information technology project managers’ commitment …

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROJECT MANAGERS’

COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY

By

Grant Clinning

Dissertation

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

of

Magister Commercii

In

Information Technology Management

in the

Faculty of Management

at the

University of Johannesburg

Supervisor: Prof. Carl Marnewick

May 2016

ii

Declaration

I certify that the dissertation submitted by me for the degree Master’s of Commerce

(Information Technology Management) at the University of Johannesburg is my independent

work and has not been submitted by me for a degree at another university.

Grant Clinning

iii

Abstract

The concept of sustainability is becoming increasingly important in the face of dwindling

resources and increasing demand, boding ill for future generations. Despite this, there are still

many industries and disciplines in which sustainability is not actively addressed. The ability to

meet current and future needs is not an issue from which IT projects are exempt. Ensuring

sustainability requires managing sustainability in all activities. The field of IT and

sustainability is one in which literature is appearing, albeit at a slow pace and this leaves many

unanswered questions on, among other things, the state of sustainability in IT projects and the

commitment of IT project managers to sustainability. In not knowing what the state of

sustainability is, potential shortcomings remain unknown, and corrective action cannot be

taken.

This research focused on assessing the commitment of IT project managers to sustainability

and, by extension, the state of sustainability in IT projects.

The quantitative research methodology was followed through the use of a survey in the form

of a structured questionnaire. This research was cross-sectional as the focus was to assess the

state of sustainability at a single point in time. IT project managers were randomly sampled to

get an objective view of how committed they are to sustainability. This research made use of a

project management sustainability maturity model to measure the extent to which sustainability

is addressed in IT projects. Furthermore, the underlying structure of sustainability in project

management was assessed through the use of factor analysis in order to determine if it differed

for IT projects.

This research found that IT project managers are not committed to sustainability. While the

economic dimension showed the best results, they were not ideal; it is, however, the social and

environmental dimensions that require the most attention. This poor performance is not limited

to select aspects within each dimension as each dimension’s aspects are in a similarly poor

state. The results also indicate that the structure of sustainability in projects may not be static

and may differ between projects of different types.

This research suggests that sustainability needs to become a focus for IT project managers.

However, for this to happen, they need to recognise the importance of sustainability and acquire

the relevant knowledge. This research shows that as a means to address sustainability, projects

can be broken down into aspects according to the three dimensions of sustainability. Each

aspect can then be assessed to determine how the project is performing with regard to

sustainability, resulting in an actionable base from which to address sustainability.

Keywords: Sustainability, project management, IT project management, sustainability maturity

iv

Acknowledgements

I would like to take this opportunity to thank some very important people. Without their support and

encouragement I would not have completed this research endeavour.

Prof. Carl Marnewick, for the guidance he gave me, for the experience he shared with me

and for taking the time out of his busy schedule to meet with me regardless of whether I

had an appointment or not.

My mom Lizelle and my dad John who continually supported me throughout the process.

COPYRIGHT AND CITATION CONSIDERATIONS FOR THIS THESIS/ DISSERTATION

o Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if

changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that

suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

o NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.

o ShareAlike — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you must distribute your

contributions under the same license as the original.

How to cite this thesis

Surname, Initial(s). (2012) Title of the thesis or dissertation. PhD. (Chemistry)/ M.Sc. (Physics)/

M.A. (Philosophy)/M.Com. (Finance) etc. [Unpublished]: University of Johannesburg. Retrieved

from: https://ujcontent.uj.ac.za/vital/access/manager/Index?site_name=Research%20Output (Accessed:

Date).

http://www.uj.ac.za/

https://ujdigispace.uj.ac.za/

v

Contents

Chapter 1 - Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1

1.2 Research question ................................................................................................................... 1

1.3 Research goals ........................................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Research design and method ................................................................................................... 3

1.4.1 Research design............................................................................................................... 3

1.4.2 Research methods ........................................................................................................... 3

1.5 Study layout ............................................................................................................................ 4

1.5.1 Sections ........................................................................................................................... 4

1.5.2 Chapters .......................................................................................................................... 4

Chapter 2 - Literature review .................................................................................................................. 6

2.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Understanding sustainability ................................................................................................... 6

2.2.1 Economic dimension ....................................................................................................... 7

2.2.2 Social dimension ............................................................................................................. 7

