a surprising finding of this research was that

no relationship was identified between either implementation success or PMM benefit with

maturity.

In the next section, attention moves from maturity to organisational culture.

6.3.6 Culture

The background to the analysis of the culture data is explained in 6.2.6. This section replicates

the analysis for sample 3. The responses to the OCAI questionnaire by sample 3 were checked

for accuracy. For the 34 respondents to the OCAI (m=99.85, sd=0.97), it can be concluded that

the data had been input to a high degree of accuracy and the data can be used for further

analysis.

The results for the four culture types are shown in Table 120.

Culture N Minimum Maximum Mean SD

Clan 34 8.33 70.00 30.3922 14.09784

Adhocracy 34 3.33 46.67 18.0490 9.65713

Market 34 3.33 45.83 18.8578 12.58608

Hierarchy 34 3.33 63.33 32.5539 13.90345

Table 120. Culture types (sample 3)

Following the same method as in sample 2 to determine the dominant culture in the

organisation, the results are shown in Table 121.

Clan

(CC)

Adhocracy (AC)

Market

(MC)

Hierarchy

(HC) N

Count 11 2 7 13 33

% 33.3% 6.1% 21.2% 39.4%

Table 121. Culture dimensions (sample 3)

Table 121 shows that CC and HC have similar frequencies, that MC is less frequent and that

AC has very low frequency.

176

To test for an association between the predominant culture type in an organisation and

implementation success, a one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted. No

statistically significant differences were identified: F (3, 32)=0.870, p=0.468. The conclusion to

be drawn from this test is that there is no relationship between culture and how well the PMM

was implemented. A statistical test was carried out into the association between predominant

culture and PMM benefit using the Kruskal-Wallis test but found no significant differences: 2

(3, n=33)=5.216, p=0.157.

The analysis of PMM usage and culture type is shown in Table 122.

PMM usage

Total Mandatory Optional

Culture Clan 6 4 10

Adhocracy 2 2

Market 3 3 6

Hierarchy 5 8 13

Total 14 17 31

Table 122. Cross tabulation of PMM usage and culture type (sample 3)

Whereas for sample 2, 88% of respondents indicated their PMM was mandatory, the figure for

sample 3 was 45% and there is a much more even split between mandatory and optional for

sample 3 across all the cultural dimensions.

This section has looked at the role of culture in PMMs. For sample 3, a preference for the

Hierarchy culture was revealed, accounting for 39% of respondents. The Clan, Market and

Adhocracy cultures accounted for 33%, 21% and 6% respectively. Unlike sample 2, the

analysis showed that the Hierarchy culture was less likely to mandate the use of a PMM and

that the Clan culture was more likely than not to mandate a PMM. Lastly, no relationship was

found between culture type and either implementation success or PMM benefit.

The final section in the analysis of sample 3 relates to organisational structure.


43 respondents answered this question and the frequency of response is shown in Table 123.


Functional 15 34.9

Weak matrix 5 11.6

Balanced matrix 12 27.9

Strong matrix 6 14.0

Projectised 4 9.3

Don’t know 1 2.3

Total 43 100.0

Table 123. Organisational structure (sample 3)

177

The dominant organisational form is the matrix if the three types of matrix structures (weak,

balanced and strong) are combined. Functional is the next most frequent and finally the

projectised structure. This was the same order as in sample 2.

Table 128 uses the variable Orgtype to combine the three matrix types. The frequency

distribution for the new variable is displayed in Table 124.


Functional 15 34.9

Matrix 23 53.5

Projectised 4 9.3

Total 42 97.7

Missing 1 2.3

Total 43 100.0

Table 124. Summarised list of organisational structures (sample 3)

A cross tabulation of organisational structure and sector, depicted in Table 125, shows no

discernibly pattern. A chi squared test for independence could not be conducted because the

assumption that cell sizes exceed 5 was not met.

Sector

Organisational Structure


Public 4 8 2 14

Private 10 13 1 24

Charity 1 2 3

Other 1 1

Total 15 23 4 42

Table 125. Cross tabulation of organisational structure and sector (sample 3)

The cross tabulation of organisational structure and size is shown in Table 126. It is difficult to

discern any patterns in the data.

Employees

Organisation Structure


<50 2 2 2 6

50-250 4 1 5

251-1,000 2 2 4

1,001-10,000 5 11 16

10,001-20,000 3 1 1 5

20,001-50,000 1 1

>50,000 1 3 4

Don’t know 1 1

Total 15 23 4 42

Table 126. Cross tabulation of organisational structure and size (sample 3)

178

A one-way between-groups analysis of variance was conducted to explore the effect of

organisational structure on implementation success. This test was suited to exploring the

relationship between the two variables. There was a statistically significant difference at the

P < 0.05 level for the 3 organisation types: F (2, 41)=8.173, p=0.001. Post hoc tests indicated

that, for implementation success, there were significant differences between functional and both

matrix and projectised. The projectised group scored the highest mean (m=8.5) and saw the

most implementation success, followed by matrix (m=6.48) and functional (m=4.60). An

independent samples Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to explore the relationship between

organisational structure and PMM benefit. The test identified a significant difference between

the three structures (functional, n=15; matrix, n=23; projectised, n=4) 2 (2, n=42)=6.161,

p=0.046. The projectised group scored the highest mean rank (m=32.13) and therefore saw the

highest benefit, followed by matrix (m=23.0) and functional (m=16.37).

A one-way between-groups analysis of variance to explore the effect of structure on maturity

was conducted. No significant relationship was found at the P < 0.05 level for the 3 levels:

F (2, 36)=1.160, p=0.329 but it was identified that projectised organisations reported the highest

level of mean maturity (projectised mean=3.68, matrix mean=2.89 and functional mean=2.96).

In reviewing this section, it can be seen that the dominant organisational structure is the matrix

for respondents in sample 3. The matrix is the preferred method of organising regardless of

sector or size. Tests for a relationship between organisational structure and both

implementation success and PMM benefit found that the three types were ordered with

projectised first, then matrix and lastly functional in terms of both implementation success and

PMM benefit.

This concludes section 6.3 and the analysis of sample 3 across the seven dimensions of

descriptive information, validity, organisation and personal results and the three environmental

factors of maturity, culture and organisational structure.

6.4 Conclusion

This chapter has analysed and presented the findings from the quantitative data capture of

samples 2 and 3. The purpose of sample 3 was to validate the findings and analysis of sample

2 to ensure that the respondents in sample 2 were representative of the target population for

this study. The similarity in the findings from samples 2 and 3 as demonstrated in Sections 6.2

and 6.3 give credence to the view that both samples are very similar and that it is likely that the

samples do represent the population of users of PMMs. The description of the samples in

Sections 6.2.1 and 6.3.1 coupled with the analysis of the questions about the respondents’

experience, shown in Sections 6.2.2.and 6.3.2, demonstrate that the respondents have relevant

experience, confidence in project management, work in roles relevant to the study and come

from a range of industries. Once the validity of the samples had been established, this chapter

followed the structure of the questionnaire that can be seen in Appendix 11.

179

Key findings in this chapter are that while some projects staff are involved in the ‘Select’ stage,

a higher percentage would like to be involved (45% and 71% respectively for sample 2). The

use of the PMM was more strongly mandated in sample 2 than sample 3. PRINCE2 was the

dominant recognised method in use but the highest proportion of respondents used in-house

methods. Both samples report high rates of implementation success and PMM benefit. There

was a strong positive correlation between implementation success and PMM benefit which

gives support for the importance of the ‘Embed’ stage. The samples reported high levels of

alignment to their PMM, deviated from the methods for largely positive reasons and believed

that certification had both individual and organisational benefits. For the environmental

variables, the quantitative analysis failed to show a relationship between implementation

success or PMM benefit with maturity and culture but a modest relationship with organisational

structure in Sample 3.

The quantitative data that has been analysed in this chapter consisted of a dataset comprising

169 variables and 71 records. This information was analysed descriptively and statistically to

understand the answers given in the questionnaire. Using appropriate and justified statistical

procedures, multiple tests were carried out to search for relationships and correlations between

the variables in an attempt to gain a deeper understanding of the use of PMMs. While many of

the statistical tests failed to identify significant outcomes, the results contributed to the available

information on PMMs. Despite having a medium-sized dataset available, the temptation was

avoided to search for statistically significant results to report (Levitin 2016) and instead the

focus was maintained on describing and analysing the data in line with the research questions.

Tools to aid the researcher contributed significantly to this chapter. SPSS and Excel enabled

the quantitative data to be analysed and were used to generate the tables and figures in this

chapter.

The next chapter will combine the qualitative and quantitative results and discuss the main

themes identified in this research within the context of the aim and objectives.

180

7 Discussion

7.1 Introduction

In the previous chapters the primary data gleaned from the qualitative (Qual) and quantitative

(Quan) data capture was presented as two separate chapters. The primary data capture was

configured in this way to ensure that all the research questions could be addressed. Table 127

shows the contribution that both data sources have made to the research questions.

Goal Stage Area Research Question Qual

data

Quan

data

Goal A. Understand how organisations select PMMs

‘Select’ Decision-making

1. How are PMMs selected? Major source

Minor source

Goal B. Understand how organisations embed PMMs

‘Embed’ Driving and restraining forces

2. How is the change situation diagnosed?

Major source

Minor source

Change 3. What is the change process for PMMs?

Sole source

Change 4. Are espoused PMM processes different to in-use PMM processes?

Source Source

Goal C. Investigate how maturity, culture and organisational structure affect the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages

‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages

Maturity 5. How does maturity relate to PMMs?

Minor source

Major source

Culture 6. How does organisational culture relate to PMMs?

Minor source

Major source

Structure 7. How does organisational structure relate to PMMs?

Minor source

Major source

Table 127. Mapping research questions to primary data

The objective of this chapter is to bring these two sources together to discuss the findings with

reference to literature and this study’s goals and research questions.

This chapter begins by assessing Goal A, what has been understood about how organisations

select PMMs. Next Goal B, the understanding acquired from the project about the embedding

of PMMs is discussed. The third section assesses Goal C, the environmental issues of

maturity, culture and organisational structure, to understand what the research indicates for

these areas and their relationship with PMMs. The assessment of the goals is followed by a

review of the validity of the PMM life cycle and conceptual models. A revised PMM life cycle

model is presented and a descriptive model of how organisations ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ PMMs is

discussed.

181

7.2 Goal A – Understand how organisations select PMMs

7.2.1 Introduction

The ‘Select’ stage is the first stage in the PMM life cycle and its importance is widely supported

in the literature. On the one hand, ‘Select’ is important because of the way it shapes and

influences the stages that follow (Cooke-Davies et at 2009) and, on the other hand, because of

the risk to the organisation that poor selection can introduce which have been identified by

numerous authors (MacMaster 2002; Shenhar et al 2002; Charvat 2003; Burke 2011; Lientz

2013). A weak selection process may fail to take into consideration the factors involved, may

choose an inappropriate method or too few methods, be overly influenced by external

stakeholders or manage the process in such a way that the people using the new method are

alienated from the very first step. Given the impact ‘Select’ has on the subsequent stages and

the risks associated, it would therefore be difficult to argue that ‘Select’ is not a critical first step

in the PMM life cycle.

The research into the ‘Select’ stage was underpinned by decision-making theory with the

normative model acting in a central role in the conceptual model due to the lack of any more

appropriate models for PMMs in literature. As a normative model, the decision-making process

identified steps that decision-makers could follow when selecting the method for their

organisation. The interviews with participants attempted to assess the applicability of the

normative model and to discern how the participating organisations carried out the process in

reality.

7.2.2 Research question 1: How are PMMs selected?

While the normative model, discussed in Section 3.2.1, is both rational and logical (Jennings

and Wattam 1998) it was not expected that it would offer a good fit for decision making in reality

and this proved to be the case. The divergence between theory and practice began before the

first step in the normative model. Whereas prior research (Wells 2013) had identified a link

between organisational requirements and the decision-making process, the evidence from

sample 1 was that, if requirements were communicated at all, they were high level and it was

more often the case that the managers working in the project sphere would identify the need for

a PMM and make the case to senior management. While this process weakens the link

between the needs of the organisation to achieve its strategic goals and the actions it carries

out, the process of creating projects to fill operational needs is prominent and well documented

in portfolio and project management literature (OGC 2010; APM 2012). Given this way of

working, it should not come as a surprise that the top-down method for initiating the ‘Select’

stage was sparsely evidenced in the interviews. The benefits of the bottom-up method can be

seen from the involvement of subject matter experts who operate in the specialist domain of

project making justified and supported recommendations for senior managers to then make a

decision on the strategic appropriateness of the PMM proposal.

182

Having clear organisational goals is seen as important in the normative model because those

requirements allow the performative criteria for the PMM to be clearly defined. Table 14 in

Section 3.2.2 collated 32 performance criteria that could be used in the decision-making

process. The criteria were categorised into the broad areas of business management, people,

process and technology with the expectation that organisations would give some thought to how

the PMM could either add benefit to the organisation or diminish a negative aspect of

operational practice. The interviewees were purposefully not presented with the list of possible

performance criteria to avoid the post-select rationalisation of their decisions. Instead, the

transcripts were searched for examples of performance criteria. Process was the dominant

category, identified by 57% of responses with people, business and management and

technology accounting for 25%, 14% and 1% respectively. The bottom-up process for selecting

the PMM is possibly the reason why process was the dominant category with those managers

involved in project management being most concerned with how the activities were carried out.

The business and management category, which comprises as many factors as Process in Table

14 including organisational benefit, the reduction of risk and uncertainty and stakeholder

acceptance, accounted for only 25%. The explanation may come from the bottom-up approach

to defining the criteria and the assumption that a top-down approach would have a greater

emphasis on the business and management aspects of the PMM because these are more

closely identifiable with the role and experience of senior managers who are probably unfamiliar

with the processes associated with project management.

The process of identifying the organisations’ performance criteria (Table 43 in Section 5.2.1)

appeared to be clear and straightforward until it began. While a few interviewees (for example

Interviewee 2’s understanding of senior management requirements) did mention the existence

of criteria that fed into the selection process, it is not clear at what point in the selection process

(or later) the other criteria were identified. In the case of organisation F, their performance

criteria evolved as they learned and continued to develop. Interviewee 17 from organisation F

explained how his organisation started from a basic requirement of understanding their project

portfolio. He said “people didn’t know whether projects were, you know, what stage they were

at in their projects, what the actual products were delivered, all of that.” This raises the question

whether it matters that performance criteria are established at the very beginning or whether

they can evolve as use develops. For those organisations with a strong history in PMM (for

example organisation B), the selection process can begin with clear performance criteria

because there is a high level of experience. However, in organisations such as F that were new

to PMMs, their inexperience makes it more difficult for them to pre-define the criteria and a more

workable solution may be, as organisation F has, to start with a general goal of improving the

way projects are managed and to develop the process in light of their experience. In this way,

performance criteria definition can be seen as an on-going process rather than an activity that is

carried out only once.

It is not possible to assess or evaluate the criteria used by sample 1 with existing literature

because this is the first time that a comprehensive list of performance criteria has been

183

assembled for PMMs and empirically tested. While the analysis of the performance criteria

categories is illuminating and potentially beneficial for organisations, it should not be forgotten

that the criteria used in sample 1 was identified post-hoc. It was the case that none of the

organisations interviewed had clearly defined criteria at the outset. This confirms earlier

research from Thomas and Mullaly (2007) who found that, despite the potential benefits

identified by senior managers, project staff and consultants, no attempt was made to quantify

the benefits. For the participants in this study, selecting and implementing a PMM was

sufficient. Although some may see the identification of performance criteria as unnecessary,

they matter for two reasons. First, without criteria, it is not possible to measure the benefits of

the PMM to the organisation and thus there is no opportunity to make an evidence-based

assessment of the pros and cons of the investment and resources committed. Second, the

criteria offer a broad range from which organisations could select appropriate criteria and it is

envisaged that the availability of such a list would benefit organisations by exposing them to the

reasons for selecting a PMM. Such a list may enable organisations to seek more benefits from

a prospective PMM by listing all the opportunities available to them. Selecting a PMM based on

no or poorly defined criteria wastes the business, process, people and technology benefits that

could potentially be exploited if they were targeted by the organisation.

The next stage in the normative model encourages decision-makers to analyse the situation

and define the problem at the heart of their decision. This is the ‘why’ for the decision (Jennings

and Wattam 1998). Table 15 in Section 3.2.3, based on the work of the APMG (2002), Charvat

(2003), Kerzner (2013), Burke (2011) and the PMI (2014a), lists the five categories of problems

that PMMs can address. While it was not clear how organisations had reached this diagnosis,

the evidence from sample 1 was that all five problems were applicable and it was possible that

more than one problem could be present in an organisation. This finding caused the

interpretation of the problem statement to be revised from an anticipation that organisations

would have one problem to the view that organisations could face several problems

simultaneously. The vagueness with which organisations define the issues to be addressed by

PMMs may not be a concern. That said, diagnosing the situation and defining the problem or

problems scenario more clearly would provide more focus on ensuring the chosen method

addresses the problem to as great an extent as possible and that organisations would benefit

from this approach because they have a higher probability of resolving the problems they face

once they have been framed and they understand what they are (Stanovich 1999; Thaler 2015).

The third stage in the normative model involves the identification of suitable options that can be

chosen. This step requires pre-existing performance criteria against which the competing

options may be judged (Jennings and Wattam 1998). This step, as defined in the model was

largely omitted by organisations in sample 1 because they did not possess the necessary

foundational work. On the basis of this research, the normative decision-making model has low

correlation with the process in reality, at least amongst the participating organisation in this

research. The evidence from sample 1 was that the decision-making process was very much

shortened and contained no discernible steps that were followed. The qualitative data had

184

identified that the staff involved in ‘Select’ were primarily operational managers who were

experienced in project management with the quantitative data reflecting that project managers

were also involved, albeit at a lower level than they would wish. Of the theories proposed to

explain the normative-descriptive gap (Stanovich 1999), the theory that most accurately

explains the decision-making in sample 1 is alternate problem construal and in particular how

the past experience of those we know to be involved in the ‘Select’ process and how that

experience influences both how they see the ‘Select’ stage and the decisions they make. A

strong thread running through the interviews was how the participants were influenced,

consciously or subconsciously, by the processes they had used in the past for managing

projects. For those interviewees involved in selection, there was a high correlation between the

PMMs used in the past and the PMM selected. Behavioural economists such as Kahneman,

Tversky (1973, 1985, 2011) and Thaler (2015) would regard such behaviour as entirely

predictable but it probably comes as a surprise because it is so far removed from the normative

model which makes eminent cognitive sense despite having no empirical support in this

research. There is a potential danger in basing the selection of a PMM on past experience

because, as Taleb (2007) identifies, the flawed memories of past experiences can influence our

future actions. While alternate problem construal appeared to offer the best explanation for the

actions of sample 2, it was not possible to ascertain why this was the case. It is possible that

the other explanations advanced to explain the short-comings of the normative model may be

the reasons why decision-makers appear to rely on their past experience. Uncertainty or

complexity in the environment (March 1994) or expertise (Beach and Connolly 2005) may

encourage decision-makers to take decisions that may be objectively sub-optimal but which are

‘good enough’ given the situation (Simon 1966). Interviewee 3, organisation A, provided a

succinct phrasing of the dilemma of having to make a decision under uncertainty and opting for

a choice that offers some (albeit undefined) benefit to the organisation when he said:

I have gone back to previous projects that I have worked on and taken methodologies

that I have either been given or developed in the past and I have trimmed that down or

customised it to what I believe would be useful. (Interviewee 3, Organisation A)

A striking aspect of the ‘Select’ phase was its long term influence in some, but not all,

organisations. In the case of organisation D, the method had been introduced 8 years

previously and for organisation C the method had been used for the last 16 years. The long-

term nature of PMMs, coupled with the movement of staff within and between organisations,

meant that some interviewees were unaware of how their PMM was selected. In many of the

organisations that took part in the research, the selection of the PMM had preceded the

interviewees’ employment and was therefore not something that could be discussed in detail.

However, not all the organisations took the same long-term perspective with some much more

active in the ‘Select’ phase. For example, organisation A had introduced a highly structured

method 4 years ago, had replaced this 2 years ago with a very flexible PMM and were now

considering adding more structure to their method. The Head of the PMO explained:

185

Originally we went down to PRINCE2 route prior to the PMO being set up. I think that

was the right thing to do at the time because the organisation was very disorganised

and we needed some rigour brought into their organisation. So that worked very well

but when we started to set up the PMO what I was asked to do was look at a slightly

more quicker route perhaps to do that so we have our own methodology which is

loosely based on PRINCE and probably on the APM processes. (Interviewee 2,

Organisation A)

7.2.3 Conclusion

From the information available, it is apparent that organisations do not follow a clear process in

the ‘Select’ stage. The normative decision-making model has been shown to be a poor

predictor of performance. It would be easy to dispense with the normative decision-making

model due to its low predictive capability of the actual process but it does have aspects that

mean it should not be dismissed totally. The explanations for decision-making from the more

recent studies of Kahneman and Tversky (1973, 1985, 2011) and Thaler (2015) in terms of

alternate problem construal and past experience provide a persuasive explanation of the

‘Select’ stage. The benefits of defining or being aware of the problem and the role of the PMM

in satisfying performance requirements are aspects of the ‘Select’ process that can add value to

organisations. The dominant model is that managers in the PM sphere select PMMs because

they are trusted to do so by their senior management teams and they use their past experience

and expertise to guide them in what is suitable for their organisational needs. Intuitively thinking

that the past PMM choices will be suitable and relevant to an organisation today is dangerous

because it may indeed be a narrative fallacy (Taleb 2007) but this does go some way to

providing an explanation for why managers omit the identification of performance criteria and

problem statements – they do not think they are necessary. Those managers already know the

answer but this is likely to be to a different question and not relevant to the requirements for a

PMM today (Kahneman 2011). Worse still, the omission of any form of assessment of that

decision means that it is not possible to judge its appropriateness nor question the validity of

past narratives which can lead to the perpetuation of established ways of framing and deciding.

The ‘Select’ work is largely undertaken by managers with some involvement of project staff.

Project staff would like to have greater involvement in the ‘Select’ stage. The outcome of the

‘Select’ stage is largely seen a positive with PMM benefit scores of 72% for sample 2 and 71%

for sample 3. This could be interpreted as a validation of past experience and suggests that

these managers do make appropriate ‘Select’ decisions. However, there is little evidence from

other research which would assist in interpreting these data to enable an assessment of the link

between the ‘Select’ stage and organisational benefit.

While some PMMs can have a life measure in months, other PMMs can provide support to

organisational project management that is measured in tens of years. Charvat (2003) claims

that PMMs are a strategic decision, but the findings here are that they can also be seen as a

very short term, more operational decision too. The testimony from Organisation A about their

186

repeated ‘Select’ stages and also the brevity of activity within this stage witnessed across all

organisations in this study gives very strong support to the view of ‘Select’ as a short stage in

the life cycle. The stage appears to comprise limited, high level performance criteria and is

heavily influenced by the past experience of those involved. The stage is not seen by

organisations as having great importance because they choose not to set more detailed

performance criteria nor evaluate the decision afterwards.

Looking across all the interviews, it is clear that organisations do not have clear, defined and

agreed criteria when selecting a PMM and they are used for a variety of purposes as other

research has found (Wells 2012). The uniform view that was formed from the interviews was

that organisations had general criteria in mind (for example flexibility, improved project control)

and that no organisation set about defining these in any level of detail that could be measured

and used for later evaluation of the initial decision. The inability to measure the outcomes of

selecting a PMM would seem to be a major weakness because it is impossible to conclude

whether the investment in process and people was warranted and delivered the benefits that

were expected. When discussing the factors, none of the participants expressed any priority

between them and no priority was discernible from the transcripts. It is very likely to be the case

that the factors will have differing importance to the organisation and a recognition of this would

potentially enable organisations to focus their attention on the key factors in their environment.

While there is a large volume of literature on the need to manage the benefits from projects

(Gardiner 2005; Burke 2011; Morris et al 2011; Kerzner 2013; Pinto 2013; Mir and Pinnington

2014), there is an evident paradox in how organisations sought control at the individual project

level from the PMM but did not approach the selection of a new PMM as a project. It is unclear

why the mechanism that would affect so many projects, staff and resources was not controlled

in a more structured way. In a time when IT/IS projects continue to have challenged outcomes

(Cameron and Green 2015), it behoves organisations, whatever their level of experience in

PMMs, to give greater consideration to how the methods are selected, especially given the

evidence from the interviews that, in general, a PMM could operate for many years.

The quantitative data shed light on which PMMs are being selected and where organisations

are arrayed on the PMM continuum. Table 65 in Section 6.2.3 showed that PRINCE2 and in-

house methods were the most popular in sample 2 and Table 106 in Section 6.3.3 confirmed

the dominance of these two choices. The preference for PRINCE2 was understandable given

the UK focus of the research. The organisations choosing PRINCE2 or based on PRINCE2

would be to the right of centre on the continuum (Figure 3 in Section 2.5) whereas the in-house

methods do not recognise any standard or method and would appear to the left of centre.

Organisations wanting to find a fit between the environment and the management of projects

may be swayed in the ‘Select’ stage to develop a bespoke solution, to the left of the PMM

continuum, where they can choose the range and level of tool usage that they believe offers the

highest level of fit for the organisation (Donaldson 2006). Such a conclusion is supported by the

discussion in Sections 3.5.4 and 3.8.2, the findings of Wells (2013) and Joslin and Müller (2016

187

p364) who found that “contingency theory is applicable to the project’s methodology’s selection

and its customization according to the project’s environment”. While creating a more tailored

PMM does have benefits, the further the organisation moves to the left of the PMM continuum

the more the benefits listed in Tables 6 and 7 in Section 2.3 begin to diminish. For example, the

creation of a bespoke method brings with it additional costs for training and the support of

project staff because everyone coming into the organisation and the external stakeholders with

whom they work will have to learn the processes in use and this has a time and efficiency

implication. In bespoke PMMs, the need for and value of certification diminishes because they

are no longer directly applicable to the project staff’s work and behaviours. Supporting

certification may, on the one hand, add to the restraining forces because staff may want to

deploy what they have learnt and on the other hand, certification may be seen by project staff

as a key part of their role due to its link to their performance. Organisation B is a good example

of a company to the right of the continuum that uses processes strongly linked to recognisable

methods and that has invested in training and certifying its managers. Here, contingency theory

would suggest Organisation B is trading away the benefits of close environmental fit for the

advantages of using a standardised method at the lowest cost. Thus it can be concluded that

there is a balance between the benefits of environmental fit and the benefits of standardisation

and that these are key consideration in the ‘Select’ stage.

7.3 Goal B – Understand how organisations embed PMMs

This goal comprises three research questions which will be discussed separately and this will

be followed by a conclusion to bring the different strands together.

7.3.1 Research question 2. How is the change situation diagnosed?

In Section 3.3 the benefits of diagnosing the change situation were discussed. The key benefits

are that diagnosis sets the scene for change, provides lenses to frame thinking and promotes

an exploration of the factors that will support or restrain the change (Beach and Connolly 2005;

Thaler 2015). This better understanding and preparation is linked to more successful change

outcomes (Pettigrew and Whipp 1993; Strebel 1994; Plowman et at 2007; Balogun and Hailey

2008). Based on these benefits identified from the secondary literature, it was expected that

organisations would conduct some form of current situation analysis before embarking on the

‘Embed’ stage but this expectation was not supported by the primary data.

An investigation of the change type using the Balogun and Hailey (2008) model described in

Section 3.3.1 and reported in Section 5.2.2, suggested that all the organisations in the study

were using the adaptation change type where the end result is realignment and the nature of

change is incremental. As none of the organisations explicitly conducted a change type

analysis, the type used by each organisation was inferred from how they described the ‘Embed’

stage (see Table 45 in Section 5.2.2). The small sample size coupled with the subjective

interpretation means that the discussion of the change situation is more theoretical than

empirical. While the literature from Section 3.3.2 suggested that analysing the change type

would be beneficial, the fact that the sample of participating organisations did not undertake this

188

activity raises the question of whether it is merited. The framing aspect of this activity (Thaler

2015) would seem to be helpful in guiding the organisation in how to think about the forthcoming

organisational change. Seeing the change as ‘adaptation’ may guide organisations to think

about how to help staff to transition from the current set of processes given that there is already

a process in place. This may prompt a selection of a change model that is orientated for

definitive change (as summarised in Table 21 in Section 3.4.1) for example, Kotter’s 8 steps.

Assessing the change as evolutionary may prompt the organisation to ask if that is the most

appropriate type of change and whether a more evolution or reconstruction type (using Balogun

and Hailey’s (2008) language), would provide more benefit to the organisation. As all the

organisations were judged to have adopted the adaptation type, it was not possible to assess

whether there was any link between the change type and PMM benefit. A question to be asked

in future research is whether the change type is associated with the outcome of using the PMM.

It is difficult to argue against the merits of conducting a change type analysis. It is not a

complex or time-consuming activity yet it offers many benefits to organisations as they embed

the PMM. Despite these characteristics, no organisation in this study carried out this analysis.

This could be because the sample is small and it failed to include any organisation that did

conduct change type analysis. It is also possible that the organisations omitted this stage

because they were unaware of the tools available to them in change management or, perhaps

more probably given the finding on how organisations select PMMs, discussed in Section 7.2.2,

organisations have not used such tools in the past and there is no organisational memory

(Nelson and Winter 1982) about their benefit. A feasible explanation for this organisational

behaviour is path dependency (Johnson et al 2008) whereby the project staff responsible for the

‘Embed’ stage do not see the need for this level of analysis, a decision potentially prompted by

the fact that they see the change type as adaptation. The issue here, similar to the ‘Select’

stage, is that the omission of some form of diagnosis of the change situation may be a sub-

optimal decision (Taleb 2007) that has an effect on the stages that follow. However, unless

there is some post-embed review, it is unlikely that organisations will identify the impact and

thus the cycle is likely to repeat itself.

Building on an analysis of the change type, the conceptual model suggests that assessing the

driving and restraining forces using models, discussed in 3.3.2, such as 7S (Waterman et at

1980) and force field analysis (Lewin 1952) would be beneficial to the change process. From

the research data it was clear that no organisation explicitly used these or any similar tools to

identify the factors in their ‘Embed’ stages but this did not mean that the factors were not

present. Tables 18 and 19 in Section 3.3.2 show the factors identified from literature and Table

46 in Section 5.2.2 summarises the factors that were identified during the interviews and

categorises these into the driving and restraining forces, using Lewin’s language.

Combining the literature and primary research factors, it is possible to distil a list of the driving

and restraining forces relevant to PMMs. Table 128 lists the forces and their component

189

factors. The third column lists the recommended ways in which the factor can be enhanced in

the case of the driving force and diminished for the restraining forces.

Force Factor Recommendation

Driving Benefits orientation

Set performance criteria for the PMM and achieve those goals. Ensure the benefits include those to be gained by the organisation and those by the individual. Give prominence to those benefits that directly help project staff by saving time, improving efficiency, enhancing customer satisfaction

Capacity building Ensure the necessary resources are in place and that experienced project staff are available for the implementation

Project orientation Treat the embedding as a project and use the tools and techniques of project management. Within this factor is leadership from the senior management team who, through their actions, can positively influence the other driving forces. Framing the embedding as a project will lessen the chance that the project suffers from weak driving forces

Culture Nudge towards a culture that is supporting of the PMM. Motivate project staff to be involved in the change

Good understanding of the change situation

Ensure there is a good understanding of the change situation by taking into account all the factors that will influence the embedding. Fit the PMM to the needs of the organisation

Restraining Risk Identify the risks to the project and manage these. Risk management will be helped by taking a project orientation. A key risk that needs to be managed carefully is the time needed to move beyond surface level embedding

Weak understanding of the change situation

Work to create a thorough understanding of the change situation. Avoid relying on past projects and approach this implementation as if it is the first such project

Culture If the culture is not supporting of the new PMM, identify small changes that will encourage staff to change their views

Resource deficit Avoid underestimating the resources needed to successful implement a PMM. This factor will be helped by taking a project orientation and by having a good understanding of the change situation

Table 128. Driving and restraining forces

This research has generated a list of the factors pertinent to the embedding of PMMs. Based

on this list of factors, further research is needed to identify a mechanism to determine the

magnitude of the factors. It is anticipated that the magnitudes will be determined on an

organisation by organisation basis as no generic model would be able to encompass the

variability in the factors that affect change. A self-scoring, readiness checklist is envisaged that

organisations would complete to identify the factors relevant to their implementation. It is

imagined that a list, expanded from Table 128, could be used as the starting point for

organisations to identify potential driving and restraining factors and their importance in order

that organisations can put in place a plan and resources to deliver an appropriate level of

190

embedding of the PMM. Few would disagree that Lewin’s model, now quite old in change

management literature terms, is still a simple, illuminating and beneficial method for providing a

way to identify and manage the factors and, ultimately, for increasing the chance of

implementation success.

In reviewing research question 2, it is clear that there is a strong normative rationale for

organisations diagnosing the change situation using the models described in this section. Chief

amongst the benefits are the framing of the ‘Embed’ stage and improving the chances of a

successful outcome (Pettigrew and Whipp 1993; Strebel 1994; Beach and Connolly 2005;

Plowman et at 2007; Balogun and Hailey 2008; Thaler 2015). Despite the normative rationale,

there is no evidence from the sample in this research that organisations engage in the diagnosis

step. The primary data in Section 5.2.2 shows that organisations will come across the same

factors that the diagnosis would have brought to light but the factors will present themselves as

project issues that need immediate attention rather than project risks or events for which due

preparation and allowance has been made. It follows therefore that organisations are very likely

to be less well prepared for the appearance of an embedding factor if they have omitted this

step in the stage. All of the factors that appear in the tables of driving and restraining forces (in

Tables 18, 19 and 46) are known to project and change management literature which means

they could be taken into consideration should organisations wish to do so. Not all the factors

will be relevant to every organisation but some factors will be applicable and organisations can

benefit from understanding these forces, their magnitude and how they might manage them.

The step after diagnosis is for organisations to implement the change and embed the PMM in

the organisation. The third research question looks at how organisations achieve this.

7.3.2 Research question 3. What is the change process for PMMs?

Managing the process of change is important if that change is to be successful (PMI 2013d)

because change is difficult (Rogers 2003). The field of change management has a shorter

history than project management and this means that it is still in its immature phase which is

characterised by a multitude of normative models and a paucity of evidence to justify its

existence (Pollack 2017). Behind research question 3 was the assumption that the

implementation of a PMM was likely to be accompanied by some form of change management

because the literature links purposeful change with successful evolution (PMI 2013d). The

expectation had been that organisations would want to manage the change process to increase

the chances that the implementation was successful. The evidence from the participating

organisations was that the change process was not managed in a planned way. Instead,

organisations chose to react to issues that arose and to take a more ad hoc approach to guiding

the implementation. It is noted that this was the same approach to diagnosing the change

situation that was discussed in the previous section. This consistency of approach may be

linked to the finding that all the organisations were aligned to the adaptation change type and it

may be that this framing of the implementation is lessening the need to take a more formal,

planned approach to the change. Had other organisations been involved in the research which

191

had aligned with more disruptive change types, it is possible that the use of change

management may have been evidenced. Contingency theory (Burns and Stalker 1961;

Donaldson 2006; Andersen 2008; Joslin and Müller 2015, 2016) would support this responsive

approach to the environment as the optimal way of making the implementation stage

successful. However, none of the participants made it clear that their approach was

purposefully responsive which means that an explanation based on contingency theory may be

either too generous or inappropriate.