2.2.3 Environmental dimension ............................................................................................... 7

2.2.4 Need for all three dimensions ......................................................................................... 8

2.2.5 Importance of sustainability ............................................................................................ 9

2.2.6 Stages of sustainability .................................................................................................. 12

2.2.7 Difficulties incorporating sustainability ........................................................................ 13

2.3 Understanding projects and project management ................................................................. 15

2.4 Linking projects to sustainability .......................................................................................... 16

2.4.1 Relating sustainability to projects ................................................................................. 16

2.4.2 Scope of sustainability in projects................................................................................. 18

2.4.3 The extent of including sustainability in projects ......................................................... 21

2.4.4 Sustainability as a requirement for success ................................................................... 24

2.5 Sustainability and IT projects ............................................................................................... 26

2.5.1 Definitions of IT and IS ................................................................................................ 26

2.5.2 Sustainability and IT ..................................................................................................... 27

2.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 29

Chapter 3 - Research methodology ....................................................................................................... 30

3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 30

3.2 The concept of research ........................................................................................................ 30

3.3 Research design .................................................................................................................... 31

vi

3.4 Research paradigms .............................................................................................................. 32

3.4.1 Quantitative methodology ............................................................................................. 33

3.4.2 Qualitative methodology ............................................................................................... 34

3.4.3 Qualitative and quantitative methodology comparison ................................................. 34

3.5 Design frame ......................................................................................................................... 35

3.5.1 Design frame selection .................................................................................................. 35

3.5.2 Time frame .................................................................................................................... 38

3.6 Study sample ......................................................................................................................... 39

3.6.1 Sampling techniques ..................................................................................................... 40

3.6.2 Sample size ................................................................................................................... 43

3.7 Data analysis ......................................................................................................................... 44

3.7.1 Data collection .............................................................................................................. 44

3.7.2 Data preparation ............................................................................................................ 45

3.7.3 Data analysis ................................................................................................................. 46

3.7.4 Interpretation and discussion ........................................................................................ 47

3.8 Models................................................................................................................................... 48

3.9 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 48

Chapter 4 - Data analysis and discussion .............................................................................................. 50

4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 50

4.2 Data analysis framework ....................................................................................................... 50

4.3 Data collection and preparation ............................................................................................ 50

4.3.1 Data editing ................................................................................................................... 51

4.3.2 Data coding and entry ................................................................................................... 51

4.4 Data analysis, interpretation and discussion ......................................................................... 51

4.4.1 Reliability and validity .................................................................................................. 51

4.4.2 Biographic and demographic characteristics ................................................................ 52

4.4.3 Perceived importance of the aspects of the sustainability definition ............................ 57

4.4.4 Overall perspective ....................................................................................................... 59

4.4.5 Three dimensions of sustainability................................................................................ 63

4.4.6 Factor analysis............................................................................................................... 76

4.4.7 SPM3 model .................................................................................................................. 83

4.5 Structure of sustainability ..................................................................................................... 86

4.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 88

Chapter 5 - Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 91

5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 91

vii

5.2 Overview ............................................................................................................................... 92

5.2.1 Chapter 2: literature review ........................................................................................... 92

5.2.2 Chapter 3: research methodology ................................................................................. 92

5.2.3 Chapter 4: data analysis and description ....................................................................... 93

5.3 Research goals and question ................................................................................................. 94

5.4 Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 95

5.5 Future research ...................................................................................................................... 96

5.6 Contribution .......................................................................................................................... 97

5.7 Final word ............................................................................................................................. 98

References ............................................................................................................................................. 99

Appendix A: Questionnaire ................................................................................................................ 114

viii

List of figures

Figure 1.1: Study layout ......................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 2.1: Three dimensions of sustainability ...................................................................................... 8

Figure 2.2: Relationship between the pillars of society and sustainability .......................................... 10

Figure 2.3: Sustainability stages .......................................................................................................... 12

Figure 2.4: Consideration of sustainability in the full scope of projects ............................................. 18

Figure 2.5: Four dimensions of sustainable projects............................................................................ 21

Figure 2.6: Conceptual model of the assessment ................................................................................. 23

Figure 2.7: Project success criteria ...................................................................................................... 25

Figure 2.8: Relationship between IS components ................................................................................ 27

Figure 3.1: Research recipe ................................................................................................................. 31

Figure 3.2: Data analysis framework ................................................................................................... 44

Figure 3.3: Study method ..................................................................................................................... 49

Figure 4.1: Gender distribution ............................................................................................................ 52

Figure 4.2: Age distribution ................................................................................................................. 54

Figure 4.3: Qualification distribution .................................................................................................. 54

Figure 4.4: Project type ........................................................................................................................ 55

Figure 4.5: Countries impacted ............................................................................................................ 56

Figure 4.6: Perceived importance of the aspects of sustainability ....................................................... 57

Figure 4.7: Breakdown of the perceived importance of the aspects of sustainability .......................... 58

Figure 4.8: Overall sustainability position ........................................................................................... 60

Figure 4.9: Sustainability position in strategy and project level groupings ......................................... 60

Figure 4.10: Organisational and project reporting comparison ........................................................... 61

Figure 4.11: Averages of economic dimension aspects ....................................................................... 63

Figure 4.12: Breakdown of economic dimension aspects .................................................................... 64

Figure 4.13: Averages of social dimension aspects ............................................................................. 66

Figure 4.14: Breakdown of social dimension aspects .......................................................................... 66

Figure 4.15: Social dimension three-way correlation .......................................................................... 70

Figure 4.16: Averages of environmental dimension aspects ............................................................... 70

Figure 4.17: Breakdown of environmental dimension aspects ............................................................ 71

Figure 4.18: Environmental dimension three-way correlation ............................................................ 74

Figure 4.19: Sustainability dimension averages .................................................................................. 74

Figure 4.20: Social dimension factor plot ............................................................................................ 78

Figure 4.21: Environmental dimension factor plot .............................................................................. 79

Figure 4.22: Three dimensions factor plot ........................................................................................... 83

Figure 4.23: SPM3 model .................................................................................................................... 85

Figure 4.24: Original sustainability structure ...................................................................................... 86

Figure 4.25: IT project sustainability structure .................................................................................... 87

ix

List of tables

Table 2.1: Contrast between sustainability and projects ...................................................................... 15

Table 2.2: Sustainability principles ...................................................................................................... 16

Table 2.3: Checklist for integrating sustainability in projects ............................................................. 21

Table 3.1: Positivism and interpretivism paradigms ............................................................................ 32

Table 3.2: Comparison between quantitative and qualitative methodology ........................................ 34

Table 3.3: Prevalent research designs .................................................................................................. 36

Table 3.4: Time frames ........................................................................................................................ 39

Table 3.5: Sampling techniques ........................................................................................................... 41

Table 4.1: Cronbach’s alpha ................................................................................................................ 52

Table 4.2: Job title and gender representation...................................................................................... 53

Table 4.3: Project industry segment ..................................................................................................... 55

Table 4.4: Project budget ..................................................................................................................... 57

Table 4.5: Cross-tabulation between organisation and project sustainability reporting ...................... 62

Table 4.6: Correlations between social aspects .................................................................................... 69

Table 4.7: Correlations between environmental aspects ...................................................................... 73

Table 4.8: Correlation between dimension aspects .............................................................................. 75

Table 4.9: Correlation between dimensions ......................................................................................... 76

Table 4.10: Economic dimension factor loadings ................................................................................ 77

Table 4.11: Social dimension factor loadings ...................................................................................... 77

Table 4.12: Environmental dimension factor loading .......................................................................... 79

Table 4.13: All sustainability aspects’ factor loadings on four factors ................................................ 80

Table 4.14: Sustainability aspects’ factor loadings on three factors .................................................... 81

Table 4.15: Revised sustainability aspects’ factor loadings on three factors ....................................... 82

x

Acronyms and abbreviations

CSR/I Corporate social responsibility/ investment

ICT Information and communication technology

IT Information technology

IS Information system

LC Life cycle

NPD New product development

OEF Organisation environmental footprint

PEF Product environmental footprint

PR Public relations

TBL Triple bottom line

1 Chapter 1 – Introduction

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1 Introduction

The ability of the present generation to meets its needs while still affording future generations

the same opportunity is the definition of sustainable development expressed in the Brundtland

Report by the World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). In recent years,

sustainability in general, but specifically from an organisational perspective, has come under

the spotlight as the resources that organisations rely on are no longer perceived as infinite

(Shao-lu, 2001; Azizi, 2005; Shafiee, 2009; Kendall & Willard, 2014). Sustainability is not

merely of environmental concern. Organisations jeopardise their social licence to operate by

failing to meet the needs of millions (Kendall & Willard, 2014; Pike, 2012). Kendall and

Willard (2014) also recognise the degradation of the ‘planetary services’ such as a stable

climate, access to materials as well as security of energy sources, which threaten the continuity

of organisations.