On the basis of sample 1, organisations were perceived to be embedding a PMM from an

adaptation perspective, to take an ad hoc, responsive approach to managing the change and

there is no evidence of any use of change models. It is impossible to comment on the

effectiveness of the change process because none of the organisations assessed the

implementation of their PMM.

7.3.3 Research question 4. Are espoused PMM processes different to in-use PMM

processes?

One of the outcomes of the ‘Embed’ stage is the way in which the processes are used in the

organisation. The issue of espoused versus in-use processes, explored in Section 3.5, is not

therefore an issue at the ‘Select’ stage and relates more to the ‘Embed’ stage in which

organisations are changing processes. The underlying perspectives contained in translation

theory and practice theory provide a valuable lens through with to view how processes are

followed in practice (Nicolini 2012; Feldman and Worline 2016; Drori et al 2014; Wedlin and

Sahlin 2017). In the same way that project maturity views the discipline of managing projects

from a process perspective in order to gain a better understanding, so practice theory allows us

to create insights into how and why actors within organisations conduct their tasks and

activities. The practice of managing projects and using PMMs is sometimes overt (for example

when briefing stakeholders during a meeting) and at other times hidden from view (for example

when undertaking risk assessment or replanning a project). This inability to know exactly what

practices are being followed by actors throughout the process makes a practice theory lens

applicable for assessing project management and the use of PMMs.

The questionnaire asked if the PMM was mandatory in the organisation. In sample 2, 77%

responded affirmatively and the rate in sample 3 was much lower at 24%. While sample 2 did

demonstrate some ability to deviate from the PMM under certain conditions (for example project

characteristics) the optionality reflected by sample 3 was far greater. It is therefore impossible

to generalise on the frequency of non-compliance given the large difference in the responses for

the two samples.

Practice theory can help us to understand the factors at play that compete to produce the level

of compliance in an organisation. While it is recognised that the level of compliance is an

individual decision, the level of analysis is maintained at the organisation level in keeping with

the level in the thesis as a whole. The competition between the compliance factors brings to

192

mind Lewin’s (1952) force field analysis and the mental visualisation of the factors (from Section

3.3.2) and also Cameron and Quinn’s (2011) idea that the elements are in constant flux (from

Section 3.7.2). This would seem to be a helpful way to contemplate and visualise the dynamic

situation that defines, at a point in time, an organisation’s level of compliance with the defined

processes.

Respondents were asked if they follow the PMM most of the time (Question 17.8). 80% in each

sample answered affirmatively. Practice theory offers explanations for the factors that are

driving this level of compliance. Powell and DiMaggio (1991) identified three mechanisms that

lead to conformity and all three are applicable to the embedding of PMMs: Project staff are

encouraged to conform through their contractual obligations with the organisation and will also

be swayed in a less formal way by the culture in the organisation (Cameron and Quinn 2011),

referred to as coercive isomorphism; following a method is a valid response to reducing

uncertainty while delivering a project (mimetic isomorphism); finally, normative isomorphism

comes from actors behaving in an increasingly similar way as the industry in which they operate

becomes more mature and professional. Taking this last point first, the data show that the

respondents in this research see value in certification because the average number of PMM

certifications is two per person and also that respondents believe that certification has

benefitted their knowledge, skills and attitude (see Sections 6.2.4 and 6.3.4). The growth of

certification since its inception (see Figure 2, Section 2.4) suggests that project management is

maturing into a profession and that this development is one of the factors encouraging

compliance. In terms of the second point, we have seen from Tables 6 and 7 in Section 2.3 that

there are organisational and project-level benefits from using PMMs which, taken as a whole,

act to improve the delivery of projects by reducing the uncertainties that can imperil the

management of projects. From the data, it can be seen that approximately 75% of respondents

agree that the PMM processes have been embedded in their organisation in terms of being

used, understood and supported by senior management (sample 2 reported 77% and sample 3

71% based on Tables 66 and 107 in Sections 6.2.3 and 6.3.3 respectively). This demonstrates

that samples 2 and 3 have accepted the use of PMMs as a valid way to manage projects in the

organisation and this high level agreement in the project staff acts to further encourage their

compliance.

Taken together, it is easy to hypothesise that compliance may grow over time as the

isomorphism factors reinforce each other to drive up the rate of conformity so that the PMM

becomes the routine, unquestioned way of managing projects (Nelson and Winter 1982;

Hodgson and Knudsen 2004; Wedlin and Sahlin 2017). Training in PMMs and their repeated

use can be viewed as embedding the routines to the extent that they become the strategies by

which future projects are addressed and the tools and techniques they comprise become the

routines that are followed by project teams across the organisation (Narduzzo et al 2000;

Feldman 2000; Paoli and Principe 2003; Pentland 2003). It is clear from the questionnaire that

respondents value the training they have received because it is useful to their work (Figures 31

and 40 in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.3.4 respectively). Further research of a longitudinal nature

193

would be needed to assess the validity of this hypothesis. It is certainly the case that some

participating organisations have been using their current method for many years so there may

be credence in this hypothesis. Of the three isomorphic factors, coercive is largely under the

control of the organisation while normative is partly organisational and also professional.

Mimetic isomorphism is most influenced by the external environment and may be the factor that

is most involved in causing a change in a PMM. An example would be where the method

ceases to be a useful or beneficial way to manage projects in the organisation so that actors

begin to adapt their routines to deal with the new uncertainty. This interpretation fits

Organisation A well. Organisation A changed to a less formal method and are now

contemplating a different PMM that better deals with the levels of uncertainty they face. While

mimetic isomorphism is perhaps the most likely cause of change and may be slow to evolve,

there are also examples of coercive isomorphism as the agent of change, for example where an

organisation merges or is acquired and the new management team imposes their PMM on the

subordinate party.

There is one further aspect of coercive isomorphism that warrants discussion. Powell and

DiMaggio (1991) note that one effect of this pressure is that conformity is only superficial. On

the surface it looks like change is taking place but underneath there is action but no real, lasting

change. As an example of this, the extent to which organisations engage in PRINCE2 In Name

Only (PINO), explained in Section 3.4.2, has not been thoroughly researched and, while it would

be difficult to research given the sensitivity of the subject, it would merit further investigation.

While it is correct to say that coercive isomorphism is under the control of the organisation, it

would appear that great care is needed to ensure the compliance is deeply rooted rather than

superficial. However, there was no question to respondents about the level of coercion they felt

which meant that this line of thought could not be taken any further.

From what has just been argued, a valid expectation would be that PMMs become the dominant

routine for managing projects in the organisation but this is not necessarily so. Powell and

DiMaggio’s (1991) concept of isomorphism, discussed in the previous paragraphs, contains

three positive reasons for conformity and Pinto (2014) added a fourth reason but one that has a

negative connotation. Pinto (2014) suggested that the gradual acceptance of non-conforming

behaviour can lead, over time, to what he termed the normalisation of deviance. Normalising

non-conforming behaviour is one reason why project staff might go against the espoused way of

working. There are three other reasons for this. First, the concept of path dependency

(Johnson et al 2008) is, as this thesis has already discussed in Section 7.3.1, a powerful

influence of behaviour. Training and education were two factors mentioned in Section 3.2.6 that

are particularly relevant to PMMs. The quantitative data from Sections 6.2.4 and 6.3.4 show

that, in sample 2, 46% of staff use more than one method and the figure for sample 3 is 42%.

With the average number of certifications in project management per person being two, project

staff have alternative methods from which they can choose. Second and linked to training and

certification is experience. The data reflects the many years of experience that staff have built

up in projects (56% of sample 3 has more than 10 years of project experience and the figure for

194

sample 2 is higher at 61% according to Sections 6.3.2 and 6.2.2 respectively). Nelson and

Winter (1982) suggested that people limit the search for alternatives and use their experience to

expedite the search for a solution. It would be logical for project staff, especially if they are

experienced and qualified, as we know the respondents in samples 2 and 3 to be, that they

sometimes substitute a routine or solution that worked successfully for them in the past rather

than search for a solution within the confines of their de facto PMM. If Winter and Nelson are

correct, the data should reflect the fact that the willingness to deviate from the process is

positively related to experience with more experienced staff being more willing to substitute their

own processes. However, the data do not reflect this association. While this is a surprising

outcome, the explanation might be that the sample size is too small to identify such a

relationship or that there are confounding variables, for example culture and the nature of the

project, that are acting to modify the degree to which experience is related to process

substitution. The third issue relates to the driving and restraining forces. Whereas the forces

were discussed as though they represented a discrete step, the forces do not, in reality,

disappear once embedding commences. Over time, the driving and restraining forces will

change in their composition and magnitude. If the embedding is to be successful, focus will still

be needed to ensure the superiority of the driving forces. Organisation A demonstrates the

importance of the continued involvement of the senior management team as a powerful driving

force. The continued attention to the forces is needed because, using the example of

Organisation A, should the senior management team lose interest, this driving force will be

diminished. In reaction to this, the restraining forces may increase in potency leading project

staff to follow the PMM less closely and start to deviate from the espoused processes.

In response to being asked about process substitution, the responses were grouped into

positive and negative directions to facilitate analysis. In hindsight, the delineation into positive

and negative may have been unduly dichotomous. It is not possible to discern from the data

whether a respondent who attributes deviation to “At times flexibility is required to meet the

culture of the project and maintain a give and take” is saying that tailoring is undertaken in line

with the guidelines of the PMM or whether the PMM is being ignored and the respondent is

putting a positive perspective on processes that do not fall into the tailoring range. Tables 75

and 116 (in Sections 6.2.4 and 6.3.4 respectively) reported that twelve respondents mentioned

the needs of the customer as being a persuasive reason to change the process and this could

be seen as being a positive or negative rationale depending on the perspective taken. This

duality of interpretation is a symptom of the perspective (Morgan 1986). In the quantitative

analysis in Chapter 6, the perspective taken was that of the PMM process. The problem is that

a different perspective may give a different outcome. For example, omitting a process from the

defined method would be seen as negative from a PMM perspective but if that omission saved

time and resulted in a financial gain it may be seen as positive from an organisational

standpoint. Since PMMs are there to serve the organisation, it was probably an error to adopt

the PMM perspective in hindsight and a more appropriate choice would have been to assess

non-compliance using the organisation’s view.

195

Without an instrument to measure the location of organisations on the PMM continuum, it is not

possible to investigate whether there is a relationship between the continuum location and

respondents’ willingness to diverge from the defined PMM that was discussed in Section 3.5.

There was a stark contrast between the language used by participants to explain non-

compliance and the practice theory language in Section 3.5. The respondents used language

that was practical, pragmatic and project-oriented and explained their reasons for moving away

from the espoused ways of working in the organisation. There was no deeper reflection from

respondents that the reasons for deviation may be because their past experience suggested a

better way of doing things or that there was inherent flexibility to make changes and

improvements. This is one of the downsides of using a questionnaire to capture data in that it is

not possible to drill down and identify the underlying reasons for a decision or action.

The guidance from the PMM suppliers is that their methods and standards need to be tailored to

the requirements of the project (OGC 2009; PMI 2017b) and there is certainly evidence of

widespread process substitution in samples 2 and 3 that can be assessed as either positive or

negative depending on the stance taken. It was not evident from the participating organisations

that any level of non-compliance was built into the ‘Embed’ stage. A possible explanation for

this is that the flexibility to deviate is built into the third stage of the PMM life cycle, ‘Tailor’. The

scope of this research did not extent to the Tailor stage which meant that it was not possible to

investigate this explanation for non-compliance. An alternate explanation, supported by the

findings from organisations A, C, and D is that the espoused processes are not defined in detail

and that this approach encourages or condones other in-use processes, that is, the

organisations adopt a contingent approach. For example, the PMM in organisation C contained

mandatory stage gates that required explicit documentation to be produced and, while there

was guidance for the processes between stage gates, this was more advisory than mandatory.

Despite this lack of compulsion to follow the processes, the questionnaire respondents from

organisation C did report that they did not always follow the process which suggest either that

they are failing to comply with the mandatory stage gates or, returning to the ideas of

isomorphism, they felt the steps in their PMM are more mandated than was intended.

Practice theory can be very useful when applied to PMMs due to the insights it provides for why

project staff may or may not follow a PMM. Many reasons for following or not following PMMs

were recorded during the data capture stage (listed in Tables 75 and 116, in Sections 6.2.4 and

6.3.4 respectively). The analysis and discussion of these reasons was shown to be very

affected by the perspective taken with a more pro-PMM stance viewing non-espoused

processes in a negative light and a pro-organisation stance viewing non-espoused processes

potentially more positively. The forces driving compliance and non-compliance are likely to be

competing and changeable as the environment in which projects are managed flexes over time.

It is likely that there is a balance within organisation for espoused and in-use processes which

can take the benefits of both to drive overall benefit from the management of projects. For

example, from espoused processes come stability, standardisation, shared understanding, staff

co-ordination and the support for certification and of PMOs. From in-use processes comes

196

adaptation to the environment, flexibility, innovation and the exploitation of prior experience and

knowledge. Now that it has been established that there are differences between espoused and

in-use processes, a future research question would seek to understand the optimal balance

between the two opposing yet complementary ways of working.

7.3.4 Conclusion

Three research questions were set to answer the second research goal about how

organisations embed PMMs. The first of these research questions evaluated the extent to

which organisations diagnosed the change situation. Using models of change type and

situation analysis, the literature review identified the benefits to change initiatives from first

framing the type of change being undertaken (Balogun and Hailey 2008; Thaler 2015) and then

assessing the forces for and against the proposed change (Lewin 1952; Waterman et al 1980).

None of the organisations in this study conducted any current state diagnosis because, it was

proposed, they had not done it before or, in their experience, they had not needed to undertake

analysis. The risks that this approach poses to the implementation process include making sub-

optimal decisions and having to react to issues as they arise even though a list of generic

issues is identifiable before the ‘Embed’ stage begins. This reactive approach by all the

participating organisations was repeated when it came to carrying out the change. One

possible explanation that encompassed both the diagnosis step and the change process was

that the organisations were categorised as implementing an adaptive change type where a less

formal embedding process might be expected. Another explanation centred on the fact that the

change models discussed are normative and there is little evidence of their effectiveness in

managing change. Whatever the reason for not overtly managing the ‘Embed’ stage and,

without any goals or objectives for the stage and no evidence that the stage was reviewed upon

completion, it is not possible to conclude how well the stage was managed and whether the

approach taken could have been improved. In terms of research question 2, the conclusion is

that there is no evidence that organisations diagnose the change situation. In terms of research

question 3, the conclusion is that there is no evidence that organisations manage the process of

change.

Research question 4 addressed the issue of whether espoused processes for managing

projects are different to the processes used in reality. Within goal 2, this question elicited the

most discussion. Using practice theory literature to understand the reasons why processes may

or may not be followed by project staff provided insights into this aspect of the research project.

It was shown that there are reasons for both following and not following PMMs and that the

analysis of these deviations is very affected by the perspective taken. Using an organisational

viewpoint, a deviation from the espoused PMM may be seen as positive whereas a different

perspective, say the PMOs, may view a deviation from the defined process in a negative light.

The factors affecting the balance between espoused and in-use processes would seem to be

the same factors that drive and restrain the embed stage, demonstrating how the diagnosis

activities are less a discrete step in the ‘Embed’ stage and more a continuing activity.

197

7.4 Goal C – Investigate how maturity, culture and organisational

structure affect the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages.

The large OGC study from 2010 found that the main factors constraining the success of PMMs

came from the ‘Embed’ stage and were rooted in the organisational environment rather than the

method itself (Sargeant et al 2010). The third goal of the project was divided into three research

questions related to the environment and these will be discussed in the following sections.

These research questions assess the impact on the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages of three

environmental variables: maturity, culture and structure.

7.4.1 Research question 5. How does maturity relate to PMMs?

The first of the environmental variables to be discussed is maturity which is a measure of the

consistency with which processes are carried out. Project maturity is a popular topic in PM

literature. Figure 13 in Section 3.6 demonstrates that there have been 70 articles per year on

average in the last decade (Biggins et al 2016b). There are also multiple models that

organisations can use as the basis for working with maturity in their environment (Grant and

Pennypacker 2006; Meredith et al 2016). The importance of maturity derives from the linkage

between maturity and strong project management performance (PWC 2004; IBM 2008; Mitchell

et al 2008; Richardson 2010; Swanson 2012).

Based on the merits of maturity management that pervade the literature, it would be expected

that this topic was high on the agendas for organisations. In the samples in this research, this

was not however the case and this came as a surprising result. The summary across sample 1

is that organisations do not value maturity management and many are unaware of the maturity

within their own organisation. This was surprising because the modal maturity for sample 2 was

3, higher than the average maturity found in literature (reported in Table 24, Section 3.6.1) and

at which level it might be expected that sample 2 would have some interest in maturity

management.

The literature review demonstrated the benefits of carrying out maturity assessments (Bryde

2003; Chrissis et al 2003; Mitchell et al 2008; Pinto 2013; Sargent 2016; Meredith et al 2016).

Where assessments had taken place in organisations A to G the majority appeared to have

been conducted internally. Only organisation D made it clear that their assessment has been

conducted by an external organisation. External assessment would have the benefit of

independence and improved objectivity over self-assessment. Interviewee 15, from

organisation D, said the reason why they had stopped external assessment was because they

had not used the information generated by the contractor. The availability of online tools

(Axelos 2017) may reduce the financial cost and demand for external assessment albeit at the

potential validity cost of self-reporting and self-assessment. However, the process will have

little benefit to organisations if the findings and recommendations are not used afterwards. This

suggests that organisations do not see value in the process. It proved impossible to gain data

from Axelos on the usage and trends in their online tool. While this data would have provided a

198

wider understanding of maturity across organisations and sectors, it would not have shed any

light on whether and how organisations subsequently use the information. Conducting the

assessment, regardless of the method, is only the first step in the process of maturity

management and more steps are needed if the potential benefits from increasing maturity that

literature identifies are not to be lost.

The final sentence of the previous paragraph carries with it the assumption that organisations

benefit from higher levels of maturity but doubt has been raised on this issue. Despite nearly a

third of organisations reporting a desire to improve their level of maturity (PWC 2012), some

dismiss the concept that higher maturity is better (Wheatley 2007). Instead of a level of maturity

linked to the organisation, authors such as Christoph Albrecht and Sprang (2014) propose that

maturity be linked to project complexity with more complicated projects requiring a higher level

of maturity. This makes good sense and there is some support for this view in the quantitative

data where sample 3 demonstrated that projectised organisations reported a higher level of

mean maturity than either matrix or functional organisations although these differences were not

statistically significant. This assumes that projectised organisations carry out more complex

projects but there is no evidence to support this view and the questionnaire contained no

measure of project complexity other than could be estimated from the proxy indicators of cost

and duration. Without a better indicator of project complexity, the potential link between

complexity and maturity could not be investigated further in this research. This is a deficiency in

the research design because the inclusion of a project complexity variable would have allowed

the link with maturity to be examined and also whether a relationship exists between PMMs and

project complexity.

Based on the table of maturity levels (Table 23, Section 3.6.1), it had been anticipated that a

link would be found between maturity and both implementation success and PMM benefit. The

rationale was that the more mature the organisation, the better the implementation success and

the higher the benefit from the PMM. In both samples 2 and 3, this link was not found. Neither

was a relationship found between maturity level and industry. Why no links were found is not

clear. The explanation may be attributable to the small sample sizes but it is equally possible

that there is no relationship between maturity and implementation success or PMM benefit.

This is another example where the relationship is strongly predicted but where the empirical

evidence provides no statistically significant support.

The doubt that hangs over the utility of maturity management is borne out in the findings from

sample 1 which demonstrated a disinterest in maturity management and both samples 2 and 3

where no significant relationship was found between the level of maturity and either

implementation success or PMM benefit. These findings suggest that the ‘Embed’ stage is

unaffected by the organisation’s level of maturity. On the one hand this is worrying news for

those organisations that invest time and resources in developing their level of maturity because

there is no proof that this will benefit how projects are managed but on the other hand it means

that organisations new to PMMs are likely to see the same benefits as companies who have

199

used PMMs for many years. It has already been demonstrated in Tables 70 and 111, in

Sections 6.2.3 and 6.3.3 respectively, that organisations see PMMs as being beneficial which

implies that PMMs can positively support organisational project outcomes regardless of the

starting point in the company’s level of maturity. However, the position would appear to be

more complex than merely assessing the organisational level of maturity and that benefit can

only be derived through an understanding of the interplay between the nature of the projects

carried out, the project teams’ levels of maturity and the processes used. Ultimately, it might be

this level of complexity that is dissuading organisations from engaging with maturity

management more readily and, as a result, why few associations between maturity and the

management of projects have been found.

7.4.2 Research question 6. How does organisational culture relate to PMMs?

The second environmental variable that was studied in this research was culture. Culture is a

key variable because of the impact it can have on organisational performance (Hartnell et al

2011; Sackmann 2011). If culture can affect organisational performance, then it can have an

influence on project performance and project management more widely (Cadle and Yeates

2008; Richardson 2010; Larson and Grey 2011; Buttrick 2013; Lientz 2013; PMI 2014a;

Battistella et al 2017). With 150 articles per year, culture is a popular topic in PM literature

(Biggins et al 2016b). The underpinning effect of culture was aptly phrased by interviewee 17,

organisation F, who said “the plan … is to change the culture, because that is fundamental to

everything we’re doing here.”

While the topic of culture featured in the interviews and questionnaire, it was addressed in two

different ways which allows a multi-faceted approach to give a richer picture of culture in

organisations. The fact that not everyone from sample 1 has been involved in the ‘Select’ stage

but everyone in the three samples had been involved in the ‘Embed’ stage meant that the

findings, analysis and discussion were skewed much more to the ‘Embed’ than the ‘Select’

stage. This is not seen as a major shortcoming in the research because, by their very nature,

the cultural influences affecting an organisation at the ‘Embed’ stage are very likely to be the

same at the ‘Select’ stage. However, this does limit the analysis of any factors that are specific

to the ‘Select’ stage, for example how culture might influence conformity to a more normative

decision-making model on the one hand or support a less formal and more intuitive decision-

making process on the other hand. To look more closely into the effects of culture on decision-

making would be to change the level of analysis from the organisation to the individual which is

not the intended purpose here.

Culture was a popular topic in the interviews. 13 interviewees mentioned culture and there

were 35 instances in the transcripts. A key finding from sample 1 was that culture can have

both positive and negative aspects in that it can facilitate or inhibit. In force field analysis terms,

discussed in Section 3.3.2, culture has arrows on both sides of the continuum. The pervading

influence of culture was mentioned by Interviewee 3, organisation A, who noted that the

‘Embed’ stage was initially made very difficult by the negative culture but also how positive

200

changes in the culture had subsequently facilitated the changes that were required. Similarly,

Interviewee 16, organisation E, noted how the PMM matched the culture of the organisation in

being deliberate and slow moving and this was seen as a very positive symbiosis. With culture

being a dual force, it is understandable that people see it as something that can be moulded

and changed to lessen the negative aspects and promote or enhance the positives. Two

participants (Interviewees 11 and 13, from organisations C and D respectively) spoke about

their intention to change the culture in their organisation and Organisation D viewed the culture

as a lever that could be used to increase the chances of a successful implementation. Where

there was an intention to change the culture, the dominant process was to nudge staff towards

the desired change using the libertarian paternalism approach of Thaler and Sunstein (2008),

outlined in Section 3.4.2. This gentle approach is more likely to obtain results as overt

interventions to change the culture have low success rates (Bresnen and Marshall 2000). The

literature review has looked at ways of analysing the culture in an organisation, focusing on the

popular model, the cultural web of Johnson et al (2008) in Figure 16, Section 3.7.2. It was

evident from the interviews that those organisations wishing to influence culture had not carried

out any initial analysis of the culture and thus had no starting or benchmark position. How the

organisations would be able to know if the change had been successful is very unclear. This

situation is very similar to the decision-making element of the ‘Select’ stage where the absence

of problem definitions and performance criteria makes it impossible to assess the quality and

appropriateness of the decision taken. Literature gives strong support to the view that culture is

important (see Table 26 in Section 3.7.1) and there was appreciation in the interviews of the

importance but this only serves to makes the lack of awareness of the current position all the

more inexplicable. It is possible that the multiplicity of conceptualisations of culture (see Table

27 in Section 3.7.2) discourages organisational managers from venturing into the zone of

culture assessment but the problem with this perspective is that the opportunity to leverage a

powerful tool to support change is lost. If Bresnen and Marshall (2000) are correct in their view

of the imperviousness of culture to purposeful change then an approach that assesses the

current culture in the organisation would appear to be a useful strategy to adopt. With so many

culture models available (see Table 29 in Section 3.7.2), it is less important which model is

chosen by organisations and more pressing that organisations use the same model to give

consistent results over time.

The culture model chosen for this research was the Competing Values Framework of Cameron

and Quinn (2011), described in Section 3.7.2. This was chosen because it is an established

model and because it has a proven and validated data capture tool, the Organizational Culture

Assessment Instrument. Samples 2 and 3 were asked to complete the assessment which

identified the dominant type in their organisation using the four categories of culture: Clan (CC),

Adhocracy (AC), Market (MC) and Hierarchy (HC). The four culture types fitted as quadrants

around two dimensions; control – flexibility and internal focus – external focus (see Figure 17 in

Section 3.7.2). As control aligns with the underlying philosophy of PMMs, it would be logical to

presume that MC and HC would use PMMs in greater numbers than would CC or AC. No

research had so far been carried out to investigate the hypothesis that organisational culture is

201

related to PMMs. This hypothesis was borne out in the findings with 85% of sample 2 and 60%

of sample 3 identifying their organisational culture as HC or MC (as demonstrated in Sections

6.2.6 and 6.3.6 respectively). This is an expected but still useful finding because it helps to

explain the comments from, for example Interviewee 16, organisation E, about how the

alignment of organisation culture and PMMs can be a positive combination. To investigate how

positive that alignment could be, tests were carried out on the relationship between

organisational culture and implementation success and PMM benefit. The results of these tests

were disappointing because in samples 2 and 3 the tests failed to show any significant

relationship between culture type and implementation success or PMM benefit. The expected

link between HC and MC with how the PMM was used or how it benefitted the organisation

failed to materialise.

This section began with the example of how the change in culture over time had led to the PMM

being more accepted in the organisation. This example supports authors such as Hartnell et al

(2011) and Sackmann (2011) who assert the correlation between culture and performance but

the evidence from this research reinforces the earlier findings of Rousseau (1990) and Siehl

and Martin (1990) which failed to find a correlation. There are four possible explanations for

this. First, there may be no relationship between culture and PMMs. In this scenario, the CVF

is making valid measurements of the culture type but there is no association between the type

and either implementation success or PMM benefit. The second explanation is sample size. It

is possible that a larger sample may identify a relationship, if one exists. Third, the CVF is

‘competing’ in the sense that all organisations will have elements of the culture types (Cameron

and Quinn 2011) so it is possible that the use of models such CVF to identify a dominant culture

is too reductionist of the many facets of culture and that this is part of the explanation for the

inability to identify a relationship. This view is given support by the analysis reported in Tables

81 and 82, in Section 6.2.6, in which the dominant culture of two organisations was analysed at

the individual level. This level of analysis shows a greater level of variability in the perceived

cultures by individuals than does the single, overall category for the organisation. Certainly, the

plethora of models listed in Table 27, Section 3.7.2, testify to the different conceptualisations

and the complexity of culture because no one model has emerged as the optimal way to

measure culture in the organisation. Linked to the previous point, the fourth explanation is that

the analysis of the data, while it mirrored previous studies using the CVF, was too simplistic and

that this prevented relationships from being identified.

From the literature and the responses from the three samples, the conclusions to this section

are that culture is a strong influencing force during the ‘Embed’ stage for positive and negative

reasons, that Hierarchy and Market types are more frequently seen in organisations that use

PMMs, that managers do not attempt to determine the culture in their organisation yet they

would like to change the culture and that there is no identified association been culture type and

implementation success or PMM benefit.

202

Despite this potential inability to categorise an organisation’s culture, each organisation does

possess a culture. The multitude of factors that combine to create that culture would suggest

that cultures are unique to organisations. One organisation’s culture may be similar to another

organisation but it is unlikely to be identical. The logical conclusion from this would be to

suggest that the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages are also therefore unique within organisations.

Not only is the culture unique but it is also changing, a feature reported in Organisation A. This

suggestion means that the challenges faced during the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages will not be

the same and may even be very different to what has been seen before. Managers relying too

heavily on their prior experiences may therefore draw conclusions and take decisions that are

not well suited to the current situation. This uniqueness implies, from a culture perspective, that

there is no single, best way to manage the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages.

7.4.3 Research question 7. How does organisational structure relate to PMMs?

The third environmental factor to be investigated was organisational structure, that is, the ways

in which the people within the organisation operate together. As PMMs comprise processes

and organisational structures impact processes (Gardiner 2005), the potential link between the

two was examined. Organisational structure may be affected by external influences (Mullins

2007; Burnes 2009) or internal influences (Shtub et al 2005; Cadle and Yeates 2008) such as

PMMs. In response to the internal and external influences, organisations can adopt a range of

structures on the scale from functional, through matrix to projectised (PMI 2017b), as shown in

Table 32, Section 3.8.3, with larger organisations more likely to exhibit multiple organisational

structures (Schein 2010).

In the interviews, organisational structure was not a key concern for the participants and there

was no link evident between structure and PMMs. As the interviews collected the majority of

data on the ‘Select’ stage, as demonstrated in Table 127, Section 7.1, this suggested no

relationship between organisational structure at the ‘Select’ stage. The questionnaire shed

more light on the issue with both samples 2 and 3 responding to questions about organisational

structure which suggested the possibility of a relationship between organisational structure and

the ‘Embed’ stage. The analysis in Sections 6.2.7 and 6.3.7 showed that the matrix structure

was the dominant form in the sample groups accounting for around 60% of organisations.

Approximately 33% were organised on functional lines and less that 7% used a projectised

structure. The chosen structure was shown to have no relationship with either size or industry

which was a surprising result which is probably attributable in this research to the small number

of respondents in each size and industry category.

The search for a relationship between organisational structure and both implementation

success and PMM benefit showed no significant relationship for either matrix or functional

organisations, a result that was consistent across both samples. Where there was a significant

relationship was with projectised organisations. The analysis in Section 6.3.7 showed how, for

sample 3 which had the highest frequency of respondents who worked within this structure,

there was a significant relationship between structure and both implementation success and

203

PMM benefit. This finding is important because it demonstrates that projectised organisations

will find they have greater success in embedding and greater organisational benefit from using

the PMM than organisations that are structured differently. The hypothesis that projectised

organisations would see more benefit from PMMs was raised in Section 3.8.3 and is the first

time that such a relationship has been identified between these two factors. Caution is needed

in placing too much confidence in this finding because of the small size of sample 3 where the

relationship was identified and because no such relationship was found in sample 2. It makes

intuitive sense that projectised organisations will find it easier to embed processes and gain

benefit from them as their corporate existence depends on them executing projects that meet

their customers’ needs. Put simply, projects are more important to projectised organisations

than either matrix or functional organisations. There are several explanations for why

projectised organisations report more successful implementation and higher PMM benefit than

other structural types. It is likely that there would be more driving and fewer restraining forces

at the embedding stage, broader experience and stronger path dependencies across staff and a

culture that promotes projects and their successful delivery. While the analysis of variance test

between organisational structure and maturity level did not produce statistically significant

results, the mean scores for the three groups showed that projectised organisations possessed

the highest level of maturity. All of these factors may combine to give projectised organisation

an advantage when implementing and using PMMs.

In concluding this section on organisational structure, the evidence from this research is that

structure has little effect on ‘Select’, some effect on ‘Embed’ and, overall, a modest influence on

PMMs. While the research identified the dominant structures in samples 2 and 3, no link was

discovered for matrix or functional organisations with regard to implementation success or PMM

benefit. One sample did show a significant association between organisational structure and

implementation success and PMM benefit and this related to projectised organisations. It would

be expected that projectised organisations would have this relationship and this finding confirms

existing research (Hyväri 2006; Lecoeuvre 2016). In spite of this confirmatory finding, it is

concluded that the relationship between organisational structure and PMMs is weak.

7.4.4 Conclusion

Goal 3 consisted of three research questions which assessed the importance of the three

environment variable of maturity, culture and structure on PMMs. While the three variables do

affect the ‘Select’ stage their importance is greater on the ‘Embed’ stage because the ‘Embed’

stage is longer and engages more project staff.

Literature identified maturity as a key variable for PMMs due to the link between maturity and

performance (PWC 2004; IBM 2008; Mitchell et al 2008; Richardson 2010; Swanson 2012).

Despite the participating organisations reporting a higher than average level of maturity and

reporting some maturity activity, there was little interest or awareness in maturity. This finding

was also seen in sample 3. No evidence was found for a relationship between either

204

implementation success or PMM benefit which suggested that the ‘Embed’ stage is unrelated to

the organisation’s level of maturity.

The second environmental variable was culture. Given culture’s impact on organisational

performance (Hartnell et al 2011; Sackmann 2011), it was expected that culture could have an

influence on project performance and project management more widely (Cadle and Yeates

2008; Richardson 2010; Larson and Grey 2011; Buttrick 2013; Lientz 2013). It was found that

culture has a strong influence on the ‘Embed’ stage and that the influences can be negative or

positive. Using the Competing Values Framework, the research showed that the more

structured culture types, Hierarchy and Market, are more frequently seen in organisations that

use PMMs. However, no association was found between culture type and implementation

success or PMM benefit. Managers in organisations are aware of culture and seek to leverage

it to enable or support change but no tools or methods are used to assess organisational culture

which indicates that this potent environmental variable is less well managed than it could be. It

was suggested that each organisation has a unique culture and that this uniqueness implies

that there is no single best way to manage the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages.

Based on this research, the evidence is that organisational structure has little effect on ‘Select’,

some effect on ‘Embed’ and, overall, a modest influence on PMMs. No link was discovered for

matrix or functional organisations with regard to implementation success or PMM benefit.

However, an association between organisational structure and implementation success and

PMM benefit was identified in projectised organisation, a significant but confirmatory finding in

an otherwise weak relationship between organisational structure and PMMs.

Overall and contrary to the findings of Sargeant et al (2010) that organisational issues have a

strong influence on PMMs, this research has found that maturity appears to have no influence

and that structure has only a modest influence on PMMs. Culture is a more powerful but

complex influence on PMMs which could be better managed to support the ‘Embed’ stage in

organisations by increasing the chances of implementation success and PMM benefit.

Having discussed the seven research questions, it is necessary to take a more holistic

perspective and to review the two models on which the research was based, the PMM life cycle

model and the conceptual model.

7.5 PMM life cycle model revision and descriptive model creation

This research has provided the opportunity to test the PMM life cycle model (see Section 2.6)

and to assess its validity. The first two stages have been the focus of this research. The

findings do suggest that the first stage in the life cycle is a selection process where

organisations decide on a PMM. This is them followed by an embedding activity where the

PMM is brought into the organisation. Nothing in the findings suggests there are different

stages in this process and the findings provide empirical evidence of the first two stages in the

life cycle. However, the life cycle model suggests that the ‘Embed’ stage concludes before

205

project-level tailoring commences and the findings cast doubt on this. The model proposes that

project staff are inculcated into the method and then they begin to use it. However, in the same

way in which situation diagnosis is a recurring activity, the time-bound process of embedding

may not exist in reality. While many organisations appear to use a block of activity during

implementation to communicate to staff, train and support users of the PMM, cater for new

members of staff, respond to external influences and to maintain and develop the method, it is

likely that implementation does not stop. This alternate explanation sees the embedding

activities peak at the beginning of the implementation, reduce but not disappear over time and

to overlap the later stages in the life cycle. This is represented in Figure 43.