As is evident from the previous paragraph, sustainability consists of more than just the financial

viability of an organisation. Elkington (1997) identifies three elements of sustainability,

namely people, profit and planet. The implications for organisations are that they cannot simply

address financial profitability concerns. The people element encompasses the employees of the

organisation as well as the communities in which the organisation operates (Dempsey,

Bramley, Power and Brown, 2011; Dillard, Dujon and King, 2008). The planet element

encompasses the physical environment in which the organisation operates, including physical

resources required by the organisation. Without addressing all of these elements, the

organisation runs the risk of not being able to acquire resources, operate effectively or foster a

community to sustain its existence.

Additionally, organisations which fail to innovate and develop lose their competitiveness and

risk their sustainability (Hartman, 2001). The sustainability of an organisation is typically

ensured through the implementation of projects when those projects are aligned with the

strategies of the organisation (Keeys, 2014). This requirement places a large responsibility on

the project management capabilities of an organisation to ensure that not only the financial

sustainability of the organisation is considered, but also the sustainability of the planet and its

people. Silvius and Schipper (2014b) as well as Wang, Wei and Sun (2013) maintain that

project managers are in a position to significantly impact how sustainability is implemented

within the organisation. Gareis, Huemann and Martinuzzi (2013) recognise that the

management paradigm has shifted from viewing sustainability as an optionality to now being

concerned with sustainable development.

1.2 Research question

It is clear that projects play a crucial role in enabling organisations to operate in a sustainable

fashion. Projects are even described as temporary organisations so they too ought to include an

element of sustainability (Silvius, Schipper, Planko, Van den Brink and Köhler, 2012). There

is, however, a paucity of literature on the topic of project management and the link to


sustainability (Gareis, Huemann and Martinuzzi, 2009). Unsustainable practices will continue

as long as this topic remains unfamiliar to the parties involved, which emphasises the

importance of research in this field. According to Marnewick (2015), literature regarding

sustainability and project management is appearing but at a slow pace. The existing body of

literature is confined mainly to construction and is scant as far as the African continent is

concerned.

Another trait of the existing literature regarding sustainability and project management is that

it is considered to be interpretive (Silvius et al., 2012; Silvius & Nedeski, 2014) and conceptual

(Martens & De Carvalho, 2014). A lack of empirical research in this regard is recognised by

Martens and De Carvalho (2014) and described as necessary to develop an understanding of

how sustainability concepts can be implemented within project management.

The state of sustainability in information technology (IT) project management is unknown.

This creates the problem that what is lacking is unknown when it comes to addressing

sustainability in IT project management. In not knowing what is lacking, what needs to be done

or where a start can be made to overcome potential failings is also not known. In addition to

this, the apparent void in research regarding sustainability in IT projects hinders an

understanding and ability to apply sustainability concepts in project management (Ugwu &

Haupt, 2007; Edum-Fotwe & Price, 2009; Herazo, Lizarralde and Paquin, 2012; Martens & De

Carvalho, 2014). This void is even more apparent in the context of the African continent

specifically (Hedman & Henningsson, 2011; Herazo et al., 2012; Silvius & Nedeski, 2014). To

address these concerns, the following research question was investigated:

To what extent are IT project managers committed to sustainability?

1.3 Research goals

The aim of this research was to determine the state of sustainability in project management,

specifically IT project management, by assessing the commitment of IT project managers to

sustainability. Several themes were explored: (i) understanding sustainability within the

context of IT project management, (ii) measuring sustainability in IT projects and (iii) assessing

the structure of sustainability in IT projects. To this end, the following research goals were

formulated:

Assess the notion of sustainability within projects, more specifically IT projects,

through the critical evaluation of the literature pertaining to this topic. In order to

understand the area of research as well as to avoid reinventing the wheel, it was

necessary to review the relevant literature. Reviewing the relevant literature also

covered the outcomes of other research that could be used in this research.