Figure 43. Revised life cycle model

Figure 43 shows how the cycle begins with the ‘Select’ stage and how the ‘Embed’ stage

overlaps with the ‘Tailor’, ‘Operate’ and ‘Develop’ stages. It is likely that feedback from the

‘Tailor’, ‘Operate’ and ’Develop’ stages will provide input to the continuing need to embed the

processes within the organisation. This interpretation of the ‘Embed’ stage is supported by

organisation B who stood out from the other organisations in this study for the structured way

they continually assessed the performance of the PMM and the use of task groups to effect on-

going change and improvement to the method. This way of working is more akin to continuous

improvement but it may also be viewed to be superior to the time-bound ‘Embed’ stage as it

recognises that embedding is a continual process and that to assess implementation as though

it had been completed is to misunderstand the fluid nature of this stage.

The PMM life cycle model provided the basis for the initial conceptual model in Figure 20,

Section 3.9. While the conceptual model has strong normative support for how project staff

might select and embed PMMs, the findings have repeatedly demonstrated how the conceptual

model is a poor description of the actuality of selecting and embedding PMMs in organisations.

Based on the primary research and analysis in this project, the descriptive model shown in

Figure 44 was developed.

206

Figure 44. PMM descriptive model

In line with the earlier discussion about the life cycle, the descriptive model has the same five

stages. The ‘Select’ stage appears first. This is followed by the ‘Embed’ stage which now

overlaps the last three stages. Organisational goals and objectives appears at the top of the

model as it was the means by which PMMs link back to organisational requirements. But,

instead of a unidirectional arrow, a double headed arrow recognises that the impetus may be

top-down but it may also be bottom-up, that is, from the PM team who make a recommendation

to the senior management team.

The ‘Select’ stage is very much shortened compared to the conceptual model and consists

solely of the choice step which is typically be made by senior managers based on the

recommendation of individuals or teams from within the PM staff, heavily influenced by the path

dependencies of those involved.

The ‘Embed’ stage extends to run alongside the later stages in the model with the expectation

that the embedding effort will reduce but not terminate throughout the remainder of the life

cycle. The ‘Embed’ stage now comprises multiple, inter-connected components rather than

steps within the stage. On the left, the PM management team is taking action to implement the

new method by organising training, building capacity and also reacting to events as they arise

and for which no pre-planning has taken place. To the right, the driving forces are shown as a

207

circle to reflect how they are in constant competition with the PM management team working to

expand the driving forces and minimise the restraining forces. Their work to tilt the forces in

support of the PMM implementation affects their actions and vice versa with their actions

affecting the dynamics within the forces. The extent to which project staff choose to follow the

espoused method is linked to the driving/restraining forces and the tasks and activities that

project staff are asked to do. Again, this relationship is bi-directional to reflect the connection

between these components. For example, staff substituting their own processes in place of

espoused processes will boost the restraining forces against the implementation which, in turn,

may lead to the management team reacting by reinforcing the need for compliance and the

components will then respond in a continuing cycle of stimulus and response.

Finally, the link between the three remaining stages in the life cycle model and the ‘Embed’

stage is shown as a double headed arrow reflecting, on the one hand, how the embedding

affects how projects are managed in the organisation and, on the other hand, how the feedback

from project execution and review drives changes in the ways in which the PMM is continually

embedded.

On the right of the descriptive model, the environmental variables have been reduced to the two

that were identified as influencing PMMs and also changed in size to reflect the greater part

played by culture. The environmental variables affect all the stages of the life cycle with culture

having a significant influence on the driving and restraining forces and the level of compliance

and thus a major influence on the remainder of the life cycle.

The descriptive model is markedly different to the conceptual model but reflects the actualities

of selecting and embedding PMMs in organisations.

208

8 Conclusion

8.1 Introduction

This chapter begins with an assessment of the research by evaluating the research aim, goals

and questions in order to reach a conclusion on the extent to which the aim of the research has

been met. This is followed by a discussion of the four areas in which this research has

contributed to research and practitioner knowledge. The next section contains a list of

recommendations for practitioners which is based on the findings, analysis and discussion.

Finally, the last two sections look at the limitation of this research and at possible routes for

future research.

8.2 Achievement of the research aim

The aim of this research was to gain a better understanding of how organisations select and

embed PMMs. To achieve this, three goals were set, to: A. Understand how organisations

select PMMs: B. Understand how organisations embed PMMs and C: Investigate how maturity,

culture and organisational structure affect the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages. Seven research

questions were created: 1 for goal A, 2 - 4 for goal B and 5 - 7 for goal C. A sample of

experienced and qualified project staff were involved in the interviews and questionnaire to

provide input to the research questions. The level of achievement of the seven research

questions is discussed in Table 129.

Research question Level of achievement

1 How are PMMs selected?

This research question was partially answered.

This question was asked during the interviews as sample 1 was most likely to be involved in the ‘Select’ stage. Although the question was asked in every interview, not everyone was able to provide an answer because they had not been employed in the organisation when the PMM had been selected and there were no records relating to the selection. Information on selection was gathered but only from a few of the participating organisations.

For more information, see Sections 5.2.1 and 7.2.2.

Overall, from the few responses to this question, it was found that organisations select PMMs quickly and the decision is heavily influenced by the past experiences of those involved. The normative decision-making model was found to have little relevance in the selection of PMMs. Organisations appear to complete this stage successfully because the average benefit of PMMs, across the two samples, was 71%.

2 How is the change situation diagnosed?

This research question was fully answered.

This question was asked during each interview because sample 1 was most likely to be involved in the diagnosis of the change situation. The literature review has suggested tools to analyse the change type and a list of driving and restraining factors was collated. Interview responses were analysed to understand how the change was approached.


Overall, there was no evidence that the participating organisations undertake a diagnosis of the change situation and instead they react to the situation as it changes.

209

Research question Level of achievement

3 What is the change process for PMMs?


This question was asked during the interviews as sample 1 was most likely to be involved in directing the ‘Embed’ stage.


Overall, it was found that none of the organisations in this study used a formal or definable change process. Change is characterised by intermittent actions to encourage the change, the nudging of project staff and reactions to forces in the environment as they arise.

4 Are espoused PMM processes different to in-use PMM processes?


Questions about process compliance were raised in the interviews and in the questionnaire. Questions about the level of mandatory processes and why project staff might deviate from the espoused processes were used to suggest that there are many reasons why someone might substitute processes and this led to a discussion of the perspectives that are taken when assessing whether non-compliance is a positive or negative phenomenon.

For more information, see Sections 5.2.2, 6.2.4, 6.3.4 and 7.3.3.

Overall, it was found that espoused and in-use processes do differ in organisations.

5. How does maturity relate to PMMs?


The questionnaire contained the published scale for maturity assessment based on the 5 level scale from the PRINCE2 Maturity Model (OGC 2006, 2010). The reported levels of maturity were then tested using statistical procedures against scale variables including implementation success and PMM benefit.


Overall, this research found that maturity does not have any influence on PMMs.

6 How does organisational culture relate to PMMs?


The established and proven OCAI from Cameron and Quinn (2011) was replicated in the questionnaire to elicit culture information from recipients and culture was mentioned 35 times during the interviews. The analysis showed culture to be a pervasive and complicated environmental variable that was found to have strong influence, in both positive and negative ways, on PMMs, creating a unique mix that means that there is no single, optimal way to manage the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages


Overall, culture has a strong influence on PMMs.

7 How does organisational structure relate to PMMs?


Organisational structure models were taken from the PMBOK (PMI 2017b) and respondents were asked which structure type best described the department in which they worked. The primary structures (matrix, functional and projectised) were then tested using statistical procedures to identify the impact on PMMs. For matrix and functional structures, no relationships were identified. An association between organisational structure and implementation success and PMM benefit was identified in projectised organisations.


Overall, structure has a weak influence on PMMs.

Table 129. Achievement of research questions

210

Based on the outcomes of the research questions it is possible to form a view of the level to

which the project goals were achieved. As question 1 was only partially achieved, it is

appropriate to conclude that goal A was also only partially achieved because, while information

on the select stage was gathered, the number of participants able to provide information was

small and this limits the external validity. Input from a wider range of project staff would have

enabled the research question and goal to be fully answered and increased the external validity

of this research. The research questions for goal B were all fully answered which means that

goal B can be assessed to be fully answered. A good understanding of the realities of

embedding PMMs in organisations was achieved. The research questions on maturity, culture

and structure were fully answered with no, strong and weak influences respectively being

identified between the three environment variables and PMMs.

With two goals fully achieved and one goal partially achieved, the conclusion to be drawn on the

overall aim of this exploratory research is that the research has been mostly successful and has

enabled a deeper understanding of how organisations select and embed PMMs to be gained.

As the sample of participating organisations was small and sourced only from the UK, the extent

to which the findings are generalisable to the wider population, its external validity, is limited but

as an exploratory project, the research offers new empirical data and a descriptive model of

how the stages operate that can provide a basis for further research in this growing area of

project management.

8.3 Contribution to knowledge

The synthesis of the literature, findings and analysis, discussion and the descriptive model of

how the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages are conducted provided identifiable contributions to project

management knowledge. These are listed in Table 130.

Item Contribution Explanation / description

1 Closing the research gap between why organisations use PMMs and how they contribute to success

This research has identified the actualities of how organisations select and embed PMMs and thereby fills a gap between research on why organisations choose PMMs (Charvat 2003; Vaskimo 2015) and research on the influence of PMMs on project success (Serrador and Pinto 2015; Pace 2017). Whereas prior research had asked ‘why’ PMMs, this research looked at ‘how’ organisations choose the methods they used and ‘how’ these were embedded in the organisation. Other research attempted to assess the contribution made by PMMs to project success leaving a research opportunity to look at the ways in which the choice and embedding of PMMs may have influenced the use of those methods.

The first contribution is the PMM life cycle model which is the first such conceptualisation to identify the stages in an organisation’s use of a PMM. The first two stages in this model have been validated by the empirical evidence in this research. The model is beneficial because it gives identity to the important stages before a PMM is used and thus provides a validated framework for future research.

211


Before addressing the ‘Select’ stage it is important to remember the caveat in point 1, Table 129 that the goal of understanding the ‘Select’ stage was only partially met. The findings in the ‘Select’ stage should therefore be treated with caution as there is less evidence to support the conclusions reached compared to the other questions in this research.

This research has demonstrated that the ‘Select’ stage is influenced by the past experience of those staff involved in the process and that the impetus for starting the ‘Select’ stage can be a top-down or bottom-up process. A key finding in the ‘Select’ stage was that organisations do not set performance criteria, define clearly why they are implementing the PMM or measure the quality of the decision. The confidence in past experience promotes the view that the selection of a PMM is a more operational than strategic decision and belies the costs and resource implications of that decision.

The ‘Select’ work is largely undertaken by managers with some involvement of project staff. Project staff would like to have greater involvement in the ‘Select’ stage.

The dominant reason for selecting a method is process improvement.

The research shows that, once selected, the majority of organisations mandate the use of the PMM. It has been shown that project staff report high levels of alignment to their PMM, deviated from the method is for largely positive reasons and there is a belief that PMMs and certification have both individual and organisational benefits.

There is a balance to be struck between the benefits of matching the PMM to the environment and the benefits of adopting a standardised approach.

The embedding of PMMs is an on-going requirement that organisations tend to approach in a reactive way, choosing not to plan the stage, set any goals or measure the benefit/impact of implementation. The continual flux of the driving and restraining forces and the issue of whether project staff are actually following the defined method combine to make embedding, as the descriptive model shows, a very complicated stage.

The importance of the ‘Embed’ stage was underlined by the strong positive correlation between implementation success and PMM benefit.

The strong influence of culture and the fact that cultures are unique to organisations suggests that the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages will be unique to each organisation and that there is no single best way to manage either of these stages.

2 Application of practice theory to PMMs

The literature on practice theory can be applied to explore the reasons why project staff might choose not to follow their PMM. Viewing PMMs in the context of recurring action patterns and a source of organisational memory is one way to understand why project staff may be reliant on their past experiences which may not be relevant. Many reasons for following or not following PMMs were recorded during the data capture stage. The analysis demonstrated the importance of perspective when assessing the deviations.

212


3 Creation of an ‘for practice’ model of the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages

A key output from the research is the transformation of the conceptual model for the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages to a descriptive model of what happens in reality during these stages. Empirical models are very valuable in PM research as they move from the theoretical, academic view of what should happen to what actually does happen. Literature reflects the demand for empirical models (Winter et al 2006) as these have a practical benefit over and above their academic worth.

The descriptive model (Figure 44) represents both the brevity of the ‘Select’ stage (mentioned above) and also the complexity and inter-relatedness of the components in the ‘Embed’ stage.

A further benefit of the descriptive model is that it is not linked or aligned with any PMM but instead is applicable to whichever PMMs are chosen or developed by organisations. By being PMM-non-specific, the model has wider application.

4 Practical assistance for project staff

This thesis offers practical assistance to any project staff looking to choose a PMM or embed a new or existing PMM. The recommendations for practitioners are listed in Section 8.4.

Table 130. Contribution to knowledge

Building on the contributions to knowledge, the next section identifies the recommendations for

practitioners.

8.4 Recommendations for practitioners

This research adopted a pragmatic approach with the intention of being of use to those working

in the PMM sphere. Table 131 lists recommendations for practitioners for ways in which the

selection and embedding of PMMs can derive more benefit and be undertaken more

successfully for organisations.

Overall and with due allowance for the strength of the ‘Select’ findings, the recommendations

suggest a more project-based approach to selecting PMMs that is more open and which has

more clarity about the issues the PMM seeks to resolve or the benefits it potentially offers. A

very contingent approach to embedding recommends the diagnosis of each unique change

situation followed by actions to guide project staff towards desired practices and the continual

monitoring of those processes.

213

Item Recommendation Explanation / description

1 Adopt a project approach to the selection of PMMs

The research acts as a warning to project staff that PMMs can be selected on the basis of the past experiences of those involved which may not be relevant criteria for the current decision given the uniqueness of the situation. Adopting a more project-based approach is recommended because this supports an objective way to navigate the ‘Select’ stage by being more driven by the process than by the past experience of stakeholders. An open analysis of the options is particularly important to minimise the effects of path dependency and bias.

2 Clarify the objectives of the PMM and track benefits

There are many potential benefits from PMMs as listed in Table 14, Section 3.2.2. Organisations that set out with clear objectives are more likely to achieve them and clear objectives are more amenable to benefit tracking which will allow organisations to measure the gains from their investment in the PMM.

3 Analyse the change situation

As all organisations will have a unique landscape of requirements, experience and culture, it is recommended that some form of diagnosis is undertaken to assess the existence and magnitude of the driving and restraining forces. The factors listed in Tables 18 and 19, Section 3.3.2, should provide a useful start point for this analysis. A clear understanding of the forces prior to commencing the ‘Embed’ stage will allow the key factors to be identified and thereby managed more pro-actively and effectively.

4 Recognise that embedding is more of a process than a stage and requires continual management

The fluidity of the organisational landscape means that the embedding of the PMM will continue throughout its life with the initially high workload tapering off over time. Monitoring the landscape will allow changes to be detected and will facilitate organisations in managing how practitioners are using the method. A nudging strategy of making small changes and corrections is recommended to evolve a culture that is supportive of the aims of the PMM. Over time, less input will be needed as the processes desired by the organisation become embedded in the working practices of project staff.

5 Use the descriptive model (Figure 44)

The descriptive model identified the key components of the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages and prepares practitioners for the tasks to come. Lists of performance criteria, change types, problem statements, risks and the driving and restraining forces can be used by practitioners to create bespoke lists that have relevance and meaning for them and which can be used to raise the chances of a successful implementation.

6 Consider the use of project management maturity modelling

While the participants in this research did not identify benefits from the use of maturity models, the literature does support their use. A further recommendation is therefore that organisations measure their ‘as is’ and ‘to be’ levels of maturity as a way of developing a level that is appropriate to their needs and which can be used as an input to the embedding process to tailor the processes and the PMM to their requirements and the environment in which they operate.

Table 131. Practitioner recommendations

214

8.5 Research limitations

All projects have limitations. The benefit of listing the limitations is that it allows readers to

understand any deficits in the research, the method of execution or interpretation and also

because it allows the framing of the whole research endeavour in light of the limitations that

related to the research. The list of limitations is given in Table 132.

Item Area Description

1 Generalisability and sample size

Only the IT/IS departments of UK-based organisations were involved in this research which means the ability to apply the findings from this project to the wider population of PM professionals is limited to the UK and not advisable in an international context. In addition, the caution already noted about the level of evidence in the ‘Select’ stage is a further impediment to the generalisation of this research.

The small sample size carries with it the danger that the sample is not representative. To guard again this a range of UK organisations were included from different sectors and a third sample was created to compare against the second sample.

2 The use of questionnaires

The sources of questionnaire error were listed in Table 38, Section 4.8, along with the actions taken to address the potential issues. Despite these mitigating strategies and the piloting of the instrument, the fundamental flaws of self-reported questionnaires (for example selective memory, telescoping and exaggeration) remain. As a result, the findings and analysis need to take into account that the information came from two samples who both completed questionnaires.

3 Longitudinal effects As a cross-sectional research design, this project captured data at a point in time for the participants and respondents. During the analysis of the findings, it became apparent that the ‘Embed’ stage was longer than had been anticipated in the initial conceptual model and also that the forces impacting on the ‘Embed’ stage were not static. These findings mean that the results in this study represent a snapshot in time and that richer information may be available about the ‘Embed’ stage if a longitudinal approach is adopted.

4 Low internal validity Internal validity refers to the establishment of causal relationships where stimuli are believed to lead to other conditions (Yin 2011). In this research, possible explanations to explain the findings were suggested in the Qualitative and Quantitative Findings and the Discussion chapters. The explanations were not based on deduction logic but were more potential explanations. For exploratory research, it is expected that the internal validity will be low (Yin 2011). While this research would be expected to have low internal validity, the lack of causal relationships may be viewed as a limitation.

Table 132. Research limitations

Identifying research limitations is a beneficial exercise because it forces the author to look

critically at the work that has been undertaken but also because it is one route to identifying

potential topics for future research.

215

8.6 Recommendations for future research

PMMs are a growing area of research in PM literature and future research into PMMs is

essential, for researchers, to develop the understanding of PMMs and, for practitioners, to

increase the contribution that PMMs make to organisations and the management of projects.

The recommendations for further research are listed in Table 133. The table includes a

reference number, the area of the research or conceptual model to which the suggestion relates

and a final column describing and justifying the suggestion.

Item Area Suggestion

1 PMM life cycle model

This research developed the life cycle model for PMMs and focused on the first two stages. Further work is needed to assess the validity of the remaining stages and to identify how the model can develop the research into and use of PMMs. The life cycle could also be linked to the research into the value of PMMs to organisations and how the contribution made by PMM could be estimated, building on this and the work of Serrador and Pinto (2015) and Pace (2017).

2 Methodology As exploratory research, this project has identified lists of factors and created models that are applicable to PMMs in the first two stages of the life cycle. For example, the list of performance criteria (Table 14), driving and restraining forces (Tables 18, 19, 46 and 128), and the descriptive model (Figure 44). Future, explanatory research would add to the literature and provide useful information to researchers, organisations and practitioners.

3 Methodology This research has focused on only a few organisation types. Archibald (2004 cited in Richardson 2010) identified 20 industry areas in which projects take place. Repeating this research in more industries would ascertain to what extent the factors and findings from this research are more widely applicable. Repetition would also increase the reliability of the methodology and further develop the understanding of PMMs.

4 Select The organisations in this study primarily used one method but most respondents were qualified in and used multiple methods. One direction for future research is to ascertain at what point a single method is insufficient, how far one PMM can be stretched to fit the needs of an organisation and an investigation of how organisations choose between different solutions on the PMM continuum.

5 Diagnosis The change type adopted by participating organisations in this research was adaptation. Research in organisations with other change types and the effect this has on the ‘Embed’ stage would provide information on how change type affects implementation.

6 Diagnosis This research identified but was not able to measure the magnitude of the driving and restraining factors that affect PPMs. A method to help organisations quantify the forces would provide vital input to the management of those forces.

7 Change To help organisation with change management, maturity models are being created as the basis for assessment and improvement. For example, the Change Management Competency Scale (Shah 2014). While it was found that project maturity has no effect in the ‘Embed’ stage, future research could investigate the relationship that change maturity has on the ‘Embed’ stage.

8 Embed If the ‘Embed’ stage has a long duration as Section 7.5 suggests, further research could investigate how the stage could be made effective and efficient, for example through the adoption of theories such as organisational learning (Walker 2016) or practice-based change models (Burke 2017).

216

Item Area Suggestion

9 Culture With a focus on UK-based organisations the research was exposed to a limited range of national cultures. Research suggests that different cultures utilise different thinking processes (Manktelow 2012). It is possible that the PMMs in non-western cultures would produce very different results with further research needed to inform this issue.

10 In-use processes

This cross-sectional study provided a view at a point in time and it was recognised that the fluidity of the environment was likely to lessen the validity of the analysis. The suggestion in Section 7.3.3 for further research is for a longitudinal study into changes in the rates of compliance over time that would provide information on how and why project staff differ in their levels of adherence to the espoused processes.

11 In-use processes

In terms of organisational benefit from PMMs, there is a balance to be struck between espoused and in-use processes as there are benefits and disadvantages for both. Further research is needed to identify the balance point for organisations and the factors that affect it.

12 Data analysis Analyse the data from the 90 other questionnaire respondents from outside the UK to understand the international dimension of PMMs.

Table 133. Recommendations for further research

Many suggestions have been advanced in Table 133 for future research into PMMs.

Recognising that not all the recommendations have equal benefit and therefore priority, the

author would suggest that Recommendations 2, 3, 6 and 11 should be investigated first. Items

2 and 3 are recommended because they broaden and deepen this initial research. Item 6

should be prioritised on the basis that research that improves embedding will be essential to

practitioners. Finally, item 11 has merit because this research has shown widespread

divergence between the espoused and in-use processes which can cause confusion to staff and

is likely to have a detrimental effect on the effective use of the PMM.

Conducting further research will shed more light on the important area of PMMs within

organisations for the benefit of researchers and practitioners by building on this initial,

exploratory research.

217

References

Abrahamson, E. (1996). Management Fashion. The Academy of Management Review, 21(1), 254-285. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/258636. Mast accessed 18 August 2018.

Abrahamson, E. (2009). Necessary conditions for the study of fads and fashions in science. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 25(2), 235-239.

Agile Alliance. (2001). The Agile Manifesto. [Online]. Available at http://www.agilealliance.org/the-alliance/the-agile-manifesto. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Ahmed, M S. (2018). Internal Factors Influence on Project Management Maturity Assessment. International Journal of Management and Information Technology, 13(1), pp.3193-3206.

Alasuutari, P, Beckman, L and Brannen, J. (Eds) (2008). The SAGE handbook of social research methods. Sage.

Alderton, M. (2013). Anchoring projects to strategy. PM Network, 27 (8).

Albert, S and Whetten, D A. (1985). Organizational identity. Research in organizational behaviour 7, 263-295.

Alvarez, J. L., & Mazza, C. (2017). Haute Couture and Prêt-à-Porter: The Popular Press and the Diffusion of Management Practices. In The Aesthetic Turn in Management (pp. 157-178). Routledge.

Andersen, E S and Jessen, S A. (2003). Project maturity in organisations. International Journal of Project Management 21 (6), 457-62.

Andersen, E S. (2008). Rethinking project management: An organisational perspective. Pearson Education.

Anderson, D K and Merna, T. (2003). Project Management Strategy-project management represented as a process based set of management domains and the consequences for project management strategy. International Journal of Project Management. 21(6), 387-393.

APM (Association for Project Management). (2012). APM Body of Knowledge. 6th edition. Princes Risborough: Association for Project Management.

APM (Association for Project Management). (2015). APM Competence Framework. Princes Risborough: Association for Project Management.

APM (Association for Project Management). (2017). APM five dimensions of professionalism. [Online]. Available at: http://www.apm.org.uk/APM5Dimensions. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

APMG (APM Group). (2002). Case study: Ericsson Services Ireland. [Online]. Available at: download.ilxgroup.com/docs/downloads/case-study-ericsson.pdf. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

APMG (APM Group). (2012). PM Qualifications – PRINCE2, IPMA, APMP, PMP? [Online]. Available at http://blog.apmg-international.com/index.php/2012/06/01/pm-quals-prince2-ipma-apmp-pmp/. Last accessed 10 April 2016.

Arnold, D R and Capella, L M. (1985). Corporate Culture and the Marketing Concept: A Diagnostic Instrument for Utilities. Public Utilities Fortnightly, 116, 32-38.

Arras People. (2016). Project Management Benchmark Report 2016. [Online]. Available at: http://www.arraspeople.co.uk/the-project-management-benchmark-report-from-arras-people-2016/project-management-benchmark-report-2016/. Last accessed 5 August 2017.

Artto, K, Martinsuo, M, Gemünden, H G and Murtoaro, J. (2009). Foundations of program management: A bibliometric view. International Journal of Project Management, 27(1), 1-18.

Atkinson, R (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management 17:6, 337-342.

Axelos. (2015). The Portfolio, Programme and Project Maturity Model. [Online]. Available at: https://www.axelos.com/best-practice-solutions/p3m3. Last accessed 4 February 2015.

218

Axelos. (2017). P3M3 Maturity Model. [Online]. Available at https://www.axelos.com/best-practice-solutions/p3m3/p3m3-maturity-model.aspx. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Aydin, M N and Dilan, E. (2017). Project Management Method Adoption: A Service Industry Case Study. International Journal of Information Technology Project Management (IJITPM), 8(2), 17-33. doi:10.4018/IJITPM.2017040102.

Balogun, J and Hailey, V H. (2008). Exploring strategic change. Pearson Education.

Barney, J B. (1986). Strategic factor markets: Expectations, luck, and business strategy. Management Science, 32(10), 1231-1241.

Battistella, C, Nonino, F and Palombi, G. (2017). Unveiling the role of culture for effective Project Management. In ISPIM Innovation Symposium.

Beach, L R and Connolly, T. (2005). The psychology of decision making: People in organizations. Sage.

Beach, L R and Lipshitz, R. (2017). Why classical decision theory is an inappropriate standard for evaluating and aiding most human decision making. Decision Making in Aviation, 85.

Becker, M C. (2004). Organizational routines: a review of the literature. Industrial and corporate change, 13(4), 643-678.

Beckhard, R and Harris, R T. (1977). Organizational transitions: Managing complex change. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Beins, B. (2009). Research methods. Pearson Education.

Betts, M and Lansley, P. (1995). International Journal of Project Management: a review of the first ten years. International Journal of Project Management, 13(4), 207-217.

Biedenbach, T and Müller, R. (2011). Paradigms in project management research: examples from 15 years of IRNOP conferences. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 4(1), 82-104.

Biggins, D. (2015). Perspectives on Project Management Methods. British Academy of Management Conference, Portsmouth, 8 - 10 Sep 2015. [Online]. Available at https://brian.bournemouth.ac.uk/viewobject.html?id=196455&cid=1. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Biggins, D, Trollsund, F and Høiby, A L. (2016a). Applying a life cycle approach to project management methods. European Academy of Management Conference, Paris, 1-4 June 2016. [Online]. Available at http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/23753/2/Biggins%20D%20-%20Applying%20a%20life%20cycle%20approach%20to%20project%20management%20methods.pdf. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Biggins, D, Lawlor-Wright, T and Truelove, L. (2016b). Trends in project management 1966-2015. British Academy of Management Conference, Newcastle, 6 - 8 Sep 2016. [Online]. Available at http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/24268/1/Trends%20in%20PM%201966-2015.pdf. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Bliss, L. (2008). Media review: Green J C (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(2), 190-192.

Bloch, M, Blumberg, S and Laartz, J. (2012). Delivering large-scale IT projects on time, on budget, and on value. [Online]. Available at http://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-mckinsey/our-insights/delivering-large-scale-it-projects-on-time-on-budget-and-on-value. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Blomquist, T, Farashah, A D and Thomas, J. (2017). Feeling good, being good and looking good: Motivations for, and benefits from, project management certification. International Journal of Project Management.

Boddy, D and Macbeth, D. (2000). Prescriptions for managing change: A survey of their effects in projects to implement collaborative working between organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 18(5), 297-306.

219

Boehm, B and Turner, R. (2003). Observations on balancing discipline and agility. Agile Development Conference. Proceedings of the IEEE.

Boehm, B, Koolmanojwong S, Lane J A and Turner, R. (2012). Principles for successful systems engineering. Procedia Computer Science 8, 297-302.

Boonstra, J J. (2013). Cultural change and leadership in organizations: a practical guide to successful organizational change. John Wiley & Sons.

Boud, K, Keogh, R and Walker, D. (1994). Reflection: turning experience into learning. London: Kogan Paul.

Brady, T and Davies, A. (2004). Building project capabilities: from exploratory to exploitative learning. Organization studies, 25(9), 1601-1621.

Bradley, G. (2010). Benefit Realisation Management: A practical guide to achieving benefits through change. Gower Publishing, Ltd.

Braun, V and Clarke, V. (2012). Thematic analysis. APA Handbook of Research methods in Psychology, volume 2. The American Psychological Association.

Bredillet, C N. (2003). Genesis and role of standards: Theoretical foundations and socio-economical model for the construction and use of standards. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 463-470.

Bredillet, C N. (2008). Exploring research in project management: Nine schools of project management research. Project Management Journal, 39:3.

Bredillet, C N. (2009). Mapping the dynamics of the project management field: Project management in action (part 3). Project Management Journal, 40: 2-5. doi: 10.1002/pmj.20139.

Bresnen, M and Marshall, N. (2000). Problems in construction: a critical review of issues, problems and dilemmas. Construction Management and Economics 18, 229-37.

Bridges, W. (1991). Managing Transitions, Perseus. Reading, MA.

BSI (British Standards Institution). (2010). BS 6079-1:2010. [Online]. Available at: http://shop.bsigroup.com/ ProductDetail/?pid=000000000030170007. Last accessed 11 May 2015.

Bryde, D J. (2003). Modelling project management performance. International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20(2), 229-254.

Bryman, A and Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods. 3rd Edition. Oxford: OUP.

Bryman, A. (2012). Social research methods. Oxford University Press.

Bullock, R J and Batten, D. (1985). It's just a phase we're going through: a review and synthesis of OD phase analysis. Group & Organization Management, 10(4), 383-412.

Burgan, S C and Burgan, D S. (2012). A case study on the adoption of project management in an organization. Paper presented at PMI Global Congress 2012-North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

Burke, R. (2011). Advanced project management: Fusion method XYZ: A project methodology systems approach for the project sponsor to develop and implement corporate strategy.

Burke, R. (2013). Project management: planning and control techniques. New Jersey, USA.

Burke, W W. (2017). Organization change: Theory and practice. Sage Publications.

Burnes, B. (2009). Managing change. London: FT.

Burns, R B and Burns R A. (2013). Business Research Methods and Statistics Using SPSS. Sage.

Burns, T E and Stalker, G M. (1961). The management of innovation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.

220

Buttrick, R. (2013). The project workout: the ultimate handbook of project and programme management. Pearson UK.

By, R T. (2005). Organizational Change Management: A critical review. Journal of Change Management, 5(4), 369-80.

Cadle, J and Yeates D. (Eds) (2008). Project management for information systems. Pearson education.

Calhoun, C. (1995). Critical social theory: culture, history, and the challenge of difference. Wiley-Blackwell.

Cameron, E and Green, M. (2015). Making Sense of Change Management: A Complete Guide The Models, Tools And Techniques Of Organizational Change. London: Kogan Page.

Cameron, K and Quinn R. (2011). Diagnosing and changing organizational culture: based on the competing values framework, third edition, Books24x7, EBSCOhost.

Cao, Y and Zhao, L. (2011) Intellectual property management model in enterprises: a technology life cycle perspective. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management 08:02, 253-272.

Carden, L and Egan, T. (2008). Does our literature support sectors newer to project management? The search for quality publications relevant to nontraditional industries. Project Management Journal, 39(3), 6-27.

Carnall, C. (2014). Managing Change in Organizations. 6th Edition, Pearson (Intl). Available from: Bookshelf Online.

Carstens, D S, Richardson, G L and Smith, R B. (2013). Project Management Tools and Techniques: A Practical Guide. CRC Press.

CCTA (Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency) (1994). PRINCE in Small Projects. London: HMSO.

Chandler, A D. (1962). Strategy and structure: Chapters in the history of the American enterprise. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge.

Charvat, J. (2003). Project Management Methodologies-Selecting, Implementing, and Supporting Methodologies and Processes for Projects. New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

Chin, C M M and Spowage, A C. (2010). Defining & classifying project management methodologies. PM World Today, 12(5).

Chrissis, M B, Konrad, M and Shrum, S. (2003). CMMI guidelines for process integration and product improvement. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co.

Christoph Albrecht, J and Spang, K. (2014). Linking the benefits of project management maturity to project complexity: Insights from a multiple case study. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 7(2), 285-301.

Cleland, D I and Ireland, L R. (1999). Project management: strategic design and implementation (Vol. 4). McGraw-Hill.

CMMI Institute. (2013). [Online]. Available at www.cmmiinstitute.com. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Cohen, M D, March, J G and Olsen, J P. (1972). A garbage can model of organizational choice. Administrative science quarterly, 1-25.

Cohen, M D, Burkhart, R, Dosi, G, Egidi, M, Marengo, L, Warglien, M and Winter, S. (1996). Routines and other recurring action patterns of organizations: contemporary research issues. Industrial and corporate change, 5(3), pp.653-698.

Collis, J and Hussey, R. (2014). Business research: A practical guide for undergraduate and postgraduate students. Fourth edition. Palgrave Macmillan.

Colyer, S. (2000). Organizational culture in selected western Australian sport organizations. Journal of Sport Management, 14, 321-341.

221

Cooke-Davies, T J. (2004). Measurement of organizational maturity. Innovations-Project management research, 211-228.

Cooke‐Davies, T J, Crawford, L H and Lechler, T G. (2009). Project management systems:

Moving project management from an operational to a strategic discipline. Project Management Journal, 40(1), 10-123.

Cooper, R G. (2007). Managing technology development projects. IEEE Engineering Management Review, 35(1), 67-76.

Crawford, L. (2004). Global Body of Project Management Knowledge and Standards, in The Wiley Guide to Managing Projects (Eds Morris, P W G and Pinto, J K), New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Crawford, L, Pollack, J and England, D. (2006). Uncovering the trends in project management: Journal emphases over the last 10 years. International Journal of Project Management, 24(2), pp.175-184.

Creswell, J W and Plano Clark, V L. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Third edition. Sage.

Creswell, J W. (2014). Research design. Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods approaches. Sage.

Crozier, M. (1964). The bureaucratic phenomenon. Tavistock Publications and University of Chicago Press.

Cyert, R M and March, J G. (1963). A behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

D’Adderio, L. (2009). The influence of artefacts and distributed agencies on routines’ dynamics: from representation to performation. Organizational routines: Advancing empirical research: 185.

Dannemiller, K D and Jacobs, R W. (1992). Changing the way organizations change: A revolution of common sense. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 28(4), 480-498.

Deal, T E and Kennedy, A A. (1982). Corporate Cultures. Addison-Wesley.

Dean, J. (1950). Pricing policies for new products. 28:6, 45-53.