Examine and discuss the concept of research in order to discern an appropriate research

method for this study. To ensure that research is not conducted in a haphazard manner,

a plan must be followed. Following a plan ensures that due diligence is taken, which

greatly increases the reliability and validity of the research.


Analyse, interpret and discuss the data collected for the purpose of assessing the

commitment of IT project managers to sustainability. Research that does not add new

knowledge is of no consequence. Analysing data provides information. That

information, together with a discussion, provides insight into the research area and

generates new knowledge.

In order to achieve these goals, an appropriate research method was employed as discussed in

the next section.

1.4 Research design and method

This section outlines the research design and methods employed.

1.4.1 Research design

The quantitative research methodology is the approach that was followed. This methodology

lends itself to the positivist paradigm and allows for objective research to be carried out

(Thomas, 2013:116). As this research made use of various statistical techniques, it was

important that the data be in the form of numbers.

The design frame employed was a survey. A survey allows for the collection of a large number

of responses with relative ease and few constraints. It also allows for the collection of data on

a large number of variables, which was important for this research. The particular method used

was a questionnaire. Refer to appendix A for the full questionnaire. This method facilitates data

collection in a standardised and numerical form which conforms to the methodology followed

(Thomas, 2013:207). The survey is used in conjunction with the sustainable project

management maturity model (SPM3), which forms the basis of this study.

This research made use of a cross-sectional studies time frame. A cross-sectional study looks

at studying a sample or samples at a single point in time. This time frame can be described as

a snapshot. This was appropriate in this study as the research aimed to portray the current

commitment of IT project managers to sustainability.

This research was based on the idea that by being able to assess the commitment of IT project

managers to sustainability, the state of sustainability in IT projects could be determined. As

such, IT project managers were randomly sampled to get an objective view of how

sustainability in IT projects is addressed. The questionnaire used was in line with a

sustainability measurement model to allow for the measurement of sustainability in IT projects.

1.4.2 Research methods

As mentioned above, the research method used was a questionnaire distributed randomly to IT

project managers. A questionnaire was used as it is the most convenient survey tool that still

allows for the necessary data to be gathered from a sufficient number of respondents. An

important aspect of this research is the large number of variables that were assessed, which was

achievable using the questionnaire. A questionnaire was therefore the most suitable method for

this study.


The questionnaire comprised primarily closed questions, which goes hand-in-hand with the

measurement model used. The majority of the questions also resulted in numerical answers,

which conforms to the quantitative methodology followed in this study, as well as the statistical

analyses performed.

1.5 Study layout

This study comprises five chapters distributed over four sections. Figure 1.1 illustrates the

layout of this study.

Figure 1.1: Study layout

1.5.1 Sections

Section 1 outlines the research problem and background. This section provides the context in

which this study took place. Section 2 covers the various research methods employed in this

study, as well as the data analysis process. Section 3 deals with the results of the data collected,

including the statistical techniques used and discussion of the resulting information. Section 4

concludes the study with a summary of each chapter and the research outcomes.

1.5.2 Chapters

Chapter 1: Introduction

The first chapter introduces the research background, research goals as well as the research

methods employed. This chapter begins to address the first research goal, which is to assess

the notion of sustainability within IT projects.


Chapter 2: Literature review

The second chapter is dedicated entirely to the first research goal and picks up where chapter

1 left off. The literature review completes the research background. This chapter starts off by

focusing on the concept of sustainability. This is then followed by the concept of projects and

the relevance of sustainability in projects. Finally, the chapter ends with sustainability and IT

projects.

Chapter 3: Research methodology

The third chapter deals with the second research goal of discerning an appropriate research

method. The research methodology employed in this study is explained in further detail. The

approach followed by the researcher is discussed, including the design frame, time frame, data-

gathering method and data analysis process used.

Chapter 4: Data analysis and discussion

The fourth chapter concerns the third research goal of assessing the commitment of IT project

managers to sustainability through the analysis, interpretation and discussion of the collected

data. The results of this chapter provide the insight needed to answer the research question.

Chapter 5: Conclusion

In the final chapter the contents of this study are summarised and the research question and

goals are revisited to determine the outcome of the research question. The limitations of this

study, the possibility for future research and the contributions made by this research are then

highlighted.

The next chapter presents a literature review pertaining to sustainability and project

management.

6 Chapter 2 – Literature review

Chapter 2 - Literature review

2.1 Introduction

Thomas (2013:57) notes that the work done by a researcher exists within the context of what

is already known. Researchers needs to be aware of the context in which they are conducting

the research. This requires the researcher to review work already done in the field. In carrying

out a literature review, researchers can narrow the research idea as well as avoid reinventing

the wheel. The goal of this chapter is to:

Assess the notion of sustainability within projects, more specifically IT projects,

through the critical evaluation of the literature pertaining to this topic.

For the purpose of achieving the aforementioned goal, the following objectives have been

formulated:

1. To explore and build an understanding of sustainability, including its dimensions and

importance, as well as the problems with incorporating sustainability into organisations.

2. To understand projects and project management.

3. To explore the relationship between IT projects and sustainability.

4. To determine how sustainability is measured within projects.

The structure for the chapter is as follows: section 2.2 builds an understanding of sustainability

as well as its importance and the difficulties with incorporating sustainability. Section 2.3 deals

with the concepts of projects and project management. In section 2.4 the relationship between

projects and sustainability is explored. The relationship between IT projects and sustainability

is discussed in section 2.5.

2.2 Understanding sustainability

According to Toman (2006), the term ‘sustainability’ is inherently ambiguous. It can be

understood as preserving and maintaining ecological systems from the perspective of

ecologists, or maintaining or improving living standards from the perspective of economists

(Toman, 2006). Sustainability is also defined as operating in a manner that may be sustained

indefinitely, to generate without depleting or destroying necessary resources (Silvius et al.,

2012). Different perspectives allow for different interpretations, which can make understanding

sustainability more difficult. According to Keeys (2014) as well as Silvius and Schipper

(2014a), the definition that is most commonly accepted is that of the Brundtland Report. The

definition reads as follows: “sustainable development is development that meets the needs of

the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”

(World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987).

The term ‘sustainable development’ is considered to be a synonym for sustainability

(Seghezzo, 2009). A distinction can however be made between sustainability and sustainable

development. Sustainability is the state of balance between current and future needs while


sustainable development, is undertaking activities for the purpose of, as well as in such a

manner so as to ensure sustainability (Gareis, Huemann and Martinuzzi, 2013).

The definition provided in the Brundtland Report is abstract, and thus not confined to a single

interpretation of sustainability and therefore applicable to all interpretations. The two core

themes encapsulated in this definition are as follows:

To meet the needs of the current generation.

To afford future generations the opportunity to meet their needs.

Sustainability is thus ensuring that the actions taken today do not affect future generations in

an adverse way. Sustainability, according to the Brundtland Report, is concerned with three

dimensions, namely people, profit and planet (World Commission on Environment and

Development, 1987). Elkington (1997) identifies sustainability and its dimensions (people,

profit and planet) as the triple bottom line (TBL) or Triple-P. The dimensions of sustainability

are more commonly known as the social, economic and environmental dimensions (World

Commission on Environment and Development, 1987; Dillard et al., 2008). The dimensions of

sustainability as well as the relationship between them are discussed in the next section.

2.2.1 Economic dimension

Maximising profit, reducing costs, growing revenue and improving quality are considered to

be some of the traditional business imperatives (Holme & Watts, 1999; Thomas & Lamm,

2012). The primary goal of an organisation could be stated as generating wealth for its owners,

namely the shareholders. Martens and De Carvalho (2014) recognise the importance of the

economic dimension as it protects the capital of the organisation’s investors. The goods and

services by which we live are considered by some as a by-product of the expectation to make

money (Dillard, 1987). Since moving away from a goods bartering system to a money-based

economy, organisations and individuals require money to obtain the resources they need and

want from others (Handy, 2002; Weatherfoord, 1997:107). Apart from those who are self-

reliant, for example subsistence farmers, money is a necessity for sustaining our way of life.

2.2.2 Social dimension

The social dimension refers to humanity. The communities in which organisations operate as

well as the employees of an organisation are encapsulated by this dimension (Dempsey et al.,

2011; Dillard et al, 2008). Organisations do not operate by themselves or in isolation. They

must take cognisance of the communities in which they operate and of their employees. The

employees are said to be the most valuable asset of an organisation (Brummet, Flamholtz and

Pyle, 1968; Kaplan & Norton, 2001). Employees are the ones who generate the results of the

organisation and should be cherished by the organisation. The results of the organisation are

also dependent on how the community supports the organisation (customer base). Prescott-

Allen (2001) outlines social well-being as the fulfilment of basic needs as well as the exercise

of social, economic and political freedoms.