Dean, P. (1997). Examining the Profession and the Practice of Business Ethics. Journal of Business Ethics 16(15), 1637-1649.

Deming, W E. (1993). The new economics: for industry, government and education. Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Demir, C, Ayyildiz Unnu, N and Erturk, E. (2011). Diagnosing the organizational culture of a Turkish pharmaceutical company based on the competing values framework. Journal of Business Economics & Management, 12, 1, 197-217.

De Vries, M F K and Miller, D. (1986). Personality, culture, and organization. Academy of Management Review, 11(2), 266-279.

Dhalla, N K and Yuspeh, S. (1976). Forget the product life cycle concept. Harvard Business Review 54.1, 102-112.

Dillman, D A. (2007). Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. Second edition. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Dolan, K. (2010). Addressing project failure through PRINCE2. [Online]. Available at: https://www.axelos.com/case-studies-and-white-papers/addressing-project-failure-through-prince2. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Donaldson, L. (2006). The Contingency Theory of Organizational Design: Challenges and Opportunities. In: Burton R M, Håkonsson D D, Eriksen B, Snow C C. (Eds) Organization Design. Information and Organization Design Series, vol 6. Springer, Boston, MA.

222

Doolen, T, Hacker, M, and Van Aken, E. (2003). The Impact of Organizational Context on Work Team Effectiveness: A Study of Production Team, IEEE Transactions On Engineering Management, 50, 3, 285-296.

Doorewaard, H and Van Bijsterveld, M. (2001). The osmosis of ideas: An analysis of the integrated approach to IT management from a translation theory perspective. Organization, 8(1), pp.55-76.

Drori, G S, Höllerer, M A and Walgenbach, P. (2014). Unpacking the glocalization of organization: From term, to theory, to analysis. European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology, 1(1), 85-99.

Egeland, B. (2009). A project management historical timeline. [Online]. Available at: www.pmtips.net/project-management-historical-timeline. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Elsevier. (2016). Scopus content. [Online]. Available at: https://www.elsevier.com/solutions/scopus/content. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Engwall, M. (2003). No project is an island: linking projects to history and context. Research policy, 32(5), 789-808.

Ernst, R C. (1985). Corporate cultures and effective planning: An introduction to the organization culture grid. Personnel Administrator, 30, 49-60.

Eskerod, P and Östergren, K. (2000). Why do companies standardize project work. Project Management, 6(1), 34-39.

Eveleens, J L and Verhoef, C. (2010). The rise and fall of the Chaos report figures. Software, IEEE, 27(1), 30-36.

Farjoun, M, Ansell, C and Boin, A. (2015). Perspective—Pragmatism in organization studies: Meeting the challenges of a dynamic and complex world. Organization Science, 26(6), 1787-1804.

Feldman, M. (2000). Organizational Routines as a Source of Continuous Change. Organization Science 11 (6), 611-629.

Feldman, M and Rafaeli, A. (2002). Organizational Routines as Sources of Connections and Understandings. Journal of Management Studies 39 (3), 309-332.

Feldman, M and Pentland, B. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative science quarterly 48.1 94-118.

Feldman, M and Worline, M. (2016). The practicality of practice theory. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15(2), 304-324.

Fernandes, G, Ward, S, Araújo, M, Loureiro, I and Braga, A. (2014). Perceptions of Different Stakeholders on Improving and Embedding Project Management Practice in Organisations. Procedia Technology, 16, 957-966.

Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics. Fifth edition. Sage.

Fortune, J, White, D, Jugdev, K and Walker, D. (2011). Looking again at current practice in project management. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 4(4), 553-572.

Frame, D. (1995). Managing Projects in Organizations, second edition. Jossey-Bass, Inc.

Frankel Pratt, S. (2016). Pragmatism as ontology, not (just) epistemology: Exploring the full horizon of pragmatism as an approach to IR theory. International Studies Review, 18(3), 508-527.

Galbraith, J R. (1973). Designing complex organizations. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co Inc.

Galliers, R D. (1992). Information Systems Research: Issues, Methods and Practical Guidelines. Blackwell Scientific Publications.

GAPPS (Global Alliance for Project Performance Standards). (2013). About us. [Online]. Available at: https://globalpmstandards.org/about-us/. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

223

Garcia, S. (2005) How standards enable adoption of project management practice. IEEE Software, 22(5), 22-29.

Gardiner, P D. (2005). Project management: A strategic planning approach. Palgrave Macmillan.

Garrity, E J, and Sanders, G L. (Eds) (1998). Information systems success measurement. IGI Global.

Gartner (2016). Gartner Says Global IT Spending to Reach $3.5 Trillion in 2017. [online]. Available at: http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3482917. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Ghauri, P and Grønhaug K. (2010). Research methods in business studies. 4th edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Giddens, A. (1979). Central problems in social theory: Action, structure, and contradiction in social analysis (Vol. 241). University of California Press.

Gleicher, D. (1969) in Beckhard, R. (Ed), Organisation Development: Strategies and Models, Addison‐Wesley, Reading, MA.

Goffee, R and Jones, G. (1998). The character of a corporation: How your company's culture can make or break your business. Harper Business.

Grant, K P, and Pennypacker, J S. (2006). Project management maturity: An assessment of project management capabilities among and between selected industries. Engineering Management, IEEE Transactions On Engineering Management on, 53(1), 59-68.

Graves, D. (1986). Corporate Culture: Diagnosis and Change. St Martin’s Press, New York.

Greene, J. (2008). Is mixed methods social inquiry a distinctive methodology? Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(1), 7-22.

Groysberg, B, Lee, J, Price, J and Cheng, J. (2018). The Leader's Guide to Corporate Culture How to manage the eight critical elements of organizational life. Harvard Business Review, 96(1), 44-52.

Grundy, T. (1994). Implementing Strategic Change: A Practical Guide for Business. Kogan Page Limited.

Hai, D M (Ed). (1986). Organizational behavior: Experience and cases. West Publishing.

Hammersley, M. (2017). On the Role of Values in Social Research: Weber Vindicated?. Sociological Research Online, 22(1), 1-12.

Hampden-Turner, C. (1990). Creating corporate culture: from discord to harmony.

Handy, C. (1993). Understanding Organisations. London: Penguin Books.

Harrison, R. (1972). Understanding your organization’s character. Harvard Business Review, Vol. 4, 119-28.

Hartnell, C A, Ou, A Y and Kinicki, A. (2011). Organizational culture and organizational effectiveness: A meta-analytic investigation of the competing values framework's theoretical suppositions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 677-694.

Head, I and Spafford, G. (2016). Avoid these 10 common failings for successful ITSM projects. [Online]. Available at https://www.gartner.com/document/3249017?ref=solrAll&refval=181296929&qid=bf96108d97ea92a683d55e68edc53ff8. Last access 11 January 2017.

Heath, C and Heath, D. (2011). Switch "How to Change Things When Change Is Hard". Random House Business.

Heritage, B, Pollock, C, and Roberts, L. (2014). Validation of the Organizational Culture Assessment Instrument. PLoS ONE, 9(3).

HERMES. (2017). HERMES - the Swiss project management method. [Online]. Available at: www.hermes.admin.ch. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

224

Hernon, P. (1994). Information life cycle: Its place in the management of US government information resources. Government Information Quarterly, 11(2), 143-170.

Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business Review, 81(1), 87-96.

Hobday, M. (2000). The project-based organisation: An ideal form for managing complex products and systems? Research Policy. 29. 871-893.

Hodgson, G M and Knudsen, T. (2004). The complex evolution of a simple traffic convention: the functions and implications of habit. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 54(1), 19-47.

Hofstede, G. (1983). The cultural relativity of organizational practices and theories. Journal of international business studies, 14(2), 75-89.

Hölzle, K. (2010). Designing and implementing a career path for project managers. International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 779-786.

Hox, J and Boeije, H. (2005). Data collection, primary vs secondary. Encyclopedia of Social Measurement, Vol 1, 593-599.

Huffman, T P. (2018). Paradigmatic tools for communication scholar–activists: toward a pragmatic and relational epistemology. Review of Communication, 18(1), 19-36.

Hughes, M. (2011) ‘Do 70 per cent of all organizational change initiatives really fail?’ Journal of Change Management, 11(4), 451-64.

Hussey, J and Hussey, R. (1997). Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate and Postgraduate Students. London: Macmillan Press.

Hyväri, I. (2006). Project management effectiveness in project-oriented business organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 24(3), 216-225.

Ibbs, C W and Kwak, Y-H. (2000). Assessing project management maturity. Project Management Journal. 31(1), 32-43.

IBM Corporation. (2008). Making change work. [Online]. Available at: http://www-07.ibm.com/au/pdf/making_change_work.pdf. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

IBM Corporation. (2014). Making change work ... while the work keeps changing. [Online]. Available at: http://www-01.ibm.com/common/ssi/cgi-bin/ssialias?subtype=XB&infotype=PM&appname=GBSE_GB_TI_USEN&htmlfid=GBE03618USEN&attachment=GBE03618USEN.PDF. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

IEEE. (2016). IEEE Xplore Digital Library. [Online]. Available at: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/home.jsp. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

IIL (International Institute for Learning). (2008). The Unified Project Management Methodology (UPMM) Software Suite. [Online]. Available at: www.iil.com/pm/upmm/UPMM_Brochure _10_08.pdf. Last accessed 13 February 2014.

Ika, L A (2009). Project success as a topic in project management journals. Project Management Journal 40(4), 6-19.

IMF (International Monetary Fund). (2017). World economic outlook: Update January 2017. [Online]. Available at: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2017/update/01/. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

IPMA (International Project Management Association). (2013). IPMA Competence Baseline. [Online]. Available at: http://ipma.ch/resources/ipma-publications/ipma-competence-baseline/. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2012). New ISO standard on project management. [Online]. Available at: http://www.iso.org/iso/home/news_index/news_archive/ news.htm?refid=Ref1662. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

ISO (International Organization for Standardization) (2017). Standards [online]. Available at http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards.htm. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

225

Jenner, S. (2012). Managing Benefits. London: The Stationery Office.

Jennings, D and Wattam, S. (1998). Decision making. An integrated approach. Second edition. Essex: Pearson Education Limited.

Jesseph, L and Morris, E. (2013). The social side of the 7s model: Where social media and social capital connect. Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Jick, T D and Sturtevant, K D. (2017). Taking Stock of 30 Years of Change Management: Is It Time for a Reboot?. In Research in Organizational Change and Development (pp. 33-79). Emerald Publishing Limited.

Johnson, G, Scholes, K and Whittington, R. (2008). Exploring corporate strategy. [electronic resource]: text & cases. Harlow: Pearson Education, 2008.

Joslin, R and Müller, R. (2015). Relationships between a project management methodology and project success in different project governance contexts. International Journal of Project Management, 33(6), 1377-1392.

Joslin, R and Müller, R. (2016). The impact of project methodologies on project success in different project environments. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 9(2), 364-388.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin Books.

Kalliath, T J, Bluedorn, A C and Gillespie, D F. (1999). A confirmatory factor analysis of the competing values instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 59(1), 143-158.

Kaplan, R S and Norton, D P. (2004). Strategy maps: Converting intangible assets into tangible outcomes. Harvard Business Press.

Katane, J and Dube, S. (2017). The influence of organizational culture and project management maturity in virtual project teams. Cell, 72(398), 4764.

Keeney, R L. (1977). The art of assessing multiattribute utility functions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 19(2), 267-310.

Kellogg, K C, Orlikowski, W J and Yates, J. (2006). Life in the trading zone: Structuring coordination across boundaries in postbureaucratic organizations. Organization science, 17(1), 22-44.

Kerzner, H. (2006). Project Management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling and controlling. Ninth edition. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Kerzner, H. (2011). Project Management Metrics, KPIs and Dashboards - A guide to Measuring and Monitoring Project Performance. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Kerzner, H. (2013). Project Management, A systems approach to planning, scheduling and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.

Khatua, S., (2011). Project management and appraisal. Oxford University Press.

Kloppenborg, T J and Opfer, W A. (2002). The current state of project management research: trends, interpretations, and predictions. Project Management Journal, 33(2), 5-18.

Kotler, P and Keller, K L. (2012). Framework for Marketing Management: Global Edition. Pearson Education.

Kotter, J. (1996). Leading change. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press.

Kotter, J and Heskett, J L. (1992). Corporate culture and performance. Free Press.

Kriegsman, M. (2012). Worldwide cost of IT failure (revisited): $3 trillion. [Online]. Available at: http://www.zdnet.com/article/worldwide-cost-of-it-failure-revisited-3-trillion/. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Kűbler-Ross, E. (1969). On death and dying. The Macmillan Company.

Kwak, Y H and Anbari, F T. (2009). Analyzing project management research: Perspectives from top management journals. International Journal of Project Management, 27(5), 435-446.

226

Larson, E W and Gray, C F. (2011). Project management: The managerial process. McGraw-Hill International.

Latour, B. (1984). The powers of association. The Sociological Review, 32(S1), 264-280.

Lawrence, P R and Lorsch, J W. (1967). Differentiation and integration in complex organizations. Administrative science quarterly, 1-47.

Lecoeuvre, L. Ed. (2016). The Performance of Projects and Project Management: Sustainable Delivery in Project Intensive Companies. Routledge.

LeCompte, M D and Goetz, J P. (1982). Problems of reliability and validity in ethnographic research. Review of educational research, 52(1), 31-60.

Lehmann, V. (2010). Connecting changes to projects using a historical perspective: Towards some new canvases for researchers. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 328-338.

Lehtonen, P and Martinsuo, M. (2006). Three ways to fail in project management and the role of project management methodology. Project Perspectives, 28(1), 6-11.

Levitin, D. (2016). A Field Guide to Lies and Statistics: A Neuroscientist on How to Make Sense of a Complex World. Penguin UK.

Levitt, B and March, J G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual review of sociology, 14(1), 319-338.

Levitt, T. (1965). Exploit the product life cycle. Harvard Business Review. 81-94.

Lewin, K. (1952). Field Theory in Social Science. London: Tavistock Publications Ltd.

Lientz, B P. (2013). Project Management: A problem-based approach. Palgrave Macmillan.

Lock, D. (2013). Project Management. Farnham: Gower.

Lynch, J. (2015). Standish Group 2015 Chaos Report - Q&A with Jennifer Lynch. Available at: https://www.infoq.com/articles/standish-chaos-2015. Last accessed 16 April 2018.

MacMaster, G. (2002). Choosing the Right PM Method. PM Network, 16(3), 48-51.

Mahon, K, Kemmis, S, Francisco, S and Lloyd, A. (2017). Introduction: Practice theory and the theory of practice architectures. In Exploring Education and Professional Practice, 1-30. Springer.

Manktelow, K I. (2012). Thinking and reasoning: An introduction to the psychology of reason, judgment and decision making. Simon and Schuster.

March, J G. (1994). Primer on decision making: How decisions happen. Simon and Schuster.

Marcoulides, G A and Heck, R H. (1993). Organizational culture and performance: Proposing and testing a model. Organization science, 4(2), 209-225.

Martin, J. (1992). Cultures in organizations: Three perspectives. Oxford University Press.

Matthews, B and Ross, L (2010). Research Methods. A practical guide to the social sciences. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.

Maxwell, J A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage.

Meyer, J W and Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American journal of sociology, 83(2), 340-363.

Maylor, H and Blackmon, K. (2008). Researching business and management. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Mayo, E. (2004). The human problems of an industrial civilization. Routledge.

Mento, A, Jones, R and Dirndorfer, W. (2002). A change management process: Grounded in both theory and practice. Journal of Change Management, 3(1), 45-59.

Mercer, D. (1993). A two‐decade test of product life cycle theory. British Journal of Management

4.4 269-274.

227

Meredith, J R, Mantel, J and Shafer, S M. (2016). Project management: A managerial approach. Wiley.

Microsoft (2008). The IT Service Lifecycle. Available at http://www.technet.microsoft.com/em-us/library/cc543217.aspx. Last accessed 8 August 2015.

Millar, M and Dillman, D. (2011). Improving response to web and mixed-mode surveys, Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 2, p. 249-269.

Mir, F A and Pinnington, A H. (2014). Exploring the value of project management: linking project management performance and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 32(2), 202-217.

Merriam Webster. (2015). Definition. [Online]. Available at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/methodology. Last accessed 4 January 2015.

Mitchell, S, Linger, H and Owen, J. (2008). The benefits of project management maturity assessments--an analysis of OPM3 cases from Australia, New Zealand, and the United States. [Online]. Available at: https://www.pmi.org/learning/library/organizational-project-management-maturity-model-cases-7071. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Moraes, R de O and Laurindo, F J B. (2013). Maturity and Performance in Information Technology Project Management. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation 8, 25-37.

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of Organisations. Sage.

Morris, P W G, Patel, M B and Wearne, S H. (2000). Research into revising the APM project management body of knowledge. International Journal of Project Management, 18(3), 155-164.

Morris, P W G, Crawford, L, Hodgson, D, Shepherd, M M and Thomas, J. (2006). Exploring the role of formal bodies of knowledge in defining a profession - The case of project management. International Journal of Project Management 24(8), 710-721.

Morris, P W G, Pinto J K, Söderlund, J. (Eds) (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Project Management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mullaly, M. (2006). Longitudinal analysis of project management maturity. Project Management Journal, 37(3), 62–73.

Mullins, L J. (2007). Management and organisational behaviour. Pearson Education.

Mumford, I, Mrschbeim, G, Fitzgerald and T. Wood-Harper. (Eds) (1994). Research Methods in Information Systems, Proceedings of the IMP WG8.2 Colloquium September 1994 Manchester Business School. Amsterdam Elsevier Science Publishers, 315-320.

Nadler, D and Tushman, M. (1997). Competing by design: The power of organizational architecture. Oxford University Press.

Narduzzo, A, Rocco, E and Warglien, M. (2000). Talking About Routines in the Field: The Emergence of Organizational Capabilities in a New Cellular Phone Network 16. The nature and dynamics of organizational capabilities, p.27.

Nelson, R R. (1995). Recent evolutionary theorizing about economic change. Journal of economic literature, 33(1), 48-90.

Nelson, R R and Sampat, B N. (2001). Making sense of institutions as a factor shaping economic performance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 44 (1), 31-54.

Nelson, R R and Winter, S G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, Mass; London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

NCS (National Careers Service). (2015). Job profiles – Project manager. [Online]. Available at: https://nationalcareersservice.direct.gov.uk/advice/planning/jobprofiles /Pages/projectmanager.aspx. Last accessed 6 February 2015.

Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford University Press.

228

Oaksford, M and Chater, N. (1995). Theories of reasoning and the computational explanation of everyday inference. Thinking & Reasoning, 1(2), 121-152.

Oaksford, M and Chater, N. (2009). Précis of Bayesian rationality: The probabilistic approach to human reasoning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(1), 69-84.

O’Donovan, G. (2018). Creating a culture of partnership between Project Management and Change Management. [Online]. Available at: https://pmworldjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/pmwj66-Jan2018-ODonovan-creating-culture-of-partnership-project-management-and-change-management.pdf. Last accessed 26 April 2018.

OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2002a). Tailoring PRINCE2. London: The Stationery Office.

OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2002b). People issues and PRINCE2. London: The Stationery Office.

OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2005). Managing successful projects with PRINCE2. London: The Stationery Office.

OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2006). PRINCE2 Maturity Model. London: The Stationery Office.

OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2009). Managing successful projects with PRINCE2. London: The Stationery Office.

OGC (Office of Government Commerce). (2010). Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model (P3M3). Introduction and Guide to P3M3. London: The Stationery Office.

Okhuysen, G A and Bechky, B A. (2009). 10 coordination in organizations: an integrative perspective. Academy of Management annals, 3(1), 463-502.

ONS (Office for National Statistics). (2016). Public sector employment, UK: March 2016. [Online]. Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/ publicsectorpersonnel/ bulletins/publicsectoremployment/march2016. Last accessed 3 March 2017.

Ouchi, W G. (1981). Theory Z: How American business can meet the Japanese challenge. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Oxford Dictionaries. (2018). [Online]. Available at http://www.oxforddictionaries.com. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Pace, M. (2017). Project management methodology’s influence on project success: A correlation study. Doctoral thesis. Available at Capella University.

Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual. McGraw-Hill Education (UK).

Paoli, M and Prencipe, A. (2003). Memory of the Organisation and Memories within the Organisation. Journal of Management and Governance 7 (2), 14.

Parker, D W, Charlton, J, Ribeiro, A and Pathak, R D. (2013). Integration of project-based management and change management: Intervention methodology. International Journal of Production Performance Management, 62(5), 534-544.

Parry, K W and Proctor-Thomson, S B. (2002). Perceived integrity of transformational leaders in organisational settings. Journal of Business Ethics, 35(2), 75-96.

Pasian, B. (2011). Project management maturity: a critical analysis of existing and emergent contributing factors. [Online]. Available at: https://opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/2100/1258. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Pasian, B. (2018). Project Management Maturity and Associated Modeling: A Historic, Process-Oriented View. In Developing Organizational Maturity for Effective Project Management (pp. 1-24). IGI Global.

229

Pells, D. (1997). Global status of the project management profession: Where are we now? Project Management Institute 28th Annual Seminars & Symposium. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

Pemsel, S, Müller, R and Shao, J. (2014). Organizational enablers in project-based organizations: the case of project governance and governmentality. Paper presented at Project Management Institute Research and Education Conference, Phoenix, AZ. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

Pentland, B T. (1995). Grammatical Models of Organizational Processes. Organization Science, 6 (5), 541-556.

Pentland, B T and Feldman, M S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and corporate change, 14(5), 793-815.

Perrow, C. (1970). Organizational analysis: A sociological view. London: Tavistock.

Peters, T and Waterman, R. (1982). In Search of Excellence. London: Harper & Row.

Peters, T. (2011). McKinsey 7-S Model. Leadership Excellence Essentials, 28(10), 7.

Pettigrew, A M and Whipp, R. (1993). Managing change for competitive success. Wiley-Blackwell.

Pettigrew, A M. (1979). On studying organizational cultures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 570-581.

Pinto, J K and Levin, D P. (1988). Project success: Definition and measurement techniques. Project Management Journal 19(1).

Pinto, J K and Kharbanda, O P. (1995). Lessons for an accidental profession. Business Horizons, 38(2), pp.41-50.

Pinto, J K. (2013). Project management: achieving competitive advantage. Pearson.

Pinto, J K. (2014). Project management, governance, and the normalization of deviance. International Journal of Project Management, 32(3), 376-387.

Pitagorsky, G. (2003). The Business Value of Embracing a unified PM methodology. [Online]. Available at: Allpm.com. Last accessed 14 March 2013.

Plowman, D A, Baker, L T, Beck, T E, Kulkarni, M, Solansky, S. T and Travis, D V. (2007). Radical change accidentally: The emergence and amplification of small change. Academy of Management Journal, 50(3), 515-543.

PMI (Project Management Institute). (2012). Project Management Institute commends ISO 21500 Standard for alignment with PMBOK Guide. [Online]. Available at: http://www.pmi.org/en/ About-Us/Press-Releases/ISO-21500-Standard-for-Alignment-with-PMBOK-Guide.aspx. Last accessed 5 March 2013.

PMI (Project Management Institute). (2013a). Organisational project management maturity model (OPM3). Third edition. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

PMI (Project Management Institute). (2013b). Industry growth forecast: Project management between 2010 and 2020. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

PMI (Project Management Institute). (2013c). Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). Fifth edition. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

PMI (Project Management Institute). (2013d). Managing Change in Organizations: A Practice Guide. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

PMI (Project Management Institute). (2014a). Implementing Organizational Project Management: A Practice Guide. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

PMI (Project Management Institute). (2014b). Global Jobs Report: Hottest Industries, Highest Salaries. [Online]. Available at http://www.pmi.org/learning/PM-Network/2014/global-jobs-report.aspx. Last accessed 1 February 2015.

230

PMI (Project Management Institute). (2015a). Certifications. [Online]. Available at http://www.pmi.org/certification.aspx. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

PMI (Project Management Institute). (2015b). PMI’s Pulse of the Profession. [Online]. Available at: http://www.pmi.org/~/media/PDF/learning/pulse-of-the-profession-2015.ashx. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

PMI (Project Management Institute). (2015c). Improve your organisation’s performance. [Online]. Available at: http://www.pmi.org/BusinessSolutions/Pages/OPM3.aspx. Last accessed 1 February 2015.

PMI (Project Management Institute). (2016). Pulse of the profession. [Online]. Available at: http://www.pmi.org.

PMI (Project Management Institute). (2017a). Pulse of the profession. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

PMI (Project Management Institute). (2017b). Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK). Sixth edition. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

PMI Today. (2016). Fact File. Newtown Square: Project Management Institute.

Pollack, J and Adler, D. (2015). Emergent trends and passing fads in project management research: A scientometric analysis of changes in the field. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 236-248.

Pollack, J. (2017). Change management as an organizational project capability. In Sankaran, S, Müller, R, Drouin, N. (Eds) Cambridge Handbook of Organizational Project Management, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, ISBN: 978-1-107-15772-9, Ch. 16, 236-249.

Polli, R and Cook, V. (1969). Validity of the product life cycle. Journal of Business. 385-400.

Powell, W W and DiMaggio, P J. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. University of Chicago Press.

Project Management Association of Japan. (2013). A guidebook of project and program management for enterprise innovation ‘P2M’. [Online]. Available at: https://articulospm.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/p2mguidebookvolume1_060112.pdf. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Prosci. (2018). AKDAR model. [Online]. Available at: http://www.prosci.com/adkar-model/overview-3/. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Pugh, D S and Hickson D J. (1996). Writers on organisations. Penguin Books.

PWC (Price Waterhouse Coopers). (2004). Boosting business performance through programme and project management. [Online]. Available at http://www.pwc.com/us/en/ operations-management/assets/pwc-global-project-management-survey-first-survey-2004.pdf. Last accessed 9 September 2013.

PWC (Price Waterhouse Coopers). (2007). Insights and trends: Current portfolio, programme and project management practices. [Online]. Available at http://www.pwc.com/us/en/ operations-management/assets/pwc-global-project-management-survey-second-survey-2007.pdf. Last accessed 9 September 2013.

PWC (Price Waterhouse Coopers). (2012). Insights and trends: Current portfolio, programme and project management practices. [Online]. Available at http://www.pwc.com/us/en/public-sector/publications/global-pm-report-2012.jhtml. Last accessed 9 September 2013.

Quinn, R E. (1988). Beyond rational management: Mastering the paradoxes and competing demands of high performance. Jossey-Bass.

Quinn, R E and Spreitzer, G M. (1991). The psychometrics of the competing values culture instrument and an analysis of the impact of organizational culture on quality of life. Emerald.

Rad, N K. (2012). PMBOK 5 and the New Knowledge Area. [Online]. Available at: http://www.theprojectbox.us/2012/09/pmbok-5-and-the-new-knowledge-area. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

231

Ramazani, J and Jergeas, G. (2015). Project managers and the journey from good to great: The benefits of investment in project management training and education. International Journal of Project Management, 33(1), 41-52.

Richardson, G L. (2010). Project management theory and practice. CRC Press.

Rigby, D and Bilodeau, B. (2007). Bain's global 2007 management tools and trends survey. Strategy & Leadership, 35(5), 9-16.

Robbins, S P. (1990). Organization Theory: Structures, Designs, And Applications. Third edition. Pearson Education.

Robbins, S P and Barnwell, N. (2006). Organisation theory: Concepts and cases. Pearson Education Australia.

Rogers, E M. (2003). Diffusion of innovation. Fifth edition. New York: Free Press.

Rollinson, D. (2008). Organisational behaviour and analysis: An integrated approach. Pearson Education.

Rousseau, D M. (1990). Assessing organizational culture: The case for multiple methods. In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational culture and climate (153-192). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Røvik, K A. (2011). From fashion to virus: An alternative theory of organizations’ handling of management ideas. Organization Studies, 32(5), 631-653.

Ruuska, I and Vartiainen, M. (2005). Characteristics of knowledge sharing communities in project organizations. International Journal of Project Management. 23, 374-379.

Saaty, T L. (1986). Axiomatic foundation of the analytic hierarchy process. Management Science, 32(7), 841-855.

Sackmann, S A. (2011). Culture and performance. In N Ashkanasy, C Wilderom and M Peterson (Eds), The handbook of organizational culture and climate. Second edition, 188-224. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Salaman, G. (Ed) (2002). Decision making for business: a reader. Sage.

Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.

Sargeant, R, Hatcher, C, Trigunarsyah, B, Coffey V and Kraatz, J. (2010) Creating value in project management using PRINCE2. [Online]. Available at: eprints.qut.edu.au/52853/.

Sargent, W. (2016). Strategies to Improve Project Management Maturity Processes. [Online]. Available at http://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4106&context=dissertations#page=13&zoom=auto, 118,778. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Sargent, W and Ferreira, G A. (2018). Strategies to Improve Project Management Maturity. Developing Organizational Maturity for Effective Project Management (pp. 279-295). IGI Global.

Sarif, S M, Ramly, S, Yusof, R, Fadzillah, N A A and bin Sulaiman, N Y. (2018). Investigation of Success and Failure Factors in IT Project Management. International Conference on Kansei Engineering & Emotion Research (pp. 671-682). Springer, Singapore.

Saunders, M, Lewis, P and Thornhill, A. (2012). Research methods for business students. 6th Ed. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd.

Schein, E H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.

Schlichter, J. (2015). Did PMI screw OPM3 up? [Online]. Available at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/did-pmi-screw-opm3-up-john-schlichter-opm3.

Scott, D, Pultz, J E, Holub, E, Bittman, T J and McGuckin, P. (2007). Introducing the Gartner IT Infrastructure and Operations Maturity Model [Online]. Available at: https://www.gartner.com/doc/527814/introducing-gartner-it-infrastructure-operations. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

232

Senge, P. (1993). The fifth discipline: The art and science of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Senge, P, Kleiner, A, Roberts, C, Ross, R, Roth, G, Smith, B and Guman, E C. (1999). The dance of change: The challenges to sustaining momentum in learning organizations.

Serrador, P and Pinto, J K. (2015). Does Agile work? A quantitative analysis of agile project success. International Journal of Project Management, 33(5), 1040-1051.

Shah, M H. (2014). An Application of ADKAR Change Model for the Change Management Competencies of School Heads in Pakistan. Journal of Managerial Sciences, 8(1).

Sheard, S A. (1997). The frameworks quagmire, a brief look. People, 829(830), 1012-1016.

Sheffield, J and Lemétayer, J. (2010). Critical Success Factors in Project Management Methodology Fit. PMI Global Congress 2010 - Asia Pacific.

Shenhar, A J. (2001). One size does not fit all projects: Exploring classical contingency domains. Management Science, 47 (3), 394.

Shenhar, A J, Dvir, D, Lechler, T and Poli, M. (2002). One size does not fit all-true for projects, true for frameworks. In Proceedings of PMI Research Conference, 14-17.

Shenhar, A J, Dvir, D, Guth, W, Lechler, T, Milosevic, D, Patanakul, P, Poli, M and Stefanovic, J. (2007). Project strategy: the missing link. Linking project management to business strategy, 57-76.

Shi, Q. (2011). Rethinking the implementation of project management: A Value Adding Path Map approach. International Journal of Project Management, 29(3), 295-302.

Shtub, A, Bard, J F and Globerson, S. (2005). Project management: Processes, methodologies, and economics. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Siehl, C and Martin, J. (1990). Organizational culture: A key to financial performance? In B. Schneider (Ed.), Organizational climate and culture (241-281). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Silverthorne, C. (2004). The impact of organizational culture and person-organization fit on organizational commitment and job satisfaction in Taiwan. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 25(7), 592-599.

Silvius, G. (2018). Developing Project Management Maturity as an Organizational Change Process. Developing Organizational Maturity for Effective Project Management (pp. 296-308). IGI Global.

Simon, H A. (1957). Administrative behaviour. A study of decision-making process in administrative organisation. London: Collier Macmillan Ltd.

Simon, H A. (1964). On the concept of organizational goal. Administrative Science Quarterlys, 11-22.

Simon, H A. (1966). The new science of management decision. Harper & Row.

Simon, H A. (1983). Reason in human affairs. Stanford, USA: Stanford University Press.

Singh, A. (2013). A Study of Role of McKinsey's 7S Framework in Achieving Organizational Excellence. Organization Development Journal, 31(3), 39-50.

Small, M. (2011). How to Conduct a Mixed Methods Study: Recent Trends in a Rapidly Growing Literature, Annual Review of Sociology, 57.

Smyth, H J and Morris, P W G. (2007). An epistemological evaluation of research into projects and their management: Methodological issues. International Journal of Project Management, 25(4), 423-436.

Söderlund, J. (2004). On the broadening scope of the research on projects: a review and a model for analysis. International Journal of Project Management, 22(8), 655-667.

233

Stacey, R. (2006). Complex responsive processes as a theory of organizational improvisation. Experiencing risk, spontaneity and improvisation in organizational change: Working live, 124-141.

Spalek, S. (2014). Does investment in project management pay off? Industrial Management and Data Systems, 114, 832-856. doi:10.1108/IMDS-10-2013-0447.

Stanovich, K E. (1999). Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Psychology Press.

Stanovich, K E and West, R F. (2000). Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral And Brain Sciences, 23(5), 645-665.

Stewart, R A. (2008). A framework for the life cycle management of information technology projects: ProjectIT. International Journal of Project Management. 26(2), 203-212.

Stokes, P. (2011). Key concepts in business and management research methods. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Strangler, D and Arbesman, S. (2012). What does Fortune 500 Turnover mean? [Online]. Available at SSRN: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2078162.

Straub, D W. (1989). Validating instruments in MIS research. MIS quarterly, 147-169.

Strebel, P. (1994). Choosing the right change path. California Management Review, 36(2), 29.

Stubbart, C I and Knight, M B. (2006). The case of the disappearing firms: empirical evidence and implications. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(1), 79-100.

Stuckenbruck, L. (1986). Project Management Framework - An overview of the Project Management Body of Knowledge. Project Management Journal 1986(August), 25-30.

Sturdy, A. (2004). The adoption of management ideas and practices: Theoretical perspectives and possibilities. Management Learning, 35(2), 155-179.

Swanson, S. (2012). Measuring maturity. PM Network, 2012(5), 40-45.

Sydow, J and Staber, U. (2002). The institutional embeddedness of project networks: the case of content production in German television. Regional Studies, 36(3), 215-227.

Tabachnick, B G and Fidell, L S. (2014). Using multivariate statistics. Pearson Education.

Taleb, N N. (2007). The black swan: the impact of the highly improbable. New York: Random.

TechPro Research. (2015). Research: IT budget - drivers, trends and concerns in 2016. [Online]. Available at: http://www.techproresearch.com/downloads/research-it-budget-drivers-trends-and-concerns-in-2016/. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Teddlie, C and Tashakkori, A. (2012). Common ‘Core’ Characteristics of Mixed Methods Research: A Review of Critical Issues and Call for Greater Convergence. American Behavioral Scientist, 56(6).

Thaler, R H and Sunstein, C R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. London: Penguin Books.

Thaler, R H. (2015). Misbehaving: The making of behavioural economics. Alan Lane.

Themistocleous, G and Wearne, S H. (2000). Project management topic coverage in journals. International Journal of Project Management, 18(1), 7-11.

Thomas, J and Mullaly, M. (2007). Understanding the value of project management: First steps on an international investigation in search of value. Project Management Journal, 38(3), 74-89.

Thomson Reuters. (2014). Web of Science core collection. [Online]. Available at: http://wokinfo.com/media/pdf/wos_core_collection_qrc.pdf. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Too, E G and Weaver, P. (2014). The management of project management: A conceptual framework for project governance. International Journal of Project Management, 32, 1382-1394. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.07.006.