The extent to which employees and communities can support organisations before they are

exploited is overlooked (Aronson & Neysmith, 1996; Pines & Meyer, 2005). It is evident that


the well-being of employees and communities is treated as secondary to the objectives of

organisations. Utilising communities and employees for organisational success while not

exploiting them is the balance espoused by the concept of the social dimension.

2.2.3 Environmental dimension

This dimension is concerned with the environment which people inhabit. Sustainability has

largely become linked to the preservation of the environment and the failings of humanity to

date in preserving it (Gore, 2006; Higgins, 2010). It is evident from the literature that the planet

has been negatively impacted by the activities of the human race (Douthwaite, 1993; Gore,

2006; Higgins, 2010; Ludwig, Hilborn and Walters, 1993). Gore (2006) describes how the

world’s environment has deteriorated and is continuing down that path. As early as 1993 it was

conceived that the pursuit of economic goals has led to the degradation of the environment

which sustains humankind and will continue to do so (Douthwaite, 1993).

Climate change as a result of global warming has led to a variety of hardships, such as severely

reduced crop yield (famine), flooding, rising sea level, potable water scarcity, drought, climate

refugees and political instability, which are only some of the resulting problems (Gore, 2006).

These problems have been deemed to be the ‘cost of carbon’ and threaten the sustainability of

current practices (Gore, 2006).

2.2.4 Need for all three dimensions

The TBL concept proposes a balance between the dimensions of sustainability (Elkington,

1997). It has become widely accepted that the wise use of natural resources, social well-being

and economic growth cannot be achieved without considering all of the dimensions and their

effect on each other (Keating, 1993). The dimensions and their relationship can be seen in

figure 2.1. The Venn diagram clearly highlights that only when there is a balance between all

three dimensions is sustainability achieved (Neudorff, 2014; Silvius et al., 2012).

Figure 2.1: Three dimensions of sustainability (Neudorff, 2014)

According to Rosen and Kishawy (2012), the intersections denoted in figure 2.1 (bearable,

equitable and viable) have the following meanings:


Bearable entails the protection of the environment and natural resources on a local,

regional and global scale.

Equitable comprises corporate social responsibility, fair trade, worker protection as

well as business ethics.

Viable requires subsidies/incentives and taxes/penalties to promote efficient,

environmental stewardship.

King III, a corporate governance framework in South Africa, stresses that the board of directors

should ensure that the organisational strategy results in sustainable outcomes with regard to

people, profit and planet (Institute of Directors Southern Africa, 2009). The Johannesburg

Stock Exchange (JSE) instructs companies listed with it to report on the triple bottom line

(Sonnenberg & Hamann, 2006). According to King III, reporting solely on the financial

performance of an organisation is no longer sufficient. The Organisation for Economic Co-

operation and Development (OECD), within its guidelines, expresses that responsible business

conduct should include consideration of employment and human relations, human rights and

environmental protection (Clarke & Branson, 2012:595).

2.2.5 Importance of sustainability

In the following section the importance of sustainability is explored. Due to the scope of this

research, this section focuses on how sustainability impacts on organisations (businesses) and

the importance of sustainability in the context of organisations. The importance of

sustainability in government and civil society should not, however, be underestimated.

Together, organisations, government and civil society make up the three pillars of society

(Wartick & Wood (1998), cited in Labuschagne & Brent, 2005).

The organisations referred to above follow the definition provided by Kilby (2006:952), which

states that organisations are independent self-governed bodies, voluntary in nature, may engage

with supporters and constituencies for the purpose of values or some shared interest or concern,

and have the purpose of creating public benefit. Governments are defined as the structures and

processes in societies which have recognised authority to make and apply policies to govern

these societies (Kuye, Ogundele and Alaneme, 2013). The definition of society used for the

purpose of this research is a community of people residing in a particular region or country and

having shared laws, customs and organisations (Society Oxford English Dictionary, 2010). The

relationship between the dimensions of sustainability and between business, government and

society is symbiotic (Kuye et al., 2013). Just as all three dimensions of sustainability are

necessary for sustainability, so are the three aspects that make up the pillars of society.