234

Trompenaars, F. (2001). Riding the Waves of Culture, 2nd edition. London: Brealey.

Turner, J R. (2008). Handbook of project-based management. McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing.

Turner, R, Ledwith, A and Kelly, J. (2010). Project management in small to medium-sized enterprises: Matching processes to the nature of the firm. International Journal of Project Management, 28(8), 744-755.

Tversky, A and Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5(2), 207-232.

Tversky, A and Kahneman, D. (1985). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. In Environmental Impact assessment, technology assessment, and risk analysis, 107-129. Springer: Berlin.

Tylor, E B. (1871). Primitive culture: researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and custom (Vol. 2). Murray.

Urli, B and Urli, D. (2000). Project management in North America, stability of the concepts. Project Management Journal, 31(3), 33-43.

Valentin, E K. (1994). Anatomy of a fatal business strategy. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3), 359-382.

Vaskimo, J. (2015). Organizational project management methodologies: Structures, contents, and use. Doctoral thesis. Available at: https://aaltodoc.aalto.fi/bitstream/handle/123456789/19005/isbn9789526065861.pdf. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Vincke, P. (1992). Multicriteria decision-aid. John Wiley & Sons.

Vroom, V H and Yetton, P W. (1973). Leadership and decision-making. University of Pittsburgh Press.

Vroom, V H and Jago, A G. (1988). The new leadership: Managing participation in organizations. Prentice-Hall.

Walker, D H. (2016). Reflecting on 10 years of focus on innovation, organisational learning and knowledge management literature in a construction project management context. Construction Innovation, 16(2), 114-126.

Walliman, N. (2006). Social research methods. Sage.

Waterman, R H, Peters, T J and Phillips, J R. (1980). Structure is not organization. Business Horizons, 23(3), 14.

Wedlin, L and Sahlin, K. (2017). The imitation and translation of management ideas (pp. 102-127). London, England: Sage.

Wells, H. (2012). How effective are project management methodologies (PMMs)? An explorative evaluation of their benefits in practice. Project Management Journal. 43(6), 43-58.

Wells, H. (2013). An exploratory examination into the implications of type-agnostic selection and application of project management methodologies (PMMs) for managing and delivering IT/IS projects. Proceedings IRNOP 2013 Conference.

Wheatley, M. (2007). Maturity Matters: Maturity is an obvious choice for companies looking to increase their ROI in project management, but they need to carefully examine what it takes to get where they want to go. PM Network, 21(7), 48.

White, D and Fortune, J. (2001). Current practice in project management - an empirical study. International Journal of Project Management. 20(1), 1-11.

Whittington, R, Pettigrew, A, Peck, S, Fenton, E and Conyon, M. (1999). Change and complementarities in the new competitive landscape: A European panel study, 1992–1996. Organization science, 10(5), 583-600.

235

Williams, S. (c2010). A Description of Papers Published in the PM Journals 1998-2007. [Online]. Available at: http://buildingthepride.com/jobie/uploads/JOBIEV19I125.pdf. Last accessed 20 April 2018.

Williamson, O. (2005). Transaction cost economics and business administration. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 21(1), 19-40.

Winch, G, Meunier, M, Head, J and Russ, K. (2012). Projects as the content and process of change: The case of the health safety laboratory. International Journal of Project Management, 30(2), 141-152.

Winter, S G. (1985). The case for “Mechanistic” decision making. Organizational strategy and change, 99-113.

Winter, M, Smith, C, Morris, P and Cicmil, S. (2006). Directions for future research in project management: The main findings of a UK government-funded research network. International Journal of Project Management 24(8), 638-649.

Woodward, J, Dawson, S and Wedderburn, D. (1965). Industrial organization: Theory and practice. London: Oxford University Press.

Yazici, H J. (2010). The role of project management maturity and organisational culture in perceived performance. Project Management Journal 40(3), 14-33.

Yeung, A K, Brockbank, J W and Ulrich, D. (1991). Organizational culture and human resource practices: An empirical assessment.

Yin, R K. (2011). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage Publishing.

Zobel, A M and Wearne, S H. (2000). Project management topic coverage in recent conferences. Project Management Journal, 31(2), 32-37.

236

Appendix 1 – A brief history of PM and PMMs

With their history in construction, engineering and government (especially defence), the tools

and techniques of project management had existed in isolation before the 1950s and it is from

this time that the pre-cursors of project management are traceable. Professions such as

medicine, accounting and law have a much longer history than does project management which

only started to take shape as such after the Second World War. These initial steps in the

development of an identifiable subject were the first stages of the creation of the profession of

project management. The evolution of project management from an additional responsibility

augmenting a different primary duty into a role in its own right occurred in the 1990s. In their

1995 article Pinto and Kharbanda repeated the popular phrase, the ‘accidental profession’, first

used by authors from the mid 1980s to reflect the fact that there were no formalised ways to

select and train project managers and there was no definable career path.

The criteria for defining a profession were identified by Flexner in the 1920s (Dean 1997).

Crawford (2004) reduced this list to the five pillars of a profession as qualifications, education /

training, standards, body of knowledge and research. She saw project management

methodologies as a necessity component for project management to be seen as a profession.

As early as 1986, the PMI, in discussing the creation of the body of knowledge recognised that

“an accepted ‘profession’ must have a unique, well-defined body of knowledge (BOK) that can

be studied and learned through formal education.” (Stuckenbruck 1986). Following a similar

definition to the PMI, the APM (2017) listed the five dimensions of professionalism as the body

of knowledge, competence frameworks, qualifications, continuing professional development and

a code of conduct.

Several authors have charted the key milestones in the history of project management (Kerzner,

2013; Egeland 2009; Morris et al 2011). These milestones are shown in Table 134. The table

below is arranged by decade and year in the first two columns. In the third column are the tools

and techniques and in the fourth the PMM developments.

Decade Year Tools/techniques and general developments

PMM developments

1950

to

1959

1953 The term ‘project management’ used

1957 PERT developed for planning and monitoring

Critical Path Method invented by Du Pont

1959 The start of academic research into project management

1960

to

1969

1960s

Operations Research techniques (quality assurance, configuration management etc) adopted

1960 Phased life-cycle planning

1962 Work breakdown structure described

Precedence scheduling developed

237

Decade Year Tools/techniques and general developments

PMM developments

1968 Resource scheduling developed

1969 Project Management Institute founded

1970

to

1979

1972 International Project Management Association founded

1975 PROMPTII

HERMES started

1976 Australian Institute of Projects Management formed

1979 CCTA adopts PROMPT II

1980

to

1989

1983 PMBOK published containing 6 knowledge areas (scope, time, cost, quality, HR and communication)

1986 Total quality management SCRUM named as a method

1987 PMBOK issued as a white paper

1989 PRINCE

1990

to

1999

1990 Concurrent engineering The term ‘project methodology’ is used

1992 APMBOK 1st edition

1994 Life cycle costing APMBOK 2nd edition

GAPPS founded

1996 PMBOK 1st edition

PRINCE2

APMBOK 3rd edition

1997 Project offices developed

1998 IPMA published the Competence Baseline

2000

to

2009

2000 PMBOK 2nd edition

APMBOK 4th edition

2001 Maturity models P2M (Japanese)

2002 P2M (English)

2004 PMBOK 3rd edition

2005 Six sigma project management

2006 APM BOK 5th edition

2007 Lean project management

2008 PMBOK 4th edition

2009 PRINCE2: 2009

PRiSM started

From 2010

2010 BS 6079

2012 APMBOK 6th edition

ISO 21500



Table 134. A brief history of project management

238

This chronology highlights four key points in the development of project management:

▪ The early history of project management is dominated by the development of

standalone tools and techniques, created from a number of different industries.

▪ It is only in the 1990s that the term project method starts to be used (Charvat 2003).

▪ The many competing standards reflect the immature status of the project management

profession.

▪ The frequency of revisions to the published standards and methodologies demonstrates

the considerable efforts being made to advance project management.

239

Appendix 2 – Project management methods

Table 135 lists the most popular methods and standards that comprise PMMs.

PMM Description

APM BOK Association for Project Management Body of Knowledge

Developed by the Association for Project Management

A body of knowledge which, in the 6th edition (2012), covers the sections of context, people, diversity and interfaces. The scope of the APMBOK is wide and encompasses portfolio and programme management, soft skills, and ‘interfaces’ to accounting, health and safety, sustainability etc.

Accreditation system: Yes

P2M A Guidebook of Project and Program Management for Enterprise Innovation ‘P2M’

Developed by the Project Management Association of Japan (2013)

A project and programme management framework focused on adding value while delivering successful projects. The P2M Project Management Tower consists of entry criteria, project and programme management processes and frame elements (for example risk, finance etc).


BS 6079 British Standard 6079-1:2010. Project management. Principles and guidelines for the management of projects

Owned by the British Standards Institution

A set of guidelines covering many types of projects and providing guidance on sponsorship, management, planning, undertaking projects and application of project management techniques. Influenced by the APMBOK.

Accreditation system: No

ISO 21500 International Organization for Standards 21500:2012 Guidance on project management (ISO 2012)

Owned by the ISO

Contains concepts and processes for project management that are considered good practice, usable by any type of organisation for any project. Influenced by the PMBOK.

Accreditation system: No

PMBOK A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge

Owned by the Project Management Institute

Created in 1986, the first edition was published in 1996 and is updated every four years. Consists of five process groups (initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing) and 10 knowledge areas. There are four million copies of the PMBOK in print (PMI 2012)


PRINCE2: 2009 Projects in Controlled Environments

Owned by the Cabinet Office

With the 2009 edition, the method was simplified and made easier to customise. Focus on the seven principles of the business case, organisation, plans, risks, progress, quality and issues/changes.


Agile Agile Software Development

Based on the Manifesto for Agile Software Development, 2001 (Agile Alliance 2001)

An adaptive software development approach that focuses on short tasks with a high level of customer involvement

240

PMM Description

Agile methods/implementations include Scrum (1995), Extreme Programming (1999), Dynamic Systems Development Method (1994) and others.


Table 135. Project management methods

In researching Table 135, the following points were noted:

▪ Initially, the focus of attention for the approaches was on individual projects and, while

this has strengthened in subsequent revisions, the scope has broadened to include

programme and portfolio issues, people and extensions to related disciplines such as

legal and accounting etc.

▪ The component parts of the PMMs that have been developed are consistent and

comprise a defined way of working, a procedural life cycle, tools, techniques and

templates.

▪ The PMMs share a common set of elements which each considers vital (for example

risk, scheduling, scope management) but there is less consensus about where the

boundaries of knowledge should be drawn. This is to be expected in a young

profession that is still developing and one which is defining its own territory by including

knowledge that was previously in a different subject area (Crawford 2004). This is most

visible in the APMBOK which has the widest scope of any of the PMMs.

▪ While initially the PMMs were created based on practitioner experience, the later

editions (PMBOK 4th edition, APMBOK 5th edition and P2M) have all been influenced by

academic research but this influence has been limited by the requirement to minimise

change because of the link to certification (Morris et al 2006).

▪ Increasingly, PMMs are becoming leaner and more agile (Sheffield and Lemétayer

2010).

While there are other project management approaches, these are based on the approaches in

Table 135 and are not therefore different approaches. Examples include the Unified Project

Management Method (based on PMBOK) and Methods 123 Project Management Methodology

(based on PMBOK). The Global Alliance for Project Performance Standards reports a 99%

similarity with the IPMA ICB (2013) and 93% similarity with PRINCE2 (GAPPS 2013). These

few examples demonstrate that there is no lack of competing approaches. Jayaratna has

estimated that there are one thousand methodologies used by organisations (Wells, 2012).

241

Appendix 3 – Software development methods

In Table 136 are listed the most common software development approaches. Agile has already

been listed under PMMs and is not repeated here.

Software method Description

HERMES Handbuch der Elektronischen Rechenzentren des Bundes, Methode für die Entwicklung von Systemen

Developed by the Swiss Federal Government

A staged project method for IT and communications projects

HERMES (2017)

IDEAL Initiating, Diagnosing, Establishing, Acting and Learning

Developed by the Software Engineering Institute

A software development method based on the Capability Maturity Model

MITP Managing the Implementation of the Total project

Developed by IBM

Consists of four phases; commencing; establishing; implementing and ending

MSF Microsoft Solutions Framework

Developed by Microsoft

A set of processes and proven practices focusing on the software life cycle. The MSF project management process includes planning, change control, budgeting, scheduling, resourcing, procurement, risk management and quality management

RUP Rational Unified Process

Created by Rational Software Corporation

A tailorable framework for software development

IIL (2008)

TSP Team Software Process

Developed by the Software Engineering Institute since 1998

The application of engineering practices to software development

Waterfall Waterfall Model

Attributed to Winston Royce in 1970

A sequential process model for software development

Table 136. Software development methods

242

Appendix 4 – Change management models

This appendix lists the most popular change management models.

Author / model Description

Lewin (1952)

Three step model

Lewin introduced the concept of competing forces driving and resisting change in an organisation. He proposed that organisational change consists of three stages; unfreezing the current situation to illuminate the driving and resisting forces; introducing the new state and then refreezing to make the change permanent. Lewin saw organisations as organisms that possesses change inertia and thus change required great effort to move to the new state and then sustain the change for example by setting new standards, introducing new policy and procedure and rewarding those who supported the change. In the review of total quality change management projects, Binney (1992) found that two thirds of projects had embarked on the change stage but ultimately returned to the initial state with the result that no lasting change was made.

Bullock and Batten (1985)

Planned change

A 4 stage model of change consisting of exploration, planning, action and integration. Applicable to change projects where a desired end state can be articulated and reached using a known solution. This model presumes a machine view of organisations and can be difficult to implement successfully where planning and control are less application to the change situation

Kotter (1996)

Eight steps

Kotter’s 8 steps to transforming an organisation is broader in scope than the preceding models as it recognises greater complexity in the change process. The steps are: 1. Establish a sense of urgency. 2. Form a powerful coalition. 3. Create a vision. 4. Communicate the vision. 5. Empower other to act on the vision. 6. Plan for and create short-term wins. 7. Consolidate improvements. 8. Institutionalise new approaches. Similarities can be seen with Lewin’s three step model with Kotter’s steps 1 to 4 equating to unfreezing, steps 5 and 6 to change and 7 and 8 to refreeze. Based on Kotter’s consultancy experience, the model represents his normative view of change in organisations. This project’s author has personal experience of using this model in change project where it appeals to organisations because of its logic and simplicity. Often used as the core activities of a change initiative, the model has a successful record.

Gleicher (1969)

Change formula

The original formula was C = (ABD) > X where C is change; A is dissatisfaction with the current state; B is the desired future state; D represents the steps to the desired state and X is the cost of the change.

Beckhard and Harris (1977)

Change formula

Extending both Lewin’s (1051) and Gleicher’s (1969 cited in Cameron and Green 2015) work, and building on Beckhard’s 1969 book Organisational Development, Beckhard and Harris developed a change formula: C = [ABD] > X as a way of focussing on organisation transition in large organisations. In this formula C is the change; A the level of dissatisfaction with the existing state; B the attractiveness of the future state; D the practicality of change and X the cost of change. The authors introduce the concept of the cost of change and the equation shows how change can be effected if the costs are less than the combined effect of A, B and D. Re-writing the formula as A x B x D > C add the notion that if A, B or D is at or close to zero, the change is unlikely. For a change to be likely, all three components must have a magnitude. Beckhard and Harris envisioned a stage in the change process, similar to Lewin’s unfreeze step where A, B and D are discussed and their magnitude ascertained. This model lacks any

243


implementation or sustaining phases and is thus more of a diagnostic tool and more akin to the force field analysis of Lewin.

Dannemiller and Jacobs (1992)

Change formula

Building on earlier work, Dannemiller produced a version of the change formula which focused on the factors affecting resistance to change. In this way the change formula can be seen as an extension of the Lewin force field analysis. D x V x F > R where D is current state dissatisfaction; V the future vision; F are the first steps that can be taken to achieve the vision. If the produce of these three components exceeds R (resistance), change is possible. As with the Beckhard and Harris (1977) formula, if any component is close to zero, change is less likely.

Nadler and Tushman (1997)

Congruence model

The congruence model aids in understanding the pressures inside an organisation undergoing change. Using an organism metaphor, the model views change as a set of inter-connected sub systems that react to flux in the external environment. Not a change process, the congruence model structures thinking to help those involved in change to make sense on it.

At the core of the model are the four sub-systems of:

1. Work. Include the tasks carried out by individuals, procedures and reward and recognition.

2. People. The skills and characteristics of those affected by the change, including their histories and hopes for the future.

3. The formal organisation. The documented aspects of the organisation including the hierarchy, systems, standard operating procedures etc.

4. The informal organisation. The undocumented aspects of organisations including communication pathways, influence, power, values and established business practices.

Inputs to managing change include the organisations strategy, available resources and the contextual environment. The sub-systems influence the transformation of the inputs into outputs relating to activities, behaviours and performance, working at three levels (individual, group and total).

The model is based on the sociotechnical perspective on organisations which includes within its remit the managerial, strategic, technical and social aspects. This perspective places emphasis on the inter-relatedness of the components and predicts that the level of alignment or congruence of the elements will directly affect performance. The higher the congruence, the better the system will perform.

Nadler and Tushman assert that organisations that do not attend to all four elements will not be successful in making lasting change and the old equilibrium of homeostasis to use the organism metaphor will re-establish itself. Ignoring some elements with create opposition in the organisation, similar to Lewin's ideas of resisting forces. Resistance, Nadler and Tushman argue, is created because individuals fear the unknown and prefer stability. A lack of involvement in the change can generate resentment as this provokes feelings that change is being enforced and that independence is being lost.

The models of change in this section are different in terms of their focus and breadth. The Congruence Model emphases the important characteristics of the change process itself and pays less attention to the preceding steps of vision and strategy and the later steps of implementation. Thus the model is narrow that Kotter's step model yet provide more details within the planning phase of the change process.

There are other models that can be deployed to provide checklists for issues to be considered in change. For example, the McKinsey 7S

244


model (staff, skills, systems, style, shared values, strategy and structure) arguably has a broader perspective than the Congruence Model. However, the inclusion of the informal organisation by Nadler and Tushman, which highlights the importance of the political powers with an organisation adds, in the author's opinion, a vital view point not considered in the 7S model.

Bridges (1991)

Managing transitions

More a transition process model than a change model, Bridges (1991) separated physical, planned change (for example an office move or organisational restructure) from the more complex, more psychological transition which involved new ways of thinking or new behaviours. Changing a situation can be planned whereas change involving human actors is more difficult to manage. Change happens to use and can be rapid whereas transition is a cognitive journey that takes time. Bridges' research focuses on the transition to better understand the process and make it more effective (Bridges 1991).

For Bridges, the change process consists of three stages; ending, neutral zone and new beginning. It may seem counter intuitive to begin with the ending but in this context the initial stage acknowledges that the current way of working is coming to an end and that there will be winners and losers in the process.

The neutral zone marks the hiatus between what was and what is to be. In the neutral zone, the people affected can feel disoriented, demotivated and anxious.

These first two stages are reminiscent of the individual change and adjustment model (denial; anger; bargaining; depression; acceptance) defined by Kubler-Ross (1969) and this makes sense because Bridges is more concerned with the internal thought processes of change.

Managers need to keep a close eye on the change process and take appropriate action to help those involved to cross the neutral zone successfully and reach the final stage, new beginning. Whereas less complex change can be planned, transitions need to be nurtured, encouraged and supported and their final form is therefore emergent and unpredictable. To exit the neutral zone Bridges (1991) suggests those involved need four elements; the purpose of the change; a vision of how the future looks; the path to reach the goal and the ability to participate in the change.

Reaching Kubler-Ross's acceptance stage is the start point for the new beginning at which people feel able to commit emotionally to the new way of working. Those leading the change are likely to reach this point far earlier than those affected by the change. Bridges sees this temporal gap as a cause for impatience on the part of managers.

Carnall (2014)

Change management model

Carnall's change management model (2014) emphases the importance of management capability in three areas. When managing transitions (for example by creating an open atmosphere in which those involved feel able to try something new and take risks), when dealing with culture (for example by using transparency, information flows and delegation/autonomy to create more open cultures) and when handling organisational politics (such as factions, coalitions and hidden agenda that may support or inhibit the process).

By managing these three areas, Carnall (2014) believes that an environment can be created that facilitates successful change through creativity, risk-taking and the (re)building of self-esteem.

Heath and Heath (2011)

Switch framework

Lewin’s competing forces from his 1952 work on force field analysis can be seen in the Heaths’ model where the rational mind (driving force) is set against the emotional mind (retraining force). The rational mind may desire change but the emotional mind prefers the comfort and stability of the status quo. As with Lewin’s model, if the emotional mind can be overcome, change is possible. The authors visualise these competing forces as a rider on an elephant. The rider represents

245


rationality and logic. If the rider is presented with a persuasive argument, he will follow that path. However, the elephant possesses inertia and is much larger than the rider. Unless the driver can coax the elephant forward towards the goal, nothing is going to change.

Persuading the driver requires three components; bright spots (positive aspects that can be built on and expanded), scripts (that can be followed to provide quick wins) and a postcard to show how the destination looks. Motivating the elephant also requires three components; creating in the individual a feeling that change is needed, breaking the change down into manageable chunks that can build toward more profound change and lastly, encouraging and inspiring those involved to accept change.

The third component of the Heaths’ model is the path down which the rider and elephant progress. This too has three components; tweaking the environment (making the workplace conducive to change), building habits (repetition of new processes builds habitual use) and rallying the herd (creating momentum in a group of people who others will want to join).

Senge et al (1999)

Systemic model

Senge et al looked at why organisations fail to implement sustainable change and came to the conclusion that it is because of the strength of the forces that want to retain the status quo (resistance). The authors’ comment how most large change projects have to tackle the long-established processes installed by previous management. “These include managers’ commitment to change as long as it doesn’t affect them; ‘undiscussable’ topics that feel risky to talk about; and the ingrained habit of attacking symptoms and ignoring systemic causes of problems”. Their model suggests starting with a pilot, growing steadily, not attempting to plan the whole change initiative and to expect challenges on the way.

In his earlier work, Fifth Discipline (1993) Senge says that organisations can be seen an overlapping and inter-related systems and that since the actors for change are part of those systems, it is very difficult to see the whole situation which leads to managers focussing on subsets of the whole which have limited success because changing he subset is not the same as changing the whole.

Senge et al focus on the stages relating to initiation, sustaining change when it starts to affect the organisation and rethinking, the point when organisation processes begin to be affected.

The resisting forces identified by Senge at the initiation stage are time, resources, relevance and the visible commitment from managers.

At the sustaining stage, the resisting forces emanate from people who are against the change (for example because they have not been included or do not feel understood) but also from people who support the change (for example being impatient at the slow pace of change).

At the rethinking stage, the resisting forces come from competing views of the best way forward, how and to whom knowledge of the change is disseminated and about the strategic direction and purpose of the organisation.

Stacey (2006)

Complex responsive processes

Using the concept of flux and transformation as a starting point, the authors believe it is impossible to accurately predict the future and instead this will materialise as the result of how the change has been handled and the magnitude of the driving and resisting forces.

Managers are intimately involved in the change process which, as Senge (1993) notes, makes it difficult to objectively understand and manage the process.

246

Orders of change (2013d) PMI

There are three orders of change: 1. first order which affects procedures and modifies how work is done. Short duration, not difficult, easily reversed. 2. Second order which affects policies and makes a more significant change. Medium duration, moderately difficult, irreversible. 3. Third order which affects values and thinking. Long duration, very difficult and irreversible.

Prosci (2018)

ADKAR model

A model for managing organisational change, initially developed in 1999. The acronym stands for Awareness (raising the need for change), Desire (creating a want to change), Knowledge (providing employees with requisite information), Ability (enhancing employee skills) and Reinforcement (rewarding employees for displaying new behaviours).

Pettigrew and Whipp (1993)

Four step dimension model

Pettigrew identifies how the interaction of context, content and process generates environmental complexity which can inhibit change. Pettigrew views strategic change as a complex, context-dependent and continuous process. The three dimensions of context (internal factors of resources, capabilities, culture and politics and the external factors of politics, society and the economy), content (assessment and choice, objectives and goals) and process (models of change, change managers and implementation) (Pettigrew and Whipp (1993)). The strong influence of politics in change is acknowledged with Pettigrew identifying the powerful as having most sway in determining the outcomes. Who in the organization has the power is not constant but depends on the situation.

Pettigrew saw change as having four sequential steps:

1. The development of concern. This involves identifying the problems and legitimising the need for change.

2. Understanding the problem.

3. Planning and acting. Moving towards a future state.

4. Stabilising change. Ensuring the continuity of the change

Table 137. Change management models

247

Appendix 5 – Maturity models

This appendix lists the most popular maturity models. Table 138 identifies the focus of the

capability model, name and description.

Focus Maturity model

Description

Portfolio, programme and project

P3M3 Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model

Maintained by the Cabinet Office

A maturity assessment model for portfolio, programme and projects

Portfolio, programme and project

OPM3 Organizational Project Management Maturity Model

Published by the Project Management Institute since 1998

A maturity assessment model for portfolio, programme and projects

Software development

CMMI for Development

Capability Maturity Model

Developed by the CMMI Institute from 1989

Focuses on the development of product and services

CMMI (2013)

Table 138. Maturity models

248

Appendix 6 – Interview and questionnaire topic guide

The following topic guide provides an outline of the areas covered during the interviews:

▪ Context/introduction

o The participant’s role in the organisation

o Role in projects/PMMs

▪ Selection

o How did your organisation develop/choose its project method?

o What was the process?

o What were the goals?

o What factors are important in the selection process?

o How was success measured?

o How long did selection take? Who was involved in selection?

▪ Embedding

o How did your organisation approach implementation?

o What was the process?

o How long did it take?

o Who was involved?

o Were goals defined for implementation?

o How successful was implementation?

o If I ask the users of the PMM, what would they say about implementation?

o If you were to implement another method, what would you do differently and

why?

o Did you certify PMs to use the PMM?

▪ Current performance

o How is the PMM performing? How do you know?

o How much is the PMM used? Which elements are use/not used?

o How much, where and why has your organisation modified the method since

implementation?

o Knowing what you know now about PMMs, what benefits have they brought to

your organisation?

o Were there any unintended consequences from using the PMM?

▪ Context / environment

o What is your level of maturity and how does this impact PMMs?

o How does culture impact PMMs?

o Do organisational structures affect PMMs?

249

Appendix 7 – Invitation to participants

Subject: Invitation to take part in research on project management methods

Dear <Participant name>,

I am writing to invite you to take part in a research project looking at how organisations select

and implement project management methodologies in the IS/IT function that is being conducted

by a doctoral researcher at the University of Manchester.

As part of this study, I will be interviewing representatives from your organisation to gain a

better understanding of how project methodologies are chosen and deployed. As someone

involved in projects, your input and contribution would be appreciated. I would therefore like to

invite you to take part in this study. Participation is entirely voluntary. Should you choose to

participate, I would like to ask you questions about projects and methodologies during a face-to-

face interview or video conference. The interview will be conducted by myself and will last

approximately one hour.

If you would like to participate in this study, please contact me by phone or email (details above)

and I will send you further details, including possible dates for an interview.

If you have any questions about the interview and the research project, I have attached a

participant information sheet. Furthermore, I would be happy to answer any questions you may

have by phone or email.

I look forward to hearing from you soon,

David Biggins

250

Appendix 8 – Participant Information – Interviews

How do organisations select and embed project management methods?

Introduction You are invited to take part in a research project looking at how organisations

select and implement project management methodologies in the IS/IT function that is being

conducted by a doctoral researcher at the University of Manchester. As part of this study we

would like to interview managers responsible for choosing and embedding the organisation’s

project management methods to better understand how the selection is made and how the

process is brought into the organisation. Before you decide whether you would like to take part

in this research, it is important for you to understand why the research is being undertaken and

what it will involve. The following will give you a brief overview of the project:

What is the purpose of the study? The purpose of this study is to explore how organisations

choose and implement methodologies to manage projects in the IT/IS sphere.

Where is this research taking place? This interview will take place in your organisation and

during working hours. This will be arranged at a time convenient to you if you decide to take

part.

Who is being asked to participate? We are seeking to involve the people responsible for the

selection and adoption of projects methods. This includes people with job titles such as project

manager, programme manager, PMO manager, business change manager, company executive

and director.

What would I be asked to do if I took part? If you decide to take part the researcher, David

Biggins will arrange an interview at a time and place that is convenient to you. The interview will

last approximately 1 hour, during which time we will ask you a set of questions focusing on the

selection and embedding of project management methodologies. The discussions will be audio

recorded so that it can be transcribed when the interview finishes.

Do I have to take part? No. It is up to you whether you take part. If you do decide to take part

you will be asked to sign a consent form and you are free to withdraw at any time from the

research without giving a reason.

Will my taking part be kept confidential? Yes. This study is conducted by a research student

at the University of Manchester and the interviews will be protected in accordance with the

University’s ethical code. The interviews will be recorded, transcribed and analysed for key

themes. The transcriptions will be anonymous; your name will not be attached to any records

the researcher keeps or reports that are written. Encryption will be used to protect data and

hardcopies will be kept under lock and key.

How will this benefit me? You will have the opportunity to have your opinions heard, and the

research team will be grateful for your contribution and participation.

251

What are the risks? The interview will not place you in a risky or dangerous situation. You are

not obliged to answer any question you do not feel comfortable answering and you are free to

stop the interview at any stage, for any reason.

What if something goes wrong? If you find the discussions during the interview in any way

distressing, we will stop the interview and attempt to resolve the situation.

What if I want to complain? If you wish to complain about how this interview is being

conducted, please let the researcher know and he will stop the interview immediately to discuss

and address your concerns. If at this stage you are not satisfied, you can speak to the following

persons, who will investigate your complaint and report back to you:

Where can I find more information if I need it? If you require any more information about the

project or if you would like to take part, please contact:

252

Appendix 9 – Participant Information – Questionnaire

How do organisations select and embed project management methods?

Introduction You are invited to take part in a research project looking at how organisations

select and implement project management methodologies in the IS/IT function that is being

conducted by a doctoral researcher at the University of Manchester. As part of this study we

would like to ask those people involved in projects to complete a questionnaire on their

experience and opinions of project methodologies and how they have been deployed in the

organisation. Before you decide whether you would like to take part in this research, it is

important for you to understand why the research is being undertaken and what it will involve.

The following will give you a brief overview of the project:

What is the purpose of the study? The purpose of this study is to explore how organisations

choose and implement methodologies to manage projects in the IT/IS sphere.

Where is this research taking place? We would like you to complete an online questionnaire

which means that you can answer the questions at a time and place that suits you.

Who is being asked to participate? For the questionnaire, we are seeking to involve the

people who use the methodologies to manage projects. This includes people with job titles such

as project manager, team manager and project worker.

What would I be asked to do if I took part? If you decide to take part the researcher, David

Biggins will arrange for the URL of the survey to be sent to you. The questionnaire will last

approximately 40 minutes.

Do I have to take part? No. It is up to you whether you take part. If you do decide to take part

you will be asked to sign a consent form and you are free to withdraw at any time from the

research without giving a reason.

Will my taking part be kept confidential? Yes. This study is conducted by a research student

at the University of Manchester and the questionnaire will be protected in accordance with the

University’s ethical code. The questionnaire will ask for information such as your job title,

qualifications, years of experience etc but will not ask for your name. Encryption will be used to

protect data and hardcopies will be kept under lock and key.

How will this benefit me? You will have the opportunity to have your opinions heard, and the

research team will be grateful for your contribution and participation.

What are the risks? The questionnaire should not involve any risk. You are not obliged to

answer any question you do not feel comfortable answering and you are free to suspend or end

the questionnaire at any stage, for any reason.

What if something goes wrong? If something untoward should happen, we will attempt to

resolve the situation.

What if I want to complain? If you wish to complain about how this questionnaire is

conducted, please let the researcher know and he will address your concerns. If at this stage

253

you are not satisfied, you can speak to the following persons, who will investigate your

complaint and report back to you:

Where can I find more information if I need it? If you require any more information about the

project or if you would like to take part, please contact:

254

Appendix 10 – Consent Form

Title of the project: How do organisations select and embed project management methods?

Please initial the boxes to confirm:

a. I confirm that I have read and understood the information sheet

provided for the above study and have had the opportunity to ask any

questions and have had these answered satisfactorily

b. I understand that participation in this research is voluntary and I am

free to withdraw at any time, without giving any reason

c. I understand that any information that I give will be used anonymously

d. I understand that this interview is being audio recorded or

questionnaire is being stored electronically for use by the researcher

and that the data would be managed confidentially

e. I understand that the information gleaned may be used anonymously

in future academic research and in academic papers

f. I agree to take part in this study

Name of Participant Signature Date

Name of Researcher Signature Date

255

Appendix 11 – Facsimile of the questionnaire

The screenshots that comprise this appendix show the questions asked and the format of the

online questionnaire.

275

Appendix 12 – Data transformations and new variables

This appendix lists the transformations conducted and new variables created based on the

questionnaire data in SPSS prior to its analysis.

Questionnaire area Data transformation

1. Maturity. Responses to the 7 maturity areas (management control, benefits management, financial management, stakeholder engagement, risk management, organisational governance and resource management) were measured using a Likert scale that ranged from 0 to 5 (Not applicable, awareness, repeatable, defined, managed and optimised). This data was collected from question 25. The transformation was verified by exporting the data to Excel, creating an average Figure and comparing it to the value in SPSS’s Mean Maturity variable.

Lastly, the scale variable MeanMaturity was transformed into a grouped variable called MeanMaturityGroup.

A new variable called MeanMaturity was created to contain the mean of the 7 elements. The range of MeanMaturity was 0 to 5.

Before the new variable was created, the value labels were modified so that a response of N/A had a value of 0 rather than 1. This meant that a response of 1 (awareness) then has a score of 1 and the MeanMaturity value once calculated, was correct.

Recode the 7 maturity variables:

RECODE Q25_1_a Q25_2_a Q25_3_a Q25_4_a Q25_5_a Q25_6_a Q25_7_a (6=5) (5=4) (4=3) (3=2) (2=1) (1=0).

SPSS: Transform: Compute variable

COMPUTE MeanMaturity=(Q25_1_a + Q25_2_a + Q25_3_a + Q25_4_a + Q25_5_a + Q25_6_a + Q25_7_a)/7.

RECODE MeanMaturity (2 thru 2.99=2) (3 thru 3.99=3) (4 thru 4.99=4) (5 thru 5.99=5) (0 thru 1.99=1) INTO MeanMaturityGroup.

VARIABLE LABELS MeanMaturityGroup 'MeanMaturityGroup'.

2. OCAI. Following the convention of the OCAI, 6 questions were asked about organisational culture (Dominant characteristics, Organisational leadership, Management of employees, Organisational glue, Strategic emphases, and Criteria for success). Within each question, 4 options were presented to the participant and they were asked to distribute 100 marks across the 4 options. The OCAI data was collected from questions 26 to 31.

The OCAI is scored as follows: Clan: Sum of Q1a, Q2a, Q3a, Q4a, Q5a and Q6a divided by 6.

Adhocracy: Sum of Q1b, Q2b, Q3b, Q4b, Q5b and Q6b divided by 6.

Market: Sum of Q1c, Q2c, Q3c, Q4c, Q5c and Q6c divided by 6.

Hierarchy: Sum of Q1d, Q2d, Q3d, Q4d, Q5d and Q6d divided by 6.

The 24 variables were converted in SPSS from string to scale variables. The data was transformed within SPSS.

COMPUTE clan=(Q26_1_a+ Q27_1_a+ Q28_1_a + Q29_1_a+ Q30_1_a+ Q31_1_a)/6.

COMPUTE adhocracy=(Q26_2_a+ Q27_2_a+ Q28_2_a + Q29_2_a+ Q30_2_a+ Q31_2_a)/6.

COMPUTE market=(Q26_3_a+ Q27_3_a+ Q28_3_a + Q29_3_a+ Q30_3_a+ Q31_3_a)/6.

COMPUTE hierarchy=(Q26_4_a+ Q27_4_a+ Q28_4_a + Q29_4_a+Q30_4_a+Q31_4_a)/6.

276

3. OCAI check. The total score for the OCAI answers was calculated in order to check that the question had been answered correctly. This variable showed those participants who had allocated either too few or too many marks to the answer boxes. Those scores that were outside the target mark of 100 by more than 10 marks were removed.

COMPUTE OCAI_sum= (clan + adhocracy + market + hierarchy).

4. Total qualifications. The number of qualifications gained by an individual were summed into a new scale variable sum_qualifications. ‘Other qualifications’ were excluded.

COMPUTE sum_qualifications= Q38_1 + Q38_2 + Q38_3 + Q38_4 + Q38_5 + Q38_6 + Q38_7 + Q38_8 + Q38_9 + Q38_10 + Q38_11 + Q38_12

5. Follow PMM. Whether a questionnaire respondent follows the PMM.

If the respondent completed Q19, they were treated as not always following the method.

6. OrgType. A recoding of the Q32 into three variables, combining the three matrix options and combining matrix structure sub divisions. Values: 1 = Functional; 2 = Matrix; 3 = Projectised

RECODE Q32 (1=1) (2=2) (3=2) (4=2) (5=3) INTO OrgType

7. PMM usage. A reworking of Q14 to create a new variable with two options. Mandatory maps to Mandatory. Optional covers the 5 ‘Depends on ..’ statements in this question. Values: 1 = Mandatory; 2 = Optional

Recoded in Excel and the result pasted into SPSS. Columns A to G hold the 7 responses. Formula used in column H: =IF(SUM(B2:F2)>=1,1,0). Formula in column I: =IF(A2=1,1,IF(H2=1,2,3))

8. Involved_in_select. A transformation of Q12 into the dichotomous options; 1 = Yes; 2 = No.

RECODE Q12 (1=1) (2=2) INTO involved_in_select

9. Views on PMM aspects, excluding don’t know. The 11 sub questions of question 17 were recoded into new variables to exclude the ‘Don’t Know’ response. 10 of the 11 recodes followed the model for q17_1 shown on the right. As q17_7 was negatively worded, the recording used is also shown.

RECODE Q17_1_a (1=1) (2=2) (3=3) (4=4) (5=5) (6=6) (7=7) INTO q17_1_no8

RECODE Q17_7_a (1=7) (2=6) (3=5) (4=4) (5=3) (6=2) (7=1) INTO q17_7_no8

10. Embedding aspects. A proxy Likert scale variable called PMM_embedding from the mean of 17.1, 17.2, 17.3, 17.4, 17.5 and 17.9.

COMPUTE pmm_embedding = mean(Q17_1_no8, Q17_2_no8, Q17_3_no8, Q17_4_ no8, Q17_5_no8, Q17_9_no8).

11. Individual PMM aspects. A proxy Likert scale variable called PMM_alignment from the mean of 17.6, 17.7, 17.8, 17.10, and 17.11.

COMPUTE pmm_alignmemt = mean(Q17_6_no8, Q17_7_no8, Q17_8_no8, Q17_10_no8, Q17_11_no8).

12. Views on PMM support. Based on the five sub questions to question 23 and excluding ‘don’t know’.

RECODE Q23_1_a (1=1) (2=2) (3=3) (4=4) (5=5) (6=6) (7=7) INTO q23_1_no8.

13. PMM Support. A proxy Likert scale variable called pmm_support from the mean of 23.1 to 23.5.

COMPUTE pmm_support=mean(q23_1_no8, q23_2_no8, q23_3_no8, q23_4_no8, q23_5_no8).

Table 139. Data transformations

277

Appendix 13 – Introduction to supporting papers

This appendix contains four papers that were written to support the development of this thesis.

The four papers were presented at international project management and a doctoral conference

in the UK and France in 2015 and 2016. The four papers are summarised and explained in

Table 140.

Paper Details Rationale

1

in

Appendix 14

Title: Perspectives on project management methods

Conference: British Academy of Management

Date: Portsmouth, September 2015

This was the first paper created to support the thesis and explored my thinking on PMMs in general. The paper covered the definitions of PMMs, their dimensions and their importance. The paper then listed different perspectives on why people use PMMs. Lastly, the data from the initial two organisational interviews was applied to the perspectives to map why the organisations were using PMMs.

The feedback from the presentation was positive about the structure and flow of the paper but critical both of the definitions of the perspectives and the application of the primary data to the perspectives. The perspectives were later dropped from the thesis and the useful information included elsewhere in the thesis; as part of the rationale for using PMMs and the performance criteria.

The feedback was useful in improving the scope and content of the final thesis.

2

in

Appendix 15

Title: Applying a life cycle approach to project management methods

Conference: European Academy of Management

Date: Paris, May 2016

The life cycle model was developed as part of this research and the initial intention was that the thesis would cover all 5 stages in the model. This paper was my attempt to set out the rationale for a PMM life cycle and to expose this for comment and feedback.

The feedback received at the conference was that the model appeared to be valid based on the experience of the attendees who were all PM academics. There was also agreement that there was little research on the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages which confirmed my decision to focus on the first two stages in the life cycle.

3

in

Appendix 16

Title: How do organisations select and embed project management methods?

Conference: British Academy of Management, Doctoral Symposium

Date: Newcastle, September 2016

The doctoral forum is an opportunity to present research to fellow students and academic staff and to gain feedback and suggestion on taking it forward. The paper outlined the background, purpose and contribution of the research, the method and an indication of the initial findings.

The discussion after the presentation was very helpful in reviewing the research method and gaining feedback and suggestions for

278

improving the methodology. In particular the number of research questions was raised and these were subsequently reduced from 15 to 7. An early version of the conceptual model has now been superseded by a revised and more representative model that appears in this thesis.

4

in

Appendix 17

Title: Trends in project management, 1966 - 2015

Conference: British Academy of Management

Date: Newcastle, September 2016

The objective of this paper was to research and identify the trends in project management research in the previous 50 years. The research created a dataset containing 116,000 records that were subsequently analysed for trends over time using keyword searches. The rationale for undertaking this work was to identify the growth in literature on PMMs and to provide evidence and data for inclusion in this thesis.

As a result of this paper, I received feedback on the categories used to group PM terms but nothing that related to the thesis.

Table 140. Supporting papers summary

When originally published, each paper contained its own list of references. As all the

references in the papers are included in the References section of this thesis, the references

have been removed from the papers.

279

Appendix 14 – Supporting paper 1

Title: Perspectives on project management methods

Author: David Biggins

Conference: British Academy of Management 2015 Conference Portsmouth, September 2015

Abstract

Projects are increasingly being carried out with the support of project management methods

(PMMs). PMMs include standards such as the Project Management Institute Body of

Knowledge (PMBOK) and also process-based methods such as PRINCE2. PMMs are

buttressed and promoted by professional bodies and reinforced by accreditation schemes which

qualify practitioners in their use. The evidence on the roles played by PMMs is diverse. PMMs

can be viewed from many perspectives including organisational routines, co-ordination

mechanisms, structures of controls and rational choice. This paper discusses the perspectives

that can be applied to PMMs to help understand how they can best be used. Two case studies

are presented in which the organisations are assessed against the 10 perspectives to gain an

initial view from the very limited sample of whether the list of 10 has validity.

280

Introduction

A study by the Anderson Economic Group estimates that, by 2016, 32.6 million people in 11

countries will be participating in business projects, an increase of 8 million in the space of a

decade (ISO 2012). People are being drawn to work on projects because projects are

increasingly used to both maintain and transform business operations (OGC 2009). As the

number, size, complexity and importance of projects within organisations grows, so does the

requirement to ensure that projects achieve a high level of success. The future of organisations

depends on their ability to execute projects well (Pitagorsky 2003). While the definitions and

measures of success vary widely between organisations, industries and cultures, the need to

achieve success is constant.

The barriers to project success have been well documented and are wide-ranging. For

example, the UK Government’s Cabinet Office identified the primary causes for project failure

including communication, leadership, co-ordination, management, planning and benefits

management (Dolan 2010).

Practitioners and project management bodies have been developing individual tools and

techniques in attempts to address these shortcomings since the 1980s. These developments

have been combined into approaches to managing projects collectively known as project

management methods (PMMs). PMMs are a factor in successful projects because of the

standardisation they bring to an organisation through a set of common practices, tools and

techniques, a shared vocabulary and way of working (Chin and Spowage 2010). The adoption

of repeatable processes is one method employed to raise the maturity of the project practices

within an organisation (Pitagorsky 2003). The more mature an organisation’s practices, the

more successful it is (Ibbs and Kwak 2000).

Defining PMMs

Under the umbrella of PMMs are methods, standards and frameworks. These are defined in

Table 1.

Concept Definition

Method A method is the ‘how’ or a “set of guidelines or principles that can be tailored and applied to a specific situation. In a project environment, these guidelines might be a list of things to do … a specific approach, templates, forms, and even checklists used over the project life cycle.” (Charvat 2003 p17). The OGC define a method as “An approach to a process that is secure, consistent and well-proven.” (OGC 2009 p4).

For example: PRINCE2

Standard More a ‘what’ than a ‘how’, a standard is a “document that provides requirements, specifications, guidelines or characteristics that can be used consistently to ensure that materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose” (ISO 2013). “Document approved by a recognised body, that provides, for common and repeated use, rules, guidance, or characteristics for products, processes or services with which compliance are not mandatory.” (PMI 2013c p563).

281

For example: Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), the Association of Project Managers (APM) Body of Knowledge (APMBOK) and the ISO 21500:2012

Framework “a basic conceptional [sic] structure” (Merriam Webster 2015).

For example: International Project Managers Association Competence Baseline (IPMA ICB)

Table 1. Types of PMM

Figure 1 provides a visual representation of PMMs, based on the author’s view, using the

dimensions of ‘what’, ‘how’ and the scope (ie how much of project management is covered) of

the PMM:

Figure 1: PMM dimension map

The diversity amongst those entities, collectively called PMMs, helps to explain how it is that

there are multiple perspectives. PRINCE2 and PMBOK are two of the most widely used PMMs.

For example, PRINCE2 is the de facto standard for project management in the UK, Europe and

Australia and is used in more than 150 countries (OGC 2009). Across all sectors, there is a

widespread and growing popularity in the use of PMMs (PWC 2012). Coupled with this, an

increasing numbers of managers are taking qualifications to certify their use of a method. The

number of people who have passed certification examinations in PRINCE2 exceeded 1 million

in 2012 (APMG 2012) and the PMI has awarded over 500,000 certificates (PMI 2015a).

The importance of PMMs

The growing importance of certification is supported by evidence that 90% of large

organisations that use a method also certify their managers in that method (PWC 2012). The

combination of the wider use of PMMs and increasing availability of qualified practitioners

should intuitively result in better-managed projects and therefore more successful projects but

Scope

How What

PMBOK

PRINCE2

APMBOK

ISO 21500

IPMA ICM

282

the evidence does not support this conclusion. Longitudinal studies report that between 2012

and 2015 over one third of projects, 37±1%, fail to meet their goals (PMI 2015b).

The adoption by an organisation of a PMM is a strategic business decision (Charvat 2003;

Wells 2013). The costs of implementation can be significant and full implementation requires

considerable resources. It can be difficult to choose a method from the many available (Sheard

1997) and, once chosen, to encourage users to adopt the standard (Garcia, 2005). The

implementation complexity has meant that success has been difficult to achieve. For the last

decade, project management approaches have been in the list of the top ten factors causing

project failure (Wells 2012).

One tactic used by organisation to inhibit PMM complexity has typically been to customise how

projects are managed using a combination, in varying degrees, of established PMMs for

example PMBOK, experience of those involved and the characteristics of the projects

undertaken. This approach has led many organisations to implement a customised PMM that is

believed to maximise the benefits of a structured way of working while at the same time

minimising the perceived disadvantages of the established methods. Figure 2 shows how the

PMM used by an organisation can be plotted on a continuum that begins with a totally

customised PMM and ends with a way of working that precisely follows a structured method

such as PRINCE2.

Figure 2: The PMM continuum

The 2012 study by PWC is one of the few to have recently looked into this area. From their

small sample of 1,524 respondents, PWC found that 41% of organisations used PMBOK, 3%

used PRINCE2, 12% an in-house method or combination of methods and 9% used ‘other’

which, frustratingly, was not explained further but did not include software development

methods. Figure 3 visualises how the PWC data could be plotted on the continuum.

Figure 3: The PMM continuum with PWC data

PMM continuum

Full alignment to

established methods

No alignment to

established methods

PMM continuum

PMBOK

PRINCE2 In-house

283

More research along the lines of that undertaken by PWC is needed to establish how

organisations are arrayed along this continuum but it has been the author’s experience, based

on PMMs used by UK organisations, that there is a large group of organisations to the left of

centre, often identified by their use of descriptive terms for their PMM including ‘PRINCE-like’

and ‘PMBOK-lite’.

Perspectives on PMMs

The existence of the PMM continuum suggests that there are many ways of working that fall

with the remit of a PMM. At the left extreme of the continuum, project managers may not

recognise the use of a PMM whereas at the other extreme a project manager may feel

constrained and restricted by unquestioning adherence to a PMM.

An interpretivistic ontology would suggest that the people involved in PMMs will hold differing

views on PMMs and it is to an enumeration of these perspectives that we now turn. The

rationale for this investigation is that an understanding and appreciation of the perspectives on

PMMs will help to explain and justify their use in organisations.

Ten different perspectives of PMMs have been derived from reviewing a wide range of project

management and allied literature to identify the distinct views. In no particular order, these are:

1. Rational choice. PMMs are the organisation’s way of managing change and PMMs are

an evidence-based and rational choice to optimise how projects are managed to combat

the many reasons why projects fail. Following a logical, problem-solving approach to the

issue of improving project management success, a supported and justifiable option will

be the use of a PMM. This view links with the list of project problem areas listed by Dolan

at the beginning of this paper.

2. Uncertainty avoidance. It has long been recognised that different projects require

different approaches (Shenhar et al 2002). PMMs represent a way of managing this

uncertainty because the PMMs are widely applicable. If an organisation undertakes

projects of a similar nature, one methodology may suffice but more methods may be

required if the projects exhibit wide variation (MacMaster 2002). Following a risk

reduction or uncertainty avoidance strategy to managing a narrow or diverse project

portfolio, PMMs can help because of the standardisation and honed/best practice

processes they offer.

3. Proactive action. This internal perspective recognises the importance of projects to the

organisation (Charvat 2003) that projects are linked to benefits realisation (Bradley 2010;

Jenner 2012) and that projects improve business value (Pitagorsky 2003).

4. Competitive advantage. This external perspective acknowledges that if an organisation

can operate more effectively than its competitors, it can enjoy an economic advantage by

284

winning more business or working more efficiently (Williamson 2005). PMMs represent

one way to improve operational efficiency because of standardised processes and use

of a common language (Pinto 2013).

5. Maturity development. PMMs represent a very useful tool to increase an organisation’s

level of maturity. The PMI’s Organisational Project Management Maturity Model (PMI

2015c) and Axelos’s Portfolio, Programme and Project Management Maturity Model

(Axelos 2015) are two prominent examples of the many maturity models available.

Organisations can use the maturity models to develop their maturity over time to reach a

desired level. The more an organisation’s PMM aligns with an established method, the

more benefit they are likely to gain from maturity development because the models will

be directly relevant to the processes and ways of working in the organisation. Logic

suggests that the more customised an organisation’s PMM, the less applicable the off-

the-shelf maturity model will be. This is not to say that customised PMMs cannot be

linked to maturity levels, more that the matching will require additional work and any

comparisons with other organisations will be less reliable because differing models will

be used as the basis for comparison. A positive correlation between strong project

management performance and the level of maturity in the organisation has been found

in multiple studies (Ibbs and Kwak 2000; PWC 2004; Swanson, 2012).

6. Reactive response. An organisation may opt for a PMM as a response to an external

stimulus. For example, from environmental factors such as the customer or supplier, or

corporate standards (OGC 2009). The author has worked with some organisations who

bid for project work and for whom the demonstrable use of a PMM is an entry condition

for any bid.

7. Staff development. Certifying project managers in PMMs can be seen as developing

the human resources and capabilities of the organisation. The 2014 portfolio and

programme survey by PWC found 64% of CEOs reported that skills development in the

workforce would be a priority in the next three years and 55% of PM professionals

complained there is insufficient time for training and development.

8. Staff retention. In the face of skills shortages in project management (PMI 2014b; NCS

2015), developing project staff and supporting them in their work can aid job satisfaction

and thereby retention (Hertzberg 2003; Hölzle 2010).

9. Organisational routines. Viewing PMMs as organisational routines or recurrent

patterns of activity (Feldman and Rafaeli 2002; Paoli and Prencipe 2003) opens up a rich

vein for analysis. PMMs represent a form of routine in the organisation that regulates

work but also that fluxes due to interaction with the environment and the role of the people

who carry out the processes. Viewed in this way, PMMs might be seen as mindless

routines that people slavishly follow (Simon 1957) or as mindful where the actors interact

285

with the processes dynamically (Pentland 1995; Feldman 2000). The recurring nature of

the routines can be seen as stores of solutions that the organisation used to solve past

problems and which are continued as a form of perpetuating and evolving organisational

memory (Nelson and Winter 1982).

10. Politics/Control. With its roots in critical social theory and postmodernism, an alternate

perspective on organisational routines is that PMMs can be used to limit the freedom of

action and creativity of project staff. The processes within PMMs can be used to control

the work and the workers for political or other advantages that serve only the few

(Calhoun 1995).

Case studies

As part of on-going research, two organisations have been involved in explanatory research of

PMMs. Organisation 1 is a UK higher education institute. Organisation 2 is a UK government

department.

In understanding why PMMs are chosen, qualitative data was collected through semi-structured

interviews and analysed using the data assessment tool, NVIVO. The analysis used key word

matching to identify links to the 10 perspectives. The results of the analysis are shown in Table

2. A tick in the body of the Table shows where the phrase was mentioned by one or more

participants from the organisation.

Rational choic

e

Uncert

ain

ty

avoid

ance

Pro

active a

ctio

n

Com

petitive

advanta

ge

Matu

rity

develo

pm

ent

Reactive

response

Sta

ff

develo

pm

ent

Sta

ff

rete

ntio

n

Org

anis

ational

routines

Polit

ics/

contr

ol

Organisation 1

Organisation 2

Table 2: Analysis of responses

The current sample size is too small to draw any conclusions. However, the Table does give

credence to the view that there are many perspectives on PMMs within individual organisations.

Though limited, the data does bring to light some interesting points. For example, both

organisations identified rational choice in their responses but for opposite reasons.

Organisation 1 was responding to a strong PMM (to the far right of the continuum) and decided

it was rational to loosen the method and was moving quickly to the left. Organisation 2 was

using evidence of the merits of strong PMMs to further develop their method and move it to the

right on the continuum. Thus both organisations believed they were making rational decisions

but they had come to opposing conclusions. No numeric measure exists to plot organisations

on the continuum so it is not possible to determine their relative positions on the continuum.

286

Where next?

With PMMs being increasingly used, it is important that decision-makers take account of the

many different roles that PMMs can play in their organisation and the different perspectives

from which they can be viewed. A greater understanding of the perspectives can help decision

makers to select and use PMMs to the best effect in their organisations.

It is intended to conduct more research with organisations, both through semi-structured

interviews and also via online questionnaires. The research will also consider the contextual

factors such as the influence of culture (Doolen et al 2003; Cameron and Quinn 2011) and

organisational structure on the perspectives of PMMs (Galbraith 1973) in order to further

investigate and understand this aspect of PMMs.

287


Title: Applying a life cycle approach to project management methods

Author: David Biggins, Frida Trollsund and Anne Høiby

Conference: European Academy of Management 2016 Conference Paris, May 2016

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to apply the life cycle approach to PMMs, stimulate debate on the

accuracy and merits of the life cycle approach and to facilitate the development of the life cycle

in the future. Currently no life cycle process exists for PMMs.

Developed from desk-based research and empirical evidence, a life cycle has been proposed

consisting of five stages: Select, Embed, Tailor, Operate and Develop. The stages are

explained and a call made for further research to develop and validate the life cycle model.

Keywords: Project management methods, life cycle

288

Introduction - The importance of projects and project management methods

"We are in one of those great historical periods that occur every 200 or 300 years when people

don't understand the world anymore, and the past is not sufficient to explain the future" (Peter

Drucker quoted in Cameron and Quinn 2011 p1). It is often stated by authors like Drucker and

others that modern organisations operate in an increasingly competitive area but the data do

back up the claims (Cleland and Ireland 1999; Stubbart and Knight 2006; Strangler and

Arbesman 2012; Boehm et al 2012). The literature underlines the need for organisations to

change in order to survive with projects being used to facilitate change. As Pinto (2013 p24)

says “Project are one of the principal means by which we change our world .. the means

through which to achieve these challenges remains the same: project management.” The

Anderson Economic Group estimate that in 2016 32.6 million people across 11 countries will be

involved in organisational projects (ISO 2012). As the number, size, complexity and importance

of projects within organisations grow (Pinto 2013), so do the requirement to ensure that projects

perform well. Increasingly organisations are looking for ways in which project success can be

enhanced and one such factor is the use of a project management method (Wells 2012).

There is no agreed definition of PMMs. We define PMMs as the standard organisational or

strategic level processes and procedures used to execute projects rather than the tools and

techniques such as risk management and scope management that are deployed at the

operational level to manage individual project delivery.

Table 1 lists the current, distinct and dominant methods and standards that can be used to run

projects.

Table 1: Project management methods

Method Description

APM BOK

(APM 2012)

Association for Project Management Body of Knowledge

Developed by the Association for Project Management

A body of knowledge which, in the 6th edition (2012), covers the sections of context, people, diversity and interfaces. The scope of the APMBOK is wide and encompasses portfolio and programme management, soft skills, and ‘interfaces’ to accounting, health and safety, sustainability etc.

BS 6079

(BSI 2010)

British Standard 6079-1:2010. Project management. Principles and guidelines for the management of projects

Owned by the British Standards Institution

A set of guidelines covering many types of projects and providing guidance on sponsorship, management, planning, undertaking projects and application of project management techniques. Influenced by the APMBOK.

ISO 21500

(ISO 2012)

International Organization for Standards 21500:2012 Guidance on project management

Owned by the ISO

Contains concepts and processes for project management that are considered good practice, usable by any type of organisation for any project. Influenced by the PMBOK.

P2M

A Guidebook of Project and Program Management for Enterprise Innovation ‘P2M’

Developed by the Project Management Association of Japan

289

Method Description

(Project Management Association of Japan 2013)

A project and programme management framework focused on adding value while delivering successful projects. The P2M Project Management Tower consists of entry criteria, project and programme management processes and frame elements (for example risk, finance etc).

PMBOK

(PMI 2013c)

A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge

Owned by the Project Management Institute

First mooted in 1986, the first edition was published in 1996 and is updated every four years. Consists of five process groups (initiating, planning, executing, monitoring and controlling, and closing) and 10 knowledge areas. There are four million copies of the PMBOK in print (PMI 2012)

PRINCE2: 2009

(OGC 2009)

Projects in Controlled Environments

Owned by Axelos

With the 2009 edition, the method was simplified and made easier to customise. Focus on the seven principles of the business case, organisation, plans, risks, progress, quality and issues/changes.

The extent to which the methods are used in organisations is unclear with conflicting information

being presented from multiple, small, often national studies (White and Fortune 2001; PWC

2004; Fortune et al 2011; PWC 2012).

While some organisations use PMMs in their pure form, many organisations will tailor the

method to their own requirements. This can be visualised as a continuum with full alignment

with the method at one end and little or no alignment at the other (Biggins 2015). Whether pure

or tailored, project management methods are important because they are a factor in successful

projects due of the standardisation and credibility they bring to an organisation through a set of

common practices, tools and techniques, a shared vocabulary and way of working (Eskerod and

Östergren 2000; Pitagorsky 2003; Garcia 2005; OGC 2009; Chin and Spowage 2010; Wells

2012; PMI 2013c; Wells 2013). The adoption of a method is one approach adopted to raise the

maturity of the project practices within an organisation with research showing that the more

mature an organisation’s processes, the more successful it is (Ibbs and Kwak 2000; PWC 2004;

IBM 2008; Swanson 2012).

Project management methods are deserving of further research because PMMs appear

consistently in the Standish CHAOS reports as contributors to project management failure

(Wells 2012). Charvat (2003) notes how the adoption of a PMM by an organisation is a

strategic decision. The configuration of resources, processes and activities under the umbrella

of a PMM can generate a strategic organisational capability (Johnson et al 2008). Strategic

decisions such as those to adopt a PMM can be long lasting. The authors are currently working

with a national insurance company in the UK who continues to use the same PPM that it

developed 9 years ago. Measuring the life of PMMs in years is common to all other

organisations with whom we have worked. The rationale for this paper is to propose a PMM life

cycle. Such a model could have a positive influence on the part that PMMs play in

organisational project delivery because of the new perspective it offers and the insights gained

into why PMMs contribute to failure and how their strategic benefit can be increased.

290

In this paper we propose a model for the application of a life cycle model to PMMs and, in so

doing, fill a gap in knowledge because, as far as we are aware, no author has applied a life

cycle approach to PMMs.

Theoretical underpinnings

The life cycle approach

Biological life cycles of birth, growth, maturity, decline and death are the basis for life cycles in

business. The cycle of mortal biological life is seen as being applicable to a wide variety of

business entities. With its origins in product pricing in the 1950s (Dean 1950), the life cycle was

presumed to be a widely understood concept within a decade (Levitt 1965). Since then life

cycle approaches have continued to be developed and expanded (Cao and Zhao 2011). The

term ‘life cycle’ is now used in many disciplines and in differing contexts and there are life cycles

for organisations, products, software development, information technology and processes.

The life cycle perspective provides a beneficial framework from which to structure a holistic view

of an entity because the approach allows all of its aspects to be assessed in a systematic way.

Each life cycle is composed of stages. A stage is defined as a major period in the entity’s life

that is distinguishable from what went before and after it. The perspective recognises and

highlights that there are different factors that affect the entity at each stage of its life. A life cycle

can be used to gain understanding and control, for operational planning and for

forecasting/predicting (Kotler and Keller 2012).

The analogy with biological life may be problematic. People pass through the human life cycle

at largely predictable time with the boundaries between stages being well defined either by

convention or in law. There is also the definitive end that bounds biological existence. Looking

at other entities as though they were analogous to biological processes can distort the view and

impose expectations on how the life cycle will linearly progress where such expectations are

only partially valid or even completely invalid. Critics point out that applying the approach

incorrectly can involve costly mistakes and mean that opportunities are missed (Polli and Cook

1969; Dhalla and Yuspeh 1976) and some question the validity of the approach (Mercer 1993).

The life cycle approach creates an idealised view of linearity and predictability and focuses

attention on the stages and activities that are defined in the model. This can mean that the

inappropriate application of a model or an incorrect model can have negative results but this

criticism is relevant to all models and theories which are, after all, no more than simplified

abstractions of complex environments. Users should therefore approach life cycles with caution

and with a critical appreciation of the benefits and pitfalls of their use.

Defining a life cycle for PMMs

As the term life cycle can be applied in many areas, it is important to define the scope of this

paper and what exactly is meant by a PMM life cycle. By PMM life cycle, we mean the stages

that an organisation will go through when choosing a method for managing projects, introducing

the method into the organisations, executing projects using the method’s processes and finally

maintaining and enhancing the method.

291

In defining a PMM life cycle, we are asserting that PMMs have a limited life, that the use of a

PMM passes through all stages of the life cycle and that, at each stage, different challenges and

opportunities are presented to the organisation using the PMM.

This paper focuses on a life cycle relevant to project level management. The linking of projects

to programmes and programmes to portfolios and whether programmes and portfolios have a

similar life cycle is outside the scope of this current analysis.

Within the domain of project management, projects also possess life cycles which are common

stages within the life of the project that are often associated with a sector such as

pharmaceuticals, software development and construction and which set out how projects in

those sectors are typically divided into phases (Pinto 2013). From a hierarchical perspective,

project life cycles are encompassed within the PMM life cycle in the Operate stage.

Research design

This exploratory research sought to create a life cycle model for PMMs, comprised desk-based

research underpinned by empirical, practitioner experience. PMM information came from

manuals, bodies of knowledge and related books, journal articles and conference papers. The

source for life cycle data was books, journal articles and conference papers. While containing

no primary data, the research design sought to develop a life cycle model for PMMs that could

be justified, based on the available literature. The life cycle was created from an evaluation of a

range of existing models. The PMMs were subjectively analysed to link chapters or sections of

the relevant publications to stages in the proposed life cycle.

A life cycle can be viewed from different perspectives. For this paper, the perspective of the

organisation is adopted because an organisation goes through all stages of the project

management method life cycle.

This paper is influenced by the experience and perspectives of the authors and affected by the

practitioner experience of working across all stages of the PMM life cycle in public and private

sector projects in Europe.

Analysis

From the review of the existing life cycles in literature, the five stage model shown in

Figure 1 was developed consisting of the stages: Select, Embed, Tailor, Operate and Develop.

Figure 1: The PMM 5 stage life cycle model

292

While presented linearly, the model is iterative with feedback loops linking to all previous

stages.

The conceptual model was evaluated by overlaying existing models onto the five stages to

assess the suitability of the proposed model. This activity, the results of which are shown in

Table 2, suggested the proposed model was potentially appropriate for PMMs because the

stages from other life cycle could be mapped to the PMM life cycle stages.

Table 2: Evaluating the PMM life cycle

Literature Select Embed Tailor Operate Develop

Information technology (Stewart 2008)

Select Implement Evaluate

Software development (Hernon 1994)

Analysis Test

Integrate

Specify

Design

Develop

Operate

Modify

Maintain

Product life cycle (Cao and Zhao 2011)

Imagine

Define

Realise Design Use

Support

Information management (Hernon 1994)

Collect

Acquire

Needs definition

Transmit

Process

Store

Disseminate

Use

IT Service (Microsoft 2008)

Deliver Plan Operate

Manage

Many life cycles terminate with a stage in which the product or process ceases to be used. The

stage can be called disposal, decommissioning, dismantling or retirement and is often

characterised by a return to the beginning of the life cycle at which point organisations begin the

process and seek an alternative product or service or, in this case, a new way to manage their

projects.

The five life cycle stages are described in the following sections.

Stage 1 – Select

Selecting a method is the first stage in the life cycle. Given the costs of implementing a PMM, it

is clear that not all organisations would benefit from developing this strategic capability (Charvat

2003). Where organisations are small or carry out few projects, the investment in the method

would far outweigh the benefits. For these organisations, an ad hoc process for managing

projects would probably be adequate with the spur for change coming from the desire to

increase the levels of project success or develop a more repeatable process for project

management.

For organisations that are project-oriented or which undertake a significant number of projects

for example in IT, construction, engineering, the health service, local and central government,

293

there are benefits to be gained from the use of a project management method as stated in the

introduction. While the important of selecting a method is key, the literature was sparse. Most

of the literature on PMMs focuses on the later stages of the life cycle with particular attention

given to operating of the method. The choice of method is important because of the way it

enables or constrains the stages that follow it. Organisations can underestimate the importance

of this stage by choosing a method too quickly (Kerzner 2011).

As there are levels of strategy (Johnson et al 2008), we should be clear to which of the three

main levels a PMM strategy relates. The highest level of strategy is corporate strategy which is

concerned with the overall purpose and scope of the organisation. The next level is business-

level strategy which expresses how an organisation will compete in a particular market. The

third tier which is concerned with how the component parts of a company organise themselves

and contribute to the higher level strategies is the operational strategy. As operational

strategies include information and plans about resources, processes and people (Johnson et al

2008), this is the level at which decisions about PMMs are taken.

Given the hierarchical link between the three strategy levels, the decision to implement a PMM

will contribute to business-level and corporate–level strategies and be linked to organisational

goals and objectives. Decisions are made in the context of a clear strategic direction which

guides decision-makers in the appropriate choice to be made. Depending on the level of

decentralisation in the organisation, a decision to implement a PMM could be taken at the

corporate-level (for example all parts of the organisation will use a standard method) or the

decision may be taken by executives or managers at the business-level (for example the US

division uses PMBOK and European division uses PRINCE2). In either case, the

implementation would happen at the operational level. It is the case that the configuration of

resources, processes and activities does generate a strategic capability (Johnson et at 2008) so

Charvat was correct to say that PMMs are strategic.

Central to this decision are the projects themselves. While there is no standard way to define a

project, it is recognised that different projects require different approaches (Shenhar 2001).

These factors affect how organisations choose an appropriate method. If the organisation

undertakes projects of a similar nature, one PMM may suffice but more methods may be

required if the projects exhibit wide variation (MacMaster 2002).

The projects carried out, past history of the organisation and the resources available

(capabilities, funds, time etc) comprise the situational analysis activity that is undertaken at this

stage (Jennings and Wattam 1998; Johnson et at 2008). The information from this analysis

forms the background to the PMM selection. Based on the background, organisations may

define what they require from the PMM in terms of its performative aspects (see Table 3) and

this will be used to evaluate the different solutions from which one or more can be chosen. The

strategic goals set at this stage for the PMM are evaluated in the Develop stage.

294

Table 3: Performative criteria Sources: OGC 2002a; MacMaster 2002; Charvat 2003; OGC 2009; Pitagorsky 2003; Bradley 2010; Jenner 2012; Kerzner 2011

Item Factor

1 What are the weaknesses in the current PMM?

2 Can the organisation select its own method?

3 The same/similar method is in use by other organisations with whom the organisation operates?

4 The PMM offers value for money

5 The right people are involved in selection for example the QA department, middle managers, the executive of the organisation

6 The chosen PMM is relevant to the operating environment of the organisation for example a customer/supplier relationship

7 Stakeholders have been consulted and their concerns addressed

8 The areas not covered by the PMM are known and understood

9 Current processes are understood and baselined

10 The minimum number of PMMs required for all the organisation’s projects are used

11 The PMM can map onto the organisation’s processes and terminology

12 The implications of adopting a method (for example changes to budgeting and approval processes) are understood

13 Consideration is given to the effort required to maintain the PMM

14 The expected benefits from the PMM are defined

15 The PMM is relevant to the organisation’s maturity level

16 Sufficient time is allowed to choose the PMM

17 There is budget and resource to implement the PMM

Activities in this stage: Strategic requirements of the PMM, situation analysis, scope analysis,

decision-making and selection, identification of the available options, goal setting (Jennings and

Wattam 1998; Charvat 2003; Johnson et at 2008; PMI 2013c). The people involved in this

stage may include executives and departmental managers. More research is needed on the

people and roles involved in this and all the stages in the life cycle. A prediction about who is

involved in each stage of the life cycle is given in Table 5.

Once selected, the next stage in the life cycle is to bring it into the organisation.

Stage 2 – Embed

Embedding is a critical task that organisations need to manage carefully. A recent study found

that the main factors constraining the success of a PMM came from this stage in the life cycle,

with problems rooted in the organisational environment rather than the method itself (Sargeant

et al 2010). Organisations need to be aware that PMMs are generic products created for as

wide an audience as possible and thus they will require a varying level of work to embed them

based on the needs and experience of the organisation (MacMaster 2002). A key decision at

this stage is where to locate the organisation on the PMM continuum and how to balance the

competing demands for standardisation and freedom to respond/agility in the processes

(Boehm and Turner 2003).

295

The complexity of embedding is one reason advanced for why an organisation fails to embed

PMMs successfully. Other reasons include a lack of knowledge about how to embed, a lack of

commitment to do so (Sargeant et al 2010), a lack of organisational support and sponsorship

(PMI 2014a) and poor fit between the method and the project (Wells 2013). A more cogent

reason may be the fact that some organisations see the incorporation of a PMM into its working

practices as no more than a training exercise (OGC 2002a) rather than as a major change

initiative that needs to be managed as a project in its own right (OGC 2002a; Sargeant et al

2010). There are several change models available, for example, Lewin’s Three step model,

Bullock and Batten’s Planned change model and Kotter’s Eight step model (Cameron and

Green 2015) that can be used to guide organisations through the embedding process but there

is no information available on the use of such models by organisations in general or for PMMs

in particular. More research is needed on how organisations embed PMMs. As with all change

projects, this stage involves communication to raise awareness of the PMM vision and to gain

the support of those who will be using the new method. The PMI sought to address the issue of

embedding by bringing out their practice guide to implementing organisational project

management in 2014. A very practical and informative publication, the guide will support

practitioners embarking on the PMM journey.

Project/Programme management offices (PMOs) became very popular in the 1990s (Morris et

al 2011) as a way of disseminating governance through project activities. PMMs sit well within

a PMO or similar governance framework and enable standards, tools and support mechanisms

to be established (Pinto 2013). Embedding involves the integration of the PMM with existing

business processes (OGC 2002a) and assessing the resources available to the change project

(PMI 2014a). Just as the ‘Select’ stage allows the PMM strategy goals to be defined, the

governance targets established in this stage can also be used to measure and audit the PMM.

Activities in this stage: Set governance standards, communication of the PMM vision,

dissemination of information, gaining buy-in, training, integration with existing business

practices (OGC 2002a; Boehm and Turner 2003; Sheffield and Lemétayer 2010; PMI 2013c).

Once the method has been embedded in the organisation, it is available to be used for

individual projects. It is expected that each project will use a version of the embedded method

that is suitable for its needs (OGC 2009). This process is called tailoring.

Stage 3 – Tailor

Tailoring is the process of adapting a method to the context of the project and is a project-level

rather than organisational level activity (OGC 2002a; OGC 2009; PMI 2013c). The need for a

tailored approach to managing projects has long been known (Shenhar 2001). However, how

to achieve that has not been so clear, there being no standard way to select the right level of

tailoring for a project (Shenhar 2001). Not tailoring is to be avoided as it is seen a reason for

project failure (Shenhar 2001; OGC 2009; Wells 2012).

In determining which aspects of the PMM should be applied to a project, the early advice was to

assess the project holistically and look at the amount of activity, number of staff, critical

296

deadlines, degree of change and risk (CCTA 1994). A small project was defined as a project

that could be managed using a ‘subset or tailored version’ of PRINCE (CCTA 1994 p7).

Maintaining that many areas of the method were required, the guidance suggested that roles

could be combined, project managers could work part-time and undertake other project duties,

using technology to reduce the need for meetings, combining elements of stages (for example

project closure with the end stage assessment) and replacing complicated processes (for

example quality review) with simpler processes (for example inspection and walkthrough)

(CCTA 1994). From a planning perspective, the advice for small projects was to use templates,

include less detail in documents and to use fixed tolerances in plans (CCTA 1994). The 1994

guide for PRINCE2 ran to 30 pages and provided the managers of small projects with lists of

areas that could be considered for simplification.

After the publication of PRINCE2 in 1999, a further tailoring guide was published as a separate

manual after a 3 year gap. Now 138 pages, the publication complemented the manual by

explaining how the PRINCE2 method could be ‘applied’ (OGC 2002a). Tailoring was defined as

using the method ‘appropriately’ (OGC 2002a p2). This was to be achieved by implementing

the method ‘to a greater or lesser extent, and scaling it’ (OGC 2002a p2). Scaling recognises

that the interconnectedness of the method meant that components could not be omitted but

instead carried out with a light touch. Examples of scaling include merging processes and

combining documents (OGC 2002a) and working within available resource constraints (PMI

2014a).

The 2002 guide provided useful examples to help users tailor the method and contained

practical advice likely to make the tailoring more successful. As an example, the guide stated

that many organisations have complex standards for configuration management but that these

are ‘simply not enforced’ (OGC 2002a p16) and provided suggestion for improvement

(simplifying the standards or applying more effort to make them effective). Many organisations

have difficulty fully implementing management by exception which is a fundamental aspect of

the PRINCE2 method. The guide recognised that some managers have difficulty delegating

and like to manage their staff through supervision and that, in these circumstances, if the

manager is unwilling to change, it may not be possible to implement management by exception

in the project (OGC 2002a).

While these examples illuminated the issues, there was little definitive advice available to

project managers on how best to tailor. In addition to the issue of applying PRINCE2, the early

versions of the method contained no guidance on people issues, seen as a major omission by

some (Morris et al 2011) whereas other PMMs such as PMBOK included this as a core

component (PMI 2013a). Within the PRINCE2 realm, this was addressed through the

publication of a guide to the people issues in projects which gave generic information to project

managers on how to manage the human factors in projects (OGC 2002b).

When the next iteration of the PRINCE2 manual was published in 2005 the tailoring information

had been included but there was no information pertaining to the management of people (OGC

297

2005). The expanding global use of PRINCE2 saw the definition of tailoring in the 2009 manual

increased to include not only the requirements of the project and organisation but also the

geography and culture application for the project (OGC 2009). While the breadth of advice was

widened, the depth had not increased. Without tailoring the method, project managers were

warned that PMMs were unlikely to meet the demands of the project and this could lead to

either complete adherence to the method where it is not required or abandonment of the

method and replacement by an ad hoc way of managing the project (OGC 2009). The 2009

manual also points out that organisations that have tailored the method are using ‘full PRINCE2’

(OGC 2009 p215) because the method is designed to be tailored and once this has been

completed the organisation is using the component parts that are relevant. No organisation

should use a PMM without first tailoring it to their needs. The case was well made but the

problem remained how to achieve it.

The problem was not solely the responsibility of the method providers. One of the issues

underlying tailoring is that there is no standard way to distinguish between projects and this

vagueness makes it difficult to select the right approach (Shenhar 2001). This problem is seen

in the high level nature of the guidance provided by the OGC since 1994 and the inability to

provide more definitive information to those seeking to tailor projects in a way that lead to the

most successful outcomes.

Activities in this stage include: Scaling, capability management (OGC 2002a; PMI 2013c)

Once the tailoring stage has been completed, the method can be used to manage the project.

This next stage is called operate.

Stage 4 – Operate

The Operate stage is how many people view project management, the executing of a project to

achieve its goals and realise its benefits. From the literature, it was the stage that produced the

greatest volume of information suggesting it is one of the most crucial stages in the life cycle.

From reviewing the methods listed in Table 1 it can be seen that the majority of PMMs

concentrate on the Operate stage. This is understandable as the PMMs are focused on the

delivery of projects and their suppliers would correctly consider the earlier stages in the life

cycle to be outside their scope. While this is comprehendible, it leaves organisations in a

difficult position of selecting and embedding the PMM with their operation, stages the authors

believe are critical to the success of those stages that follow.

Activities in this stage: planning, execution, reporting and communication, risk and issue

management, monitoring and control, benefits management (OGC 2009; APM 2012; Project

Management Association of Japan 2013; PMI 2013c).

The final stage in the life cycle relates to how organisations learn and improve the way in which

they manage projects. Developing a project management capacity provides feedback to the

298

previous stages of embedding, tailoring and operating so that over time, the maturity of the

process can be enhanced.

Stage 5 – Develop

The creation of a PMM is less a task to be completed and more a process that needs to be

maintained through its life if it is to continue to be successful. Over time, the environment in

which the organisation operates changes and it is important that the method is maintained so

that it remains up to date, relevant and aligned with the organisational strategy and allied

processes.

In addition to maintenance, the develop stage is where organisations can review the goals for

the PMM that were established in the Select stage (strategic goals) and at the ‘Embed’ stage

(governance goals). The results of these internal reviews will feed into the maintenance

workstream and also allow the organisation to assess its performance (PMI 2013c).

Maintenance and review are two aspects of the Develop stage. Another, arguably more

important, aspect is the improvement of the PMM processes. The desire to operate more

efficiently and effectively stems from the improvement principles of quality management in the

Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle espoused by Deming (1993). For organisations looking to improve,

an element of the check step in the cycle is to look externally at how competitors or the industry

is performing. The problem is that the desired performance information is often proprietary and

not available. To circumvent this information gap, organisations benchmark themselves against

a scale that ranges between 1 and 5, matching their level of performance against a number of

different criteria. The criteria are combined into a model that encompasses the main

characteristics, factors, processes and capabilities of project management. Many models of

maturity exist and their use is expanding (Mullaly 2006).

The criteria for measuring maturity commonly to use a scale consisting of 5 levels (Kerzner

2006; OGC 2006; PMI 2013a):

1. Awareness of process / Initial. Projects are run differently from normal business.

2. Repeatable. Projects use their own processes/procedures, to a minimum

standard.

3. Defined. Organisational processes as used. Projects tailor the processes.

4. Managed. The organisation measures its ability to carry out the processes and

operates quality management processes to improve future performance.

5. Optimised. The organisation uses continual improvement processes in order to

optimise processes and further improve future performance.

It makes intuitive sense that organisations with a maturity of Level 1 are unlikely to be able to

implement or sustain a PMM. It is only at Level 2, ‘repeatable process’ that a project

management approach becomes feasible. Indeed, a method may be adopted to help the

299

organisation reach Level 2. Kerzner (2006) suggests that a ‘singular methodology’ is

achievable by organisations at Level 3 in his five level maturity model. As an organisation

progresses through the levels of maturity, for example, Level 3, ‘defined process’ and Level 4,

‘managed process’, the method is being increasingly integrated into the culture and processes

of the organisation.

Table 4 demonstrates how organisations are engaging with this stage in the life cycle and

shows the maturity of organisations from self-reported questionnaires. The Table demonstrates

the wide range maturity levels but with a move towards higher levels of maturity. The study by

PWC (2012) reported that 32% of organisations were striving to reach a higher level of maturity.

Table 4: Average maturity levels

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Sample Source

33% 20% 26% 9% 13% 200 PWC 2004

57% 40% 3% 0% 0% 22 - 96 Mullaly 2006

14% 53% 19% 7% 7% 42 Grant and Pennypacker 2006

4% 15% 19% 43% 19% 133 PWC 2012

Organisations track their maturity because the underlying belief is that increasing maturity is

beneficial. This view was supported by the PWC report from 2004 which found a correlation

between strong project management performance and the level of maturity in the organisation.

These findings were corroborated by the Project Management Institute’s Pulse of the Profession

survey in 2012 which was based on the feedback of over 1,000 project managers and

concluded that there was a correlation between those organisations with higher levels of project

maturity and the ability to deliver projects successfully (Swanson, 2012). While the evidence

supported the link between maturity and performance, such positive results had not been found

in all studies. Other research has failed to show that higher levels of maturity were linked to

superior performance. One of the issues may be that striving for higher levels of maturity may

add little value to the organisation. Research by Wheatley (2007) shows that the level of

maturity appropriate for an organisation was dependent on their needs. However, the picture is

further complicated by differences in maturity discernible across industries and indeed between

different divisions of the same organisation (Pells 1997). This may explain the lack of

consistency in the research findings with support for a link being found between maturity and

project performance by some (Moraes and Laurindo 2013) but not by others (Yazici 2010).

However, in the same research a significant relationship was found between maturity and

internal and external business performance by Yazici (2010).

Activities in this stage: Maintenance, internal and external review, process improvement (OGC

2006; Kerzner 2011; PMI 2013a).

300

Frequency and duration of the stages

The authors contend that organisations will visit each stage in the PMM life cycle. The Select

and Embed stages are likely to be used only once as the PMM is established in the

organisation. It is expected that the Tailor and Operate stages will be carried out for every

project in the organisation that uses a PMM. Finally, the Develop stage will be used on a

recurring basis to monitor, review and make changes to the PMM. As a result of the reviews,

small changes may be made to the PMM governance guidelines used in the Tailor and Operate

stages with larger changes (for example retraining and revised standards) requiring a greater

degree of change management that is better catered for by the activities in the ‘Embed’ stage.

At this point in the research on the PMM life cycle, it is only possible to estimate the durations of

the stages based on the authors’ practitioner experience. This estimation is depicted in

Figure 2.

Figure 2: The PMM life cycle model showing estimated stage durations The authors fully accept that more research is required to shed light on the frequency and

duration of the stages.

Conclusion

The PMM life cycle which has been proposed and described in this paper arises from the

application of the well-developed life cycle approach to the area of project management

methods, a novel use in the sphere of project management. The model is supported by a wide

range of project management literature and the empirical experience of the authors suggests it

has some internal reliability.

As an embryonic model, the authors recognise that more work is needed to develop and further

validate the model. At present, the boundaries surrounding the model are ill defined, a deficit

that will need to be corrected in future research. For example, the role of leadership may have

a strong impact on the life cycle, especially in the early stages. Culture is also an environmental

factor likely to have a powerful effect on the life cycle. Both of these factors should be reviewed

for inclusion in the next iteration of the model.

In developing the model, the authors’ aim was to fill a gap in project management literature and

also to begin the process of building a framework that practitioners could use when considering

how and why a PMM could be implemented in their organisation. It is the author’s belief that

the first two stages of the model may have a strong influence on the success of PMMs on

organisations. Table 5 provides a summary of the key elements in the PMM life cycle in this

initial version.

301

Table 5: Summary of PMM life cycle

Select Embed Tailor Operate Develop

Objective

Choose an appropriate

PMM

Bring the PMM into the organisation

Based on the project, decide how the method will be configured

Manage the project using the method

Review the operation of the PMM and enhance it

Activities

Align with strategy

Scope definition

Resource assessment

Review options

Decision-making

Goal setting

Set standards and governance

Resource assessment

Selling the PMM

Obtaining buy-in

Integration

Scaling

Capability assessment

Planning

Execution

Monitoring

Control

Risks/issues

Reporting

Benefits

Maintain

Review

Improve

Frequency

Once Once Every project Every project Every review period

Resources involved

Executives

Managers

Executives

Managers

PMO

PMs

Project staff

PMO

PMs

PMO

PMs

Project staff

Managers

PMO

PMs

Project staff

This paper, which is part of wider doctoral study, has identified a number of areas that would

benefit from further research. These can be summarised as:

▪ Critique/validate the model through testing and review. In this descriptive, exploratory

research, only desk-based research was used. Capturing primary data from practitioners

and collecting descriptive data for example from different project types, sectors and

cultures would prove the model, generate empirical support for the model and increase

its analytical and predictive capabilities (Collis and Hussey 2014).

▪ Refine the activities, frequency and resources involved in each stage. While the Tailor,

Operate and Develop stages can be linked to a wide range of supporting documentation,

the Select and Embed stages are notable for the paucity of this information. Developing

the understanding of these two stages would help practitioners to improve the fit of the

PMM to the organisation and its benefit.

302

▪ Develop a measurement system and undertake primary research to establish where

organisations are located on the PMM continuum (Sheffield and Lemétayer 2010; Biggins

2015). This would provide much needed information on how organisations are using

PMMs and facilitate a better fit between the PMM life cycle model and the starting point

for the organisation on the continuum.

▪ How critical are the Select and Embed stages to the success of the PMM within the

organisation? This research would help to indicate the importance of the five stages.

▪ Research the life cycles in programme and portfolio management.

▪ How decision-making is managed in the Select stage.

▪ Is there a different between espoused and in-use processes for PMM? The defined

routines may not be used (Feldman and Pentland 2003; D’Adderio 2009)

▪ Do organisations use a change model when embedding PMMs?

It is hoped to continue and extend this research in the future. The authors would be pleased to

hear from anyone with an interest in PMMs with a view to the exchange of information or future

collaborative research.

303


Title: How do organisations select and embed project management methods?

Author: David Biggins

Conference: British Academy of Management, Doctoral Symposium Newcastle, September 2016

Abstract

Projects are the primary method used by organisations to enact change. Project management

methods (PMMs) help organisations to manage and control projects. PMMs are being used

increasingly in organisations and PMs are being certified in their use.

This research looks at how organisations select and embed PMMs and the effects of maturity,

organisational culture and structure. Using a mixed methods approach, interviews and

questionnaires have been conducted with 5 UK companies with the views of other PMs included

as triangulation. The results of this research are still being analysed.

Keywords: Project management methods

304

Background

As a project management practitioner, I am very interested in understanding how organisations

are using project management methods (PMMs) such as PRINCE2 and standards such as

PMBOK. Projects are key in business because they represent the primary means of change

(Pinto 2013).

Many organisations are using PMMs and certifying their PMs in their use (APMG 2012) and

PMMs are seen as beneficial to organisations (Wells 2012). PMMs are one of the growth areas

in PM research (Biggins et al 2016b). However, data about PMMs is sparse.

Purpose and contribution of the research

My motivation for this research is to help other practitioners and organisations to improve the

ways in which they deliver projects and contribute to improving project outcomes from their

current low levels (IBM 2014; Cameron and Green 2015)

Applying the life cycle approach to PMMs generated the 5 stage model shown in Figure 1

(Biggins et al 2016a). Most of the research on PMM focuses on how they are operated. There

is a body of literature on maturity and the development of the PMMs and also on how methods

can be tailored to suit projects and organisations. There are only a few researchers active

working in the PMM space (for example Wells; Sheffield and Lemétayer).

Figure 1: PMM lifecycle

The focus of this research is on the first two stages of the model, how organisations select and

embed project management methods. By concentrating on these stages, this research

explores areas that has not been investigated by any researcher in the past. As a result, this

research contributes to the literature on PMMs and has implications for researchers, PM bodies

and practitioners, specifically:

1. The study has focused on a little researched area of PMMs

2. The study has created knowledge regarding the early stages of PMMs where little

existed before

3. The research questions have been empirically investigated in a range of organisations

that use PMMs

4. The study has produced a set of recommendations for PM bodies and practitioners

Conceptual model

From the secondary literature, the author constructed a model to depict the concepts of interest

in this research and their relationships. The conceptual model is not standalone but is

inextricably linked to the goals of the study and the research questions that have been created.

305

Figure 2 shows the conceptual model for the research. The ‘Select’ stage is based on decision-

making theory. The ‘Embed’ stage uses theories from organisational behaviour and change

management. Influencing factors at the ‘Select’ stage include concepts such as cognitive bias.

The factors thought to affect the ‘Embed’ stage are project maturity, organisational culture and

organisational structure.

Figure 2: Conceptual model

306

Stage 1 – ‘Select’

Given the costs of implementing a PMM, it is clear that not all organisations would benefit from

developing this capability (Charvat 2003). The choice of method is important because of the

way it enables or constrains the stages that follow it. Organisations can underestimate the

importance of this stage by choosing or developing a methodology too quickly (Kerzner 2011).

The criteria to consider when selecting a PMM include the organisational strategy, size of the

project team, priority of projects and the criticality of projects to the organisation (Charvat 2003).

Outside the organisation the PMMs used by partner organisation may constrain the choice of

method due to the need to interact with them in a seamless way (MacMaster 2002).

Central to this decision are the projects themselves. While there is no standard way to define a

project, it is recognised that different projects require different approaches (Shenhar 2002).

These factors affect how organisations choose an appropriate method. If the organisation

undertakes projects of a similar nature, one method may suffice but more methods may be

required if the projects exhibit wide variation (MacMaster 2002).

Stage 2 – ‘Embed’

Embedding is a critical task that organisations need to manage carefully. An OGC study from

2010 found that the main factors constraining the success of PRINCE2 came from this stage in

the life cycle and were routed in the organisational environment rather than the method itself

(Sargeant et al 2010).

It is the author’s contention that the ‘Select’ and ‘Embed’ stages are vital in determining the

effectiveness of the method within the organisation. Organisations need to be aware that

methods are generic products created for as broad an audience as possible and, as such,

always require embedding based on the needs of the organisation (MacMaster 2002). If the

wrong methodology is selected or it is not appropriately embedded, the organisation can fail to

achieve all the expected benefits.

Research method

This is summarised in Table 1.

Aspect Choice

Research type Exploratory

Philosophy Subjectivist ontology; Realist epistemology; Pragmatism

Approach Deductive

Method Mixed methods

Strategy Survey (interview and questionnaire). Pilot used

Analysis NVIVO and SPSS

Ethics Comply with University of Manchester guidelines

Table 1: Methodological choices

Reliability and validity have been carefully considered.

307

Research questions

Based on the conceptual model in Figure 2, the research questions are shown in Table 2:

Objective Research question

1. Understand how organisations select embed PMMs

▪ What are the performance criteria used for PMMs?

▪ How do organisations decide on a PMM?

▪ How do organisations control for bias in decision-making?

2. Understand how organisations embed PMMs

▪ What are the driving and restraining forces relevant to PMMs?

▪ What is the change type of a PMM? (Evolution, adaptation, revolution or reconstruction)

▪ Do organisations analyse the change situation? If so, how do they do it and what driving and restraining forces do they identify?

▪ Do organisations use a specific change strategy? If so, why and how?

▪ Is there a link between change type and change model?

▪ Are change models used in reality?

▪ How is the change evaluated?

▪ Are espoused PMM processes different to in-use PMM processes?

3. Identify the factors affective the select and embed stages.

▪ How does maturity relate to the select and embed stages?

▪ What is the link between organisational culture, as measured by the OCAI, and the select and embed stages?

▪ Are organisations with predominantly Market and Hierarchy cultures more likely to use a PMM than organisations that are predominantly Clan or Adhocracy cultures?

▪ How do organisational structures link to the select and embed stages?

Table 2: Research questions

Initial findings and analysis

I am still in the primary data collection phase. As of today (27 May 2016). I have conducted 15

interviews with 4 more scheduled. 60 questionnaires have been completed.

Primary data collection is the highest risk to my project.

Initial findings suggest there is a spectrum in the use of PMMs:

1. Some organisations use a standard method such as PRINCE2

2. Some organisations use a method that is based on a standard and then tailored to the

needs of the organisation

3. Other organisations use a bespoke method which may be based on one or more

standards but which is identifiably bespoke or in-house.

4. Other organisations use a combination of methods

Figure 3 (Biggins 2015) shows how a continuum for PMMs can be used to understand how

organisations are using PMMs. The continuum begins with a totally customised PMM and ends

with a standard method such as PRINCE2.

308

Figure 3: The PMM continuum

The organisations interviewed so far have all been located to the right on the continuum with

processes aligned to APMBOK or PRINCE2. While there can be a strong alignment to a

method, organisations are also showing varying degrees of flexibility where key milestones are

being monitored and PMs are being allowed freedom of execution. All organisations look to

certify their PMs which explains their close alignment with a method or standard.

All organisations display adaptability when it comes to using the PMMs accepting changes from

the PMs themselves, other parts of the organisation and, as is the case with Agile, from the PM

bodies and the project management community more generally.

When reviewing how organisations select PMMs, the results have not accorded with decision-

making theories. For one organisation, a government body, the use of a PMM was mandated

but for all the commercial organisations the PMM started to be used based on the staffs’

experience of PM in other organisations and the belief that PMMs would aid project delivery.

No organisation has quantified the benefit of the PMM but all believe it contributes to project

outcomes.

Embedding appears to be a lot more ad hoc than I had anticipated. All organisations assess

the magnitude of the change they wish to embed in the organisation and use an appropriate

communication process. Small changes are managed using email, for example, while larger

changes may require training, workshops etc.

There has been no analysis of the survey data yet. The questionnaire provides information on

how PMs view PMMs, looks at the aspects of maturity, organisational culture and structure.

The questionnaire participants have been separated into two samples. PMs from the

organisations who have participated in the interviews are in the first sample. The second

sample contains PMs from any organisation who access the questionnaire via links including

the APM and PMI websites. The ‘public’ version of the questionnaire is being used to gain a

wider view of the use of PMMs and to triangulate the views of those organisations with whom I

am working directly.

PMM continuum

Full alignment to

established methods

No alignment to

established methods

309


Title: Trends in project management, 1966 - 2015

Author: David Biggins, Therese Lawlor-Wright, Lynne Truelove

Conference: British Academy of Management 2016 Conference Newcastle, September 2016

Abstract

This study charts the trends and changing emphases in project management. A quantitative,

positivistic study, using frequency analysis and 116,202 records, this paper uses 16 a priori

categories to search for keywords in the period 1966 to 2015.

Graphs are presented for each of the 16 categories showing the percentage of publications in

the study period. The categories were analysed using a linear trend line to predict the future

trajectory of the category.

The key findings were that 13 of the 16 categories of project management were expected to

increase in frequency in the literature. The findings of this study agree and disagree with

previous studies and this was attributed to the different samples used and how the search terms

were identified and grouped.

This paper will be of benefit to those studying project management, to academics who work in

this sphere and to others interested in this subject area.

Keywords: Project management, meta-analysis, research trends, bibliometrics

310

Introduction

As a practice, profession and topic of research, project management has been growing steadily

since the disparate elements we now associate with the topic began to coalesce as a distinct

subject area (Carden and Egan 2008; Artto et al 2009; Bredillet 2009; Ika 2009; Morris et at

2011). With its history in construction, engineering and government (especially defence),

project management practices existed in isolation before the 1950s and it is from this time that

the pre-cursors of project management are traceable. Since this period, the widening use of

project management, in new industries, countries and areas is reflected in the literature as

practitioners and researchers raise issues of concern to them at the time (Urli and Urli 2000;

Bredillet 2003; Crawford et al 2006). This means that a chronological study of the literature can

inform those interested in project management about how the field has changed over time and

can identify the trends, fads and transitory interests of those who have contributed to literature.

There have been a number of previous studies which have looked at changes in the field. This

quantitative, positivistic study adopts a longer time horizon and a wider range of publications in

an attempt to add new information on the trends in project management over the last 50 years.

While this study is based on historical data, it is hoped that some light might be shed on the

future direction of the field, presuming that past interest is indicative of the literature to come.

We do not start this paper with a definition of project management as there are a wide range of

such definitions, for example from the Association for Project Management (APM 2012) and the

Project Management Institute (PMI 2013c) who both offer similar definitions. Instead, we accept

the definitions and descriptions provided by the authors who wrote about project management

using their own words and understanding of the subject area. It is not for us to judge whether

their interpretation was correct because there is no basis for making such a judgement. We

therefore disagree with authors, such as Abrahamson (2009), who would see this perspective

as deficient because the basis for the analysis is undermined if there is not an agreed

understanding in place.

By trend we mean the change, over time, of interest in a topic as evidenced by the number of

publications that mention that particular topic by name. There is a hierarchy of topics. For the

purposes of this study, project management is at the apex of the hierarchy. Below project

management are a number of sub-topics that comprise project management. We call these

categories and examples include risk, planning and project management methods. Categories

represent the unit of analysis in this paper.

The aims of this study and paper are to:

1. Review the literature on trends in project management.

2. Identify the categories in project management research and the topics that comprise

them.

3. Build a dataset of project management literature for the period 1966-2015.

4. Build a search capability to enable the literature to be searched by category and topic.

5. Chart the occurrence of the categories in literature.

311

6. Identify whether the categories are increasing or decreasing in the literature.

7. Make the data available to other researchers and identify further research opportunities.

First we begin with a review of the previous literature.

Previous research

To understand the previous research on project management it is first helpful to review how the

subject has developed in the last 50 years. Several authors have charted the key milestones in

the history of project management (Kerzner, 2006; Egeland 2009; Morris et al 2011). These

significant events are shown in Table 1. Table 1 is arranged by decade to align with the

decades in this study. The year is in the second column. In the third column are the milestones

in the development of project management.

To align with this study, we begin the Table in 1966 by which time there had already been

significant developments in the area (Kerzner, 2006; Morris et al 2011). 1957 saw the

development Program Evaluation Review Technique (PERT) and the Critical Path Method

(CPM) was developed by Du Pont. 1959 witnessed the start of academic research into project

management. In 1962 work breakdown structures were devised and precedence scheduling

was developed by IBM. These early developments were the pre-cursors to a half century of

further development.

Decade Year General developments

1966

to

1975

1968 Resource scheduling

1969 Project Management Institute founded

1970 Waterfall method

1975 PROMPT II; HERMES started

1976

to

1985

1979 CCTA adopts PROMPT II

1983 PMBOK published containing 6 knowledge areas (scope, time, cost, quality, human resources and communication management)

1985 Total quality management

1986

to

1995

1986 SCRUM named as a method; Capability maturity modelling

1987 PMBOK issued as a white paper

1988 Earned value management

1989 PRINCE

1990 Concurrent engineering

1992 APMBOK 1st edition

1994 Life cycle costing; APMBOK 2nd edition; GAPPS founded; IRNOP conferences begin

1996

to

2005

1996 PMBOK 1st edition; PRINCE2; APMBOK 3rd edition; Theory of constraints; PM certification

1997 Project offices developed; Critical chain

1998 IPMA Competence Baseline; PMBOK becomes a standard

2000 PMBOK 2nd edition; APMBOK 4th edition; Concept of programme management; PMI research conferences begin

2001 Maturity models; P2M (Japanese); Agile Manifesto

312

Decade Year General developments

2002 P2M (English)

2004 PMBOK 3rd edition

2005 Six sigma project management

2006

to

2015

2006 Total cost management

2007 Lean project management developed


2012 APM 6th edition; ISO 21500:2012 standard


2015 PRINCE2 Agile

Table 1: History of project management

With a wide range of developmental activity coupled with the expanding use of project

management (Morris et al 2011), assessing and reporting on the trends in this subject has been

a popular activity amongst researchers. Table 2 lists the 15 previous studies into trends in

project management. The Table lists the year of the article, author(s), period of the research,

from where the data was extracted, frequently using the International Journal of Project

Management (IJPM) and the Project Management Journal (PMJ), the number of records

consulted and the type of classification used (PRI for a priori research where the researcher

looked for existing terms or POST if the researcher allowed the classifications to emerge during

the research). The majority of previous studies have adopted an a priori approach.

Year Authors Period Scope Records Type

1995 Betts and Lansley 1983-1992 IJPM 347 PRI

2000 Themistocleous and Wearne

1984-1998 IJPM and PMJ 748 PRI

2000 Urli and Urli 1887-1996 ABI-inform 3,565 PRI

2000 Zobel and Wearne 1996-1998 4 PMI conferences 633 PRI

2000 Morris et al APMBOK 3rd edition

APMBOK N/A PRI

2002 Kloppenborg and Opfer

1960-1999 Online sources 3,554 PRI

2006 Crawford et al 1994-2003 IJPM and PMJ 1,051 PRI

2007 Smyth and Morris 2005 IJPM 68 PRI

2008 Carden and Egan 1968-2004 IJPM and PMJ 98 PRI

2009 Artto et al 1986-2007 23 business (but no PM0 journals

1,681 POST

2009 Kwak and Anbari 1950s-2007 18 business (but no PM0 journals

537 PRI

2009 Ika 1986-2004 Project success in IJPM and PMJ

30 PRI

2010 Williams 1998-2007 IJPM and PMJ 828 PRI

2011 Biedenbach and Müller

1994-2007 3 IRNOP conferences

116 PRI

2015 Pollack and Adler 1962-2012 Web of Science and Scopus

94,472 POST

Table 2: Previous research

313

Crawford et al (2006) summarised the work of 6 of the studies listed in Table 2 (Themistocleous

and Wearne (2000), Zobel and Wearne (2000), Urli and Urli (2000), Betts and Lansley (1995),

Morris et al (2000) and Kloppenborg and Opfer (2002)) to produce a list of 43 project

management topics:

Communication, competency, context/environment, contracts, cost, financial management,

goals/strategies, HR projects, human factors, industrial relations, information management,

information systems, innovation, integrative management, leadership, legal awareness, life

cycles, management by projects, managers, monitor and control, operations research,

optimising, organisational change, performance, PERT, planning, procurement and purchasing,

program management, project close, project start-up, project organisation, quality, requirements

management, risk, safety/health/environment, scheduling, stakeholder management, standards

and certification, stress, success criteria, systems management, teamwork, time.

The summary indicated whether the original research had found the topic to be of interest in the

research, of no interest and whether there was any increasing or decreasing levels of interest.

For some topics, the data was consistent. For example, all three of three studies showed an

interest in risk. However, in some cases, the data was contradictory. Project start-up, for

example was found to be of increasing interest in one study yet of no interest in two other

studies.

The findings from the Crawford et al (2006) study produced a Table of project management

categories and topics which is reproduced in Table 3.

Category Topic

Cost Management Cost Management

Cross Unit Outcomes Estimating; Integration Management; Project Context/Environment; Project Life Cycle/Phasing

Finalisation Project Closeout/Finalisation; Testing, Commission, Handover and Acceptance

Interpersonal Conflict Management; Leadership; Negotiation; Problem Solving; Teamwork;

Legal Issues Legal Issues; Safety, Health and Environment

Marketing Marketing

Product Functionality Configuration Management; Design Management; Requirements Management; Technology Management; Value Management

Program Management Program Management

Project Evaluation and Improvement

Organisational Learning; Performance Management; Project Evaluation and Review

Project Planning and Control Change Control; Project Monitoring and Control; Project Planning

Project Start-up Goals, Objectives and Strategies; Project Initiation/Start-up; Success (Criteria and Factors)

Quality Management Quality Management

314

Relationship Management Benefits Management; Document Management; Information and Communication Management; Reporting; Team Building and Development

Resource Management Personnel/Human Resource Management; Procurement; Project Organisation; Resource Management

Risk Management Risk Management

Scope Management Scope Management

Strategic Alignment Business Case; Financial Management; Project Appraisal; Strategic Alignment

Time Management Time Management

Table 3: Categories and topics (Crawford et al 2006)

In the decade since Crawford et al (2006) produced the hierarchy shown in Table 3, the subject

of project management has progressed and additional studies have been undertaken. Building

on the category-topic model created by Crawford et al (2006), the Table can be augmented with

additional findings from later studies to generate a set of project management word and phrases

that can be tested against a current dataset of literature. Table 4 shows the source of this

additional material and the topics that have been identified as not present in Table 3. In

addition to the more recent research, the findings from Urli and Urli (2000) and Zobel and

Wearne (2000) have been revisited to review their findings.

Year Authors Eligible topics

2000 Urli and Urli Discounted cash flow; scheduling; skills; roles; net present value; resource allocation; critical path; PERT; cost estimates; cost control; group dynamics; training; performance; organisational change; outsourcing

2000 Zobel and Wearne Project organisation; project appraisal

2007 Smyth and Morris Competence; decision making; risk allocation; culture; management competence; subcontractor management; cash flow forecasting; project cost overruns; value engineering; sustainability

2008 Carden and Egan Critical chain; quality assurance; project software; benchmarking; float; activity networks

2009 Artto et al TQM/total quality management; competitive advantage; productivity

2009 Kwak and Anbari Portfolio management; value of project management; marketing and operations research; decision sciences; operation management; supply chain management; earned value management; project finance; project accounting; process improvement; project uncertainty; trust; project buffers; tendering; public sector; knowledge sharing; sense-making; principal-agent; customer satisfaction; organisational forms; managing expectations

2011 Biedenbach and Müller

PM school of thought: contingency; modelling; optimisation; success; governance; marketing; process; decision; behaviour

2015 Pollack and Adler Software engineering, computer simulation; environmental impact; AHP

Table 4: List of additional topics

315

The last year has witnessed further developments both inside project management and its

environment which have given rise to addition topics to be considered for inclusion in this study.

An example of how current trends are developing is the annual Pulse of the Profession report

published by the PMI which in 2016 was completed by 2,902 project management

professionals, senior executives and PMO directors. Practitioner publications such as those

listed in Table 5 provide a perspective which can inform academic research and study.

Year Authors Eligible topics

2016 PMI

PMO; Enterprise PMO; executive sponsors; active sponsors; benefits realisation; maturity; standardised project management practices; internal/proprietary methodologies; scrum; extreme project management; event chain methodology; PRINCE2; certification;

2016 Arras People Age profile of project practitioners; gender in project management; accreditation; PM education; career development; social media

Table 5: Practitioner list of additional topics

Fifteen prior studies into trends in project management have been identified and these attest to

the increasing academic interest in the subject. With the exception of the most recent study by

Pollack and Adler (2015), many of the earlier studies were relatively small in size and tended to

focus solely on the project management journals, specifically IJPM and PMJ. The Pollack and

Adler study added much needed breadth to the narrow search window that characterised earlier

studies. With the broader availability of information and the combination of academic and

practitioner input, the potential for understanding trends in project management are themselves

on an upward trend.

Method

The advent, growth and expansion of digital repositories has greatly eased the task of collating

research information for studies such as this. The ability to search and extract data for

subsequent analysis has never been easier with a variety of tools available to process and

make sense of information.

The method designed for this study followed a five stage process:

1. Identification. In the identification phase, online repositories were chosen and then

queried and searched for information.

2. Extraction and creation of the study dataset. The second stage involved extracting

the information and the building of a composite dataset from the data sources.

3. Data cleansing. With all the records in one dataset, the third stage involved cleansing

the data by removing duplicates and correcting corruptions in the data.

4. Definition of categories and topics. Based on previous research, this stage

developed the topics to be searched and grouped these into categories.

5. Search engine creation. This stage involved the building of a capability in Microsoft

Excel able to search the dataset created in the first three stages of this method against

the categories and topics defined in the fourth stage.

316

The five stages are described in detail in the next section.

Identification

The data used for this paper were sourced from four online databases. The databases are

listed in Table 6. These sources were chosen because of their size and credibility in the online

research database sphere. For example, the IEEE library contains 4 million records (IEEE

2016) while Scopus and Web of Science contain around 60 million records each (Thomson

Reuters 2014; Elsevier 2016).

Source URL Date extracted

Scopus http://www.scopus.com 7 Feb 2016

IEEE Xplore http://ieeexplore.ieee.org 7 Feb 2016

Web of Science http://wok.mimas.ac.uk 7 Feb 2016

EBSCOhost https://www.ebscohost.com 8 Feb 2016

Table 6: Data sources

As the extraction took place in early February, it is possible that some articles published in 2015

had not been added to the online databases. However, many publications publish before the

date printed on their cover so it is expected that most of the December 2015 records are

included.

Each database presents the user with its own search facility. The search terms used in each

database is shown in Table 7. Using defined search terms gave the dataset high content

validity (Saunders et al 2012).

Source Search Matching records

Scopus Search for “project management” in article title, abstract and keywords, between 1965-2015

86,276

IEEE Xplore Search for “project management” in basic search, between 1965-2015

15,180

Web of Science Search for “project management” in topic 12,597

EBSCOhost Search for "project management" in title, abstract or subject terms, between 1965-2015 in the English language.

44,600

158,653

Table 7: Search criteria

Across the four databases, a total of 158,653 records were identified as matching the search

criteria. Having found the records, the next stage was to extract them from the online repository

and add them to the study’s dataset.

317

Extraction and creation of the study dataset

The fields in the export from Scopus were used as the structure for the study dataset. The

study dataset was created in Microsoft Excel 2011. The fields were: Year; Authors; Title;

Source title; Volume; Issue; Article No; Page start, Page end; Page count; Cited by; DOI; Link;

Abstract; Author Keywords; Index Keywords; Document Type; Source. Of the fields in the

dataset, the four most important to this paper are listed in Table 8:

Field Rationale

Year This field was required to support chronological analysis.

Title While titles do not always reflect the content of the publication as they can be used to generate interest and draw attention, often they do contain the keywords used in this research and were included in the study’s search fields.

Abstract The abstract, where present, allows the authors to provide a concise summary of the publication and is therefore a key field for this study.

Keywords Adding keywords to articles is a way for authors to use established words and phrases that aid researchers when searching for information. Both the authors’ own keywords and the index keywords (added by the publication) were included in the search.

Table 8: Key fields in the dataset

The combination of these four fields is considered to provide a sufficient basis for this research.

The other fields were retained for further investigation as the source of future research.

The data from IEEE Xplore, Web of Science and EBSCOhost did not align with the dataset

structure and therefore required modification. This required data manipulation and this was

carried out in Microsoft Excel. For example, the Scopus terms used to describe document

types were different to the IEEE terms. The IEEE terms were remapped to give consistence, for

example, ‘IET Conference publication’ and ‘IEEE Conference publications’ was both mapped to

the Scopus ‘Conference Paper’. While the mapping of conference papers created no

uncertainty about the validity of the changes, this was not the case with articles. The IEEE uses

categories such as ‘Journal and Magazines’ and these were mapped to the Scopus ‘Article’ but

it is possible that the two categories are not viewed in the same way by both organisations

because of the inclusion of ‘magazines’ in the IEEE category. Collating data from multiple

sources is fraught with such difficulties but these only become manifest when comparing

records by publication type and care therefore needs to be exercised when this information is

presented.

A major issue that arose when combining the data sources was that of duplication, that is,

where the same record was collated from more than one source. To lessen the occurrence of

duplicates in the data set, the Microsoft Excel remove duplicates function was used in a two

stage process. After each individual set of records was added, the function was executed to

check for records where all the fields matched. Such records were removed. Second, a more

granular search for duplicates was undertaken, a duplicate being presumed where the year of

publication, title, volume and issue were matched.

318

With a large dataset such as this, data quality was a key concern. The processes used to

convey the data from the source database to Microsoft Excel required extraction to a CSV file

followed by an import. Sometimes many CSV files were required. For example, the limit of

2,000 records (containing the fields required by this study) in an export from Scopus meant that

58 separate CSV files were first exported from Scopus and then imported to Microsoft Excel.

26 intermediary files were required for Web of Science, 11 intermediary files for IEEE Xplore

and 3 for EBSCOhost. There was no common file format for the EBSCOhost extract and

Microsoft Excel imports and the JabRef software package was used as an intermediary, adding

another layer of importing and exporting to the data extraction and collation stage.

Once the dataset had been created and initial screening for duplicates had been completed, the

third stage, data cleansing commenced.

Data cleansing

The process of cleaning or cleansing the data prior to analysis is key if valid and reliable results

are to be generated (Saunders et al 2012). With a large set of records from multiple sources,

this stage of the process was time-consuming. Table 9 summarises the key areas in data

cleansing.

Area Rationale

Data corruption After importing the information to Microsoft Excel, it was found that some of the data was corrupt, for example text that was imported as special characters rather than text. If the corruption affected the legibility of the record, particularly in terms of the key information needed for this study (date, title, abstract and keywords), the record was removed from the dataset. If, however the corruption related to a few characters in a field or to a field that was not used in the analysis (for example page count), the characters were either deleted or ignored.

Field matching For matching fields in Excel, it was necessary to capitalise the information in order that a like-for-like comparison could be made but even then differences in, for example, the titles of articles meant that this process did not expunge all duplicate records.

Spelling Examples are nouns ending –isation and those ending –ization. For the purposes of the study, -isation, was used throughout and 4,609 changes were made to the dataset. Spelling mistakes were also in evidence, for example “An Exploratory Re-Examination” (Scopus) and “An Expoloratory Re-Examination” (EBSCOhost).

Name consistency It was not possible to match on authors’ name due to the inconsistency with which they are listed in the online databases. For example, Web of Science sometimes lists forenames whereas other sources use only initials.

Missing data It was notable that some records in the dataset did not contain any authors’ names. In addition, the PMJ data in Scopus is only partially present for volumes 44 and 46 and required manual addition to allow for duplicate detection.

Table 9: Data cleansing aspects

Where possible, the process of data cleansing was automated using tools and commands in

Microsoft Excel. Despite the actions taken to clean the data, it is expected that some errors are

319

still present but that these appear with less frequency in those fields used in the study (year,

title, keywords and abstract) and will therefore have less of an effect on the results. Whilst great

care has been taken to base the analysis and findings on the best quality data possible, the

caveat remains that the base data is not wholly accurate. It is believed to be of adequate

quality for the needs of this study and the fact that the findings do accord with similar recent

research (Pollack and Adler 2015) suggests the dataset does possess external validity.

Definition of categories and topics

The section on previous research on the trends in project management identified topics that had

been elicited from 15 academic studies and augmented these with other topics gleaned from

recent practitioner literature. The task in this stage of the method is to devise a logical,

authentic and defensible set of categories and topics that can be used for analysis in this study.

As there is no objective way to create this Table, the authors have based it as far as possible on

past structures and added and moved topics that, in their opinions, provides a valid hierarchy

for analysis. The authors recognise that any definition of categories and topics is affected by

their prior experience and education and also that such hierarchies are malleable and affected

by time and the contextual environment. By making the hierarchy explicit, other researchers will

be able to understand the basis for this study and analyse the information in different ways

using the study dataset.

Table 10 lists the categories and topics that were created for this study.

Nr Category Topics

1 Strategic alignment Strategy; business case; program/programme management; portfolio management; benefits; alignment; organisational change; financial appraisal; prioritisation

2 Project success Project success; project management success; success factors; success criteria

3 Stakeholder management Stakeholder; customer satisfaction

4 Project evaluation Organisational learning; performance management; project review; project appraisal

5 Planning Planning; estimating; scope management; schedule; scheduling; PERT; critical path; critical chain; activity network

6 Iron triangle Time management; Cost management; Quality; TQM; total quality management; Earned value; EVM

7 Project start-up Initiation; startup; start up

8 Project execution and control Reporting; change control; life cycle; lifecycle; monitoring; control

9 Project close Project close; testing; commission; handover; acceptance

10 Risk management Risk

11 Procurement Procurement; purchasing; contract management

320

12 Soft skills Soft skills; conflict management; leadership; negotiation; problem solving; teamwork; decision making; trust

13 Environment Legal; health; safety; environment; environmental impact; sustainability; culture; public sector; private sector

14 Project organisation Project organisation; roles; responsibilities; communication; PMO; sponsor; executive; maturity

15 Project management method Project management method; PRINCE2; PMBOK; APMBOK; Body of knowledge; BOK; agile; scrum; governance

16 Personal development Training; accreditation; qualification; experience; certification; competence

Table 10: A priori categories and topics

Given that no category was connected to more than 10 topics, a constraint was introduced that

10 would be the maximum number of topics that could be linked to a category. The

implementation of this constraint is described in the next section.

Having defined the extent of the searches needed to identify the trends in project management,

the final stage of the method involved building a search engine in Microsoft Excel that would

support the a priori data categories.

Search engine

To allow the investigation of categories and topics in the study, a search capability was built into

the dataset. This enabled the searching of the dataset by category and topic within the title,

keywords and abstract fields. No weighting was allowed for multiple occurrences of search topic

in the title, abstract or keywords as this would have skewed the results by suggesting there

were more references to the search item than was the case.

As a test of the search engine’s capability a category was created that contained two search

terms; ‘project management’ and ‘project-management’. When the search was executed, the

number of successful matches numbered 116,202 which confirmed that either of these two

terms existed in one of the three search fields for every record in the dataset. The fact that

every record was matched provided confidence in the construct validity of the study (Saunders

et al 2012). To test whether the trend in the search category followed an upward or downward

trajectory, a linear trend line was calculated by dividing the number of publications for the

category into the total number of articles published that year. The method used Microsoft

Excel’s linear trend line fitting functions with the date providing the X axis values and the

percentage for the Y axis.

Once the search engine had been successfully tested, it was ready for use with the study

dataset. The category/topic sheet was built using the data shown in Table 9.

321

Findings This section of the paper begins by describing some of the characteristics of the dataset in

terms of the online databases sources that contributed records to it. The overall trend in project

management research is discussed and there is an explanation of the publications identified in

the research and the breakdown of the types of publication. This section contextualises the

dataset in preparation for the analysis of the category/topic areas which follow.

Characteristics of the dataset

This section provides information on the study dataset of 116,202 records and provides data

about the presence of information in the four key fields used in the analysis.

Table 11 showed how 158,653 records met the search criteria and the Method section has

explained the processes followed to generate the study dataset of 116,202 records. The source

of the records, from the four online databases used, is shown in Table 10.

Data source Unique records

contributed Percentage of

total

Scopus 82,581 71.1%

EBSCOHost 21,326 18.4%

IEEE Xplore 7,646 6.6%

Web of Science 4,649 4.0%

116,202 100%

Table 10: records by source

The analysis that follows is based on the four key fields (year, title, abstract and keywords).

The presence of data in these fields affects the validity of the research and, as Table 12 shows,

every record included a year of publication, all except 16 of the 116,202 records contained a

title and the number that included an abstract and keywords was 98% and 93% respectively.

Field Presence in the dataset Percentage

Year This field was present in every record 100.00%

Title Only 16 records did not have a title 99.99%

Abstract 1,924 records contained no abstract. The average abstract length was 882 characters. The longest abstract contained 9,997 characters

98.34%

Keywords 7,814 records contained no keywords (using the combined UberKey field). 1,410,939 keywords

93.28%

Table 12: Key field presence

Table 12 suggests that a dataset suitable for analysis had been created because of very low

rates of missing data in the four key fields. Figure 1 displays the number of records in the

dataset ordered by year.

322

Figure 1: Records by year

The breakdown of records (shown as Recs in the Table) by year is shown in Table 13.

Year Recs Year Recs Year Recs Year Recs Year Recs

1966 26 1976 103 1986 690 1996 2409 2006 9582

1967 25 1977 110 1987 499 1997 2261 2007 8566

1968 24 1978 172 1988 571 1998 1931 2008 7217

1969 34 1979 121 1989 645 1999 2095 2009 5917

1970 51 1980 122 1990 661 2000 2500 2010 5028

1971 41 1981 221 1991 906 2001 2611 2011 4548

1972 50 1982 252 1992 904 2002 3701 2012 3844

1973 60 1983 328 1993 1082 2003 6883 2013 3678

1974 100 1984 579 1994 1725 2004 11530 2014 4288

1975 98 1985 533 1995 2039 2005 11465 2015 3376

Table 13: Records by year

Figure 1 demonstrates that for the first two decades in the period of study there were few

publications that used the term ‘project management’ in their description. Between 1966 and

1985 only 3,050 records were identified. Table 14 shows the breakdown of records by decade.

Decade Record count Percent

1966 – 1975 509 0.4%

1976 – 1985 2,541 2.2%

1896 – 1995 9,722 8.4%

1996 – 2005 47,386 40.8%

2006 – 2015 56,044 48.2%

Total 116,202 100%

Table 14: Records by decade

323

It would appear from Table 14 that there is a continuous upward trend in project management

research but as Figure 1 shows the publications on project management rose steeply after 2002

to reach a peak in 2004 and have since been on a steady decline. The data generate the trend

graph but cannot explain it. 2004-2006 were years of great activity in project management

literature, this three year period accounting for 28% of all publications.

The dataset included 17,745 different publication sources. Table 15 shows the fifteen sources

that provided the most records. The first and fourth entries in the Table refer to the same

conference; ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings was the term used until 2004 and the title

ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings has been used since that

date.

ASEE Annual Conference Proceedings 2115

International Journal of Project Management 1800

PM Network 1746

ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings 1318

Lecture Notes in Computer Science 977

Proceedings of SPIE (International Society for Optical Engineering) 941

Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 736

MEED: Middle East Economic Digest 686

AACE International Transactions 674

Project Management Journal 660

Journal of Management in Engineering 606

Jane's Defence Weekly 597

Transportation Research Record 568

Journal of Construction Engineering & Management 489

Advanced Materials Research 436

Table 15: Top 15 publication sources

It is frequently stated of project management that it originated in construction and engineering

(Morris et al 2011). The journals listed in Table 15 would certainly support this with a third of

the publications directly related to these areas. This study, in line with other research for

example Kwak and Anbari (2009), shows that project management has a far wider application

as exemplified by the inclusion of publications from information and computing technology and

defence in the list of the top 15 sources.

Table 15 lists the highest ranked sources of records but in the dataset are many more

publication sources. There are 138 publications that have in excess of 100 records in the

dataset. There is however a long tail of publications with few applicable records. There are

8,727 publications with a single record and 2,993 publications with two records in the dataset.

The ability to access such a wide range of publications enables current researchers to heed the

call of earlier scholars (for example Söderlund 2004) to pay more attention to non-project

management journals when seeking to better understand the field.

324

The top 15 publications account for 14,349 (12.3%) of the total dataset. Three publications

focussing on project management are listed in the top 15; The IJPM, PM Network and the PMJ.

The metadata for these publications is shown in Table 16.

Publication Earliest in dataset

Latest in dataset

Period in print

IJPM 1983 Vol 1, issue 1

2015 Vol 33, issue 8

1983 - present

PM Network 2003

Vol 17, issue 7

2015

Vol 29, issue 12

1986 - present

PMJ 1997 Vol 28, issue 2

2015 Vol 46, Issue 6

1970 - present

Table 16: Project management publication metadata

Table 16 demonstrates a flaw in the dataset because not all the publications from the three

leading PM journals are contained within it. The largest gap is with the PMJ. A request was

sent to the Project Management Institute however it proved impossible to obtain. The PMI

website offers member searchable access to journals from 2005 and access to journals from

1984 (PMI 2016). To what extent the missing data affects the results can be estimated. Of the

660 PMJ records in the dataset, the publications are not distributed evenly across the years.

The dataset shows 17 records added in 1997, 20 in 1998 but 50 in each of the years 2013 and

2014. The number of records produced in the 28 years between 1970 and 1997 is likely to

have a maximum of 28 years x 17 records = 476 records which represents 0.4% of the dataset,

a number which is not expected to affect the overall trends.

Beyond the three project management publications that we have discussed, it is notable from

the data the increasing number of journals that are focused on project management. One

example is the International Journal of Managing Projects in Business (IJMPB) which

contributed 124 records to the dataset with publications ranging from 2011, Volume 4, issue 3 to

2015, Volume 8, issue 4. Another example is the International Journal of Project Organisation

and Management (IJPOM) which contributed 58 records from its inception in 2008. 61 records

came from Project Management – Practice and Perspectives between 2014-2015. Finally, the

Journal of Modern Project Management (JoMPM) added 41 records to the dataset from its

commencement in 2013.

Figure 2 shows the number of unique publications that contained articles on project

management. In 1966, the 26 PM articles were spread across 21 different publications, a ratio

of 1.2 articles per publication which reflects the diversity in the field at that time. In 2015, the

3376 articles appeared in 1367 publications, a ratio of 2.5 articles per publication which

represents the growing concentration of PM in the literature as well as its expansion across

more fields.

325

Figure 2: Publications containing PM articles

Having reviewed the publications in the dataset, we next move to assess the types of document

that have been identified.

Types of document

The dataset is comprised of 21 different document types. These are listed in Table 17, sorted in

descending order of the number of publications for each type.

Type Records Type Records

Conference Paper 45,233 Article in Press 116

Article 31,622 Editorial 100

Unknown 22,182 Report 64

Review 8,701 Chapter 50

Short Survey 2,167 IEEE Standards 22

Book 2,063 Letter 14

Note 1,442 Erratum 6

Conference Review 720 Abstract Report 4

Series 699 eBooks 4

Book Chapter 502 IEEE Courses 1

Business Article 490 Total 116,202

Table 17: Document type

Table 17 shows the dominance of articles and conference papers in the literature on project

management. Conference papers account for 45,233 (38.9%) and articles 31,622 (27.2%) and

together this equates to 76,855 records (66.1%). The inclusion of a wide range of types may be

argued by some to distort the view of the trends in project management but a counter argument

would be that trends are not solely defined by conference papers and journal articles and are

best reflected in the wide body of literature that appears in Table 17. Of some concern in Table

17 are the 22,182 documents where the type is not known and which are listed as ‘Unknown’.

In undertaking the data cleansing process, the inclusion of these records was debated and a

decision taken to include them, for the same reason as document types other than journal

326

articles and conference papers were included. The sphere of project management is comprised

of many people who have different interests in the subject both academic and practitioner. It

seems to make intuitive sense that if the goal is to see the general trends in project

management then the broadest range of literature should be consulted.

Analysis

In this section of the paper, we analyse the results. The results are collated in Table 18. The

Table contains the category number, name and then 10 columns (T1 to T10) representing the

number of matches for the topics in that category (see Table 10) across all the years of the

study, in the title, abstract and keyword fields.

Nr Category T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10

1 Strategic alignment

6683 342 0 1035 6778 1185 157 6 124 6683

2 Project success

2609 136 1750 222

3 Stakeholder

management 4751 2086

4 Project

evaluation 149 401 222 138

5 Planning 31013 2144 78 8224 8552 13906 1534 647 164

6 Iron triangle 523 685 21559 311 968 963 293

7 Project start-up

507 497 140

8 Project

execution and control

1290 113 4008 1360 6606 31926

9 Project close 44 6661 3542 119 1340

10 Risk management

21263

11 Procurement 3792 767 332

12 Soft skills 273 249 3568 1128 4193 1706 8108 1691

13 Environment 1607 6438 7658 28073 3087 2361 3859 1105 935

14 Project organisation

192 1941 1275 15624 499 1728 2977 1844

15 Project management method

939 147 428 1 669 528 2841 539 1587

16 Personal development

8562 586 1013 13797 1298 1504

Table 18: Category analysis

The number of occurrences for each category is not the sum of the topics from which it is

comprised. For example, ‘risk’ appears 21,263 times in the title, abstract or keywords in the

records. Often ‘risk‘ appear in more than one of these three areas. Where this happens, the

record is marked as including the search term but no allowance is made for the number of

occurrences within one record. Table 19 shows the number of matches for all the categories.

In the case of the risk category, the 21,263 search hits were linked to 11,910 records.

327

Figure 3 shows the prevalence of categories.

Figure 3: category prevalence

To generate Figure 3, all the records in the dataset were used. Thus the pie chart shows the

prevalence of the categories over the 50 years of this study.

In the next section, we look at each category and its trend over time. The data for all 16

categories follows a consistent format. The Y axis is the percentage of articles in the year for

the category and the X axis contains the year. The 16 graphs are presented and then

discussed.

328

Planning

Figure 4: Planning category chart

Project environment

Figure 5: Project environment chart

329

Project execution and control

Figure 6: Project execution and control chart

Personal development

Figure 7: Personal development chart

330

Project organisation

Figure 8: Project organisation chart

Iron triangle

Figure 9: Iron triangle chart

331

Soft skills

Figure 10: Soft skills chart

Strategic alignment

Figure 11: Strategic alignment chart

332

Risk management

Figure 12: Risk management chart

Project close

Figure 13: Project close chart

333

Stakeholder management

Figure 14: Stakeholder management chart

Project management methods

Figure 15: Project management methods chart

334

Procurement

Figure 16: Procurement chart

Project success

Figure 17: Project success chart

335

Project start-up

Figure 18: Project start-up chart

Project evaluation

Figure 19: Project evaluation chart

336

Trend trajectories

As an indication of the direction of the trajectories traced out by the project management

categories in this study, the gradient of the best fit linear forecast trend line was calculated for

each category using the data from Table 18. The year was used as the X axis and the

percentage of publications for that category in the year was used to calculate the Y axis.

Those categories with a positive gradient were deemed to be increasing as an area of concern

and interest in the literature and those categories with a negative gradient were taken to be of

less interest. In trend terms, the categories with positive gradients are expected to appear more

frequently in the literature in the future and the negative gradient categories are expected to

decline.

Repeating the calculation of the trend line for each of the 16 categories produces Table 19. The

Table lists the category number and name, the sum of search matches for the category and

slope value. As the slope value are very small for example 0.0009, they have been multiplied

by 1,000 to aid comparison. The Table is sorted by slope in descending order.

Nr Category Matches Slope

13 Project environment 29,508 4.4

6 Iron triangle 15,491 2.7

10 Risk management 11,910 2.5

1 Strategic alignment 13,147 1.9

16 Personal development 18,965 1.6

3 Stakeholder management 5,138 1.5

14 Project organisation 18,039 1.2

15 Project management method 3,543 1.1

12 Soft skills 15,022 1.1

2 Project success 2,800 0.9

9 Project close 8,698 0.6

11 Procurement 3,431 0.3

7 Project start-up 999 0.07

4 Project evaluation 644 -0.05

8 Project execution and control 28,934 -0.9

5 Planning 38,243 -1.1

Table 19: Trend trajectories

In can be seen in Table 19 that 13 of the 16 categories have a positive gradient and are

therefore growing as a percentage of the overall PM literature.

337

Discussion

Planning has been the category most represented in the literature and this makes sense given

the importance and long association with project management. In 1971, 54% of all articles

published were tagged as planning. Since then, the ratio of the planning category to all PM

literature has reduced but it continues to account for about a third of all literature. While

planning continues to be a core element of project management, the growth of other aspects of

the field is reducing the representation of planning across all articles. This explains how

planning is both the category with the highest percentage of articles and also the category that

is most declining in the literature.

The environment category is the second most common and also the category that is showing

the highest level of growth (see Table 19). This is perhaps not surprising given the broad range

of topics included in this category (including legal, health, safety, environment, sustainability and

culture), topics that are common to all projects and therefore likely to appear frequently in the

dataset. The Environment topic, perhaps the broadest of all, contributed 28,073 of the 55,123

topics (51%) in this category. This category has consistency contributed around 25% of the

literature for the last 20 years (see Figure 5).

Project execution and control saw its peak in popularity in the 1970s and 1980s and since

then has declined as a percentage of all publications. This category is predicted to decline

further in the future. Many of the elements within this category (reporting, change control, life

cycle, lifecycle, monitoring and control) are commonly found in the project management

methods such as PRINCE2 and the bodies of Knowledge. One explanation for the decline in

this category is that the interest in these topics is being captured within the project management

methods category in line with the growth in certification in the 1990s which gave project

managers a new vocabulary to refer to the issues in the area of executing and controlling

projects.

In 2012, the millionth person passed a PRINCE2 certification examination (APMG 2012), a

testament to the growing importance of qualifications to the field. This interest was supported

by the development of competence models for project management for example from the IPMA

(2013) and APM (2015). This would explain the positive trajectory of the personal

development category in the literature and support the prediction that it will continue to grow in

the future (Table 19).

For the last 20 years, the project organisation category has consistently contributed around

15% to the literature (see Figure 8) and is showing a predicted increase in the future

The iron triangle is a common way referring to the elements of time, cost and quality in a

project. In the definition of iron triangle (Table 10), the terms ‘cost management’ and ‘time

management’ were included in preference to ‘cost’ and ‘time’ as a way of limiting the search to

338

those articles that related to the management of these areas rather than the broader topics of

cost and time. Had ‘cost’ and ‘time’ been used as topics, the matches would have risen from

15,491 (Table 19) to 47,666, making this the largest category. The current definition of this

category may therefore be under-reporting the importance of time, cost and quality in the

literature. Even with this restricted definition, the category is forecast to grow in the future and

the iron triangle has the second highest growth rate (Table 19). Similar studies for example

Crawford et al (2006) found similar results and also identified the increasing significance of time

and cost (but not quality) in the literature.

While many of the categories in this study may be considered to be the hard skills of project

management, the category of soft skills includes topics such as leadership, negotiation,

teamwork and trust. It can be seen from Figure 10 that soft skills have appeared in the

literature throughout the study period. Soft skills are a growth area in the literature (Table 19).

Pinto (2013) is one of many authors to identify the strategic importance of projects to

organisations. Strategic alignment is another growing trend in the literature (Table 19)

including within its definition strategy, benefits and organisational change. Figure 11 shows that

this category has been included in the literature in every year except one.

Risk management is needed on all projects due to their unpredictable nature, potentially long

time scales and the influence of the external environment. It is no surprise that risk is a major

topic in the literature with 11,910 matches and an increasing trend (Table 19). The category

has appeared in the literature in most of the years in this study (Figure 12) and for the last 7

years has contributes nearly 15% to project management literature.

Project close relates to the stage in the project where many projects cease and the work is

commissioned and handed over. Project close is a recurring category in the literature (Figure

13) and one that has a flat trend line suggesting it will continue to appear in the future at about

the same rate, around 5%.

The identification of stakeholders and stakeholder management can be traced to the early

1990s (Figure 14). At this time, a distinction was starting to be made between project success

that included the views of stakeholders and project management success that focused more on

tine, cost and quality (Pinto and Levin 1988). The notion that a project can achieve its time and

cost goals and still be considered a failure has provoked a constant and growing interest in the

role of stakeholders in project management. Stakeholder management is the sixth most

growing category (Table 19).

Project management methods barely appeared in the literature before the early 1990s (Figure

15) ad while the overall trend for this category is increasing when viewed over the 50 years of

this study (Table 19), there has been a strong upward trend in recent years. This can be

attributed to the growth in methods such as PRINCE2 (OGC 2009), the use of standards from

339

the PMI (2013c) and APM (2012) and the growth in new software development methods such

as Agile.

With 3,431 matches in the dataset (1.6%), procurement has been a recurring but low level

category since 1973 that is predicted to continue at this level (Table 19). Not all projects have

an element of procurement within them as internal projects and small project are likely not to

need this level of formality. It is interesting to note the disagreement in the field about whether

procurement is part of project management or a separate but allied discipline. For example, the

PMBOK (PMI 2013c) includes a section on procurement while PRINCE2 (OGC 2009) sees this

topic as being outside its remit.

The topic of project success first appeared in the literature in 1973 and has appeared regularly

since then (Figure 17). Despite the differentiation between project success and project

management success being clearly articulated by authors such as Pinto and Levin (1988) and

Atkinson (1999), the topics of what constitutes success and how the project’s success criteria

and factors can be applied continue to be debated.

The importance of project startup is clearly articulated in the literature (OGC 2009; PMI 2013c)

but this category earns very little attention in the literature (Figure 18). The trajectory of this

topic is flat (Table 19) so it is expected to continue at this low level in the future.

Of all the categories in this research, project evaluation generated the lowest number of

matches at 644 (Table 19) and shows a slight declining trend (Figure 19). This may be because

this topic has little interest to researchers or because its topics of evaluation and appraisal

(Table 10) are reported under the benefits topic and thereby reported in the strategic alignment

category. These results are contrary to those of Crawford et al (2006) who identified project

evaluation and improvement as an increasing trend. This difference may be explained by the

definition of the category which, for Crawford et al, included improvement, a topic included in a

different category in this study.

While most of the categories in this study are predicted to appear more frequently as a

percentage in the literature, these predictions must be seen again the background of

publications in this field. As Figure 1 shows, there was a peak of interest in project

management on the mid 2000s and this has been followed by a steady decline until 2014 when

the first reversal to the downward trend was seen. The validity of the predictions in this study

will be affected by the number of publications but, by using percentages rather than absolute

numbers, it is hoped that the projections will be shown to have validity.

Comparing the findings of this study with previous studies identified some similarities but also

differences. The different scope, focus and definitions of previous studies makes comparison

meaningless. It is certain that, as more literature is added to the online databases, researchers

define and redefine categories and topics for which to search and the field of project

340

management also changes and develops in the future, studies such as this will continue to

produce results which, although sometimes contradictory, do prove to be useful to researchers

and those interested in project management.

Conclusion

This paper has examined trends in the literature on project management. This research set out

with 7 aims, all of which were met.

A review of 15 publications looking at trends in project management was undertaken and their

findings were tabulated to show the source of their data and the scope of their research (aim 1).

It was noted how most of the previous studies had used relatively small datasets, frequently

based on project management specific journals. The most recent study by Pollack and Adler

(2015) had used a much larger dataset of 94,472 records. This paper has benefited from three

more years of publications and was able to construct a valid and tested dataset of 116,202

records from online sources (aim 3).

Previous research was used to identify categories and topics for study. 16 categories

comprised of 144 topics were used in the study (aim 2). Based on the characteristics of the

categories and topics a search function was successfully built in Microsoft Excel that allowed

the dataset to be queried (aim 4).

The search facility and dataset were used to identify the trends over the 50 years of data

available. Thirteen categories were highlighted as being likely to see an increase in

publications whereas the remaining 3 categories were expected to decline in publishing

frequency (aims 5 and 6).

In such a large dataset there is much information still to be gleaned. The potential for using the

topic as the unit of analysis, rather than the category offers the possibility to learn more about

the trends in project management. Anyone wishing to use the dataset is asked to contact the

lead author (aim 7).

Limitations

It was noted in the method section of this paper how the process of extraction, importing and

subsequent data manipulation have affected the quality of the study dataset. While data errors

have been uppermost in the researchers’ minds, a limitation in this study is the quality of the

dataset.

While the publications that appear in the dataset have been analysed and discussed, we must

also pause to consider the publications that are not indexed by the major online databases and

which are therefore excluded from our analysis. Examples of which the authors are aware

include the International Research Network on Organising by Projects (IRNOP) which holds a

bi-annual conference, the annual British Academy of Management (BAM) and the European

341

Academy of Management (EURAM) conferences. Over time, the number of publications

indexed online is likely to increase which will mean that future research studies of this type will

have a more complete view of the field of project management.

Almost all of the publications included in the dataset have been written in English. While a few

non-English documents are included, this study should be more properly termed the trends in

project management as reflected in English publications. To what extent the non-English

publications write about project management is unknown and this must be seen as both a

limitation of this study and also an opportunity for further study.

In the discussion on the project evaluation category, the potential for this study to incorrectly

categorise topics was mentioned. While the category and topic structure in Table 10 was based

on previous literature, it is clear that the allocation of topics to categories is not a definitive

activity. This study has presented a two level hierarchy of categories and topics but others may

view the field of project management differently based on their axiology and derive different

topological models. Analysing the data using a different model would produce different results

which means that another limitation of this study is the authors’ two tier project management

model.

Further research

This initial analysis of the study dataset has used pre-existing search terms to identify the trends

in project management. Given the availability of other techniques, as exemplified by the

scientometric approach of Pollack and Adler (2015) and the many tools available for corpus

analysis, it is planned to undertake further and less a priori analysis of the dataset in the future

and to publish the results and findings if they appear to add to the existing information on trends

in project management.

Many potential topic areas were identified in the literature review section of this paper. The

majority of these were grouped into categories and researched with the category as the level of

analysis. It would be possible to study each of the topics to determine individual trends and

whether the grouping into the category was a valid and helpful decision.

This analysis did not differentiate by industry or sector and assumed that project management is

the same regardless of where it is used. Given the long established use of project management

in some industries (such as engineering, construction and defence) and the more recent use in

other industries (for example software design) it would be fascinating to see how viewing the

dataset through the industry perspective, which would be achieved through a categorisation of

the publications, would change our understanding of the trends in project management. Such

research would build on the work already undertaken by Zobel and Wearne (2000), Kwak and

Anbari (2009) and Williams (2010).

an exploratory investigation into how project management

Documents