Figure 2.2 reflects the relationship between sustainability and the pillars of society.

Sustainability within each pillar is important for its own sake, but also to sustain the system

that supports the way we live. In every civilisation, throughout history, the pillars of society

have existed in some form or another (Kuye et al., 2013). Should one of the pillars disappear

(fail to be sustained), the system as a whole would disappear. Kuye et al. (2013) propose that

the impact reaches further than simply sustaining the system, as without one of the pillars it is

not just the system that will cease to exist, but all the pillars as well.


Figure 2.2: Relationship between the pillars of society and sustainability

Generating profit is recognised as one of the primary imperatives of an organisation (Holme &

Watts, 1999; Thomas & Lamm, 2012). Non-profit organisations, on the other hand, do not have

the goal of generating profit, but they do share a common goal with their monetary focused

counterparts. This goal is continued existence (Dedhia, 1995). Regardless of whether the

organisation is a non-profit or not, they all require money (Handy, 2002).

Money is necessary for organisations to cover their operating costs and, where relevant, to pay

dividends to the shareholders. Profits are also reinvested into the organisation to ensure that

the organisation achieves growth (Seidman, 2003). Growth enables an organisation to compete

with its rivals through innovation and investing in new solutions, thus sustaining its existence

(Klitgaard & Krall, 2012; Weitzel & Jonsson, 1989). Hopkins (2009) as well as Martens and

De Carvalho (2014) are of the opinion that direct benefits, especially from the economic

perspective, can be obtained from acting in a sustainable manner. Hopkins (2009) notes that by

operating in a sustainable fashion, organisations can reduce their operating costs, which has a

direct impact on the financial bottom line. The use of more energy-efficient technologies and

methods is one aspect of sustainable operations that provides real economic benefit for

organisations.

For organisations, the environment provides an important infrastructure and source of

resources which need to be preserved to ensure continuity of operations (Turner, Pearce and

Bateman, 1994). The support provided by the natural environment, termed planetary services

by Kendall and Willard (2014), is necessary for the operation of most organisations. Many

organisations rely on the natural resources found throughout the world. As these resources

dwindle, organisations find it more and more difficult to continue their operations (World

Economic Forum, 2015). Not considering the sustainability of the environment has a negative

impact on organisations and affects the profits realised (World Economic Forum, 2015).


According to the concept of supply and demand, when supply cannot meet demand, the price

increases (Trostle, 2010). The impact on business is increased operating costs as the sourcing

of materials becomes more costly. A point may conceivably be reached where it is not viable

for the organisation to acquire the materials it needs.

The argument could be made that sustainability is not important to all organisations as there

are organisations which do not rely on natural resources. Banks, universities and consulting

firms are but a few of these organisations. These industries could be considered to be relatively

clean as their environmental burden in term of energy use, water and paper usage is not

comparable to many other sectors (Jeucken & Bouma, 1999). Jeucken and Bouma (1999) make

the point that one banking firm is insignificant but the whole banking sector is large enough to

have a significant environmental impact. In addition to energy, water and paper usage, the

business travel per employee, CO2 emissions per employee as well as the number of computers

per employee per year could also be considered when assessing the environmental impact

(Jeucken & Bouma, 1999).

The implication for the organisation if employees are not looked after can be devastating

(Chuang & Liao, 2010). Organisations must also look after the communities in which they

operate. Organisations which create pollution harm the environment and such harm may also

extend to communities in that environment. Chemical dumping has been found to impact on

communities living in the area, with many of the inhabitants developing ill health symptoms

caused by such chemicals (Dayal, Gupta, Trieff, Maierson and Reich, 1995). A similar

argument to the one made previously can be made for organisations which are considered

environmentally clean. The same counterargument can be used, that even though these

organisations may only have a small impact, in greater numbers the impact can be significant.

In the case of financial institutions in the United States of America, they can be held

accountable for the environmental damage caused by other organisations if the bank is

considered to be an operator or owner of such an organisation (Gobert & Poitevin, 1998).

In China, there is currently pollution on such a scale that it affects the living conditions of its

people (Yong, 2001; Zhang & Smith, 2007). Breathing is reported as being a risk to children

(Wong, 2013). Pollution has reached such an extent that children are not allowed to play outside

and schools are being chosen based on whether they have air filtration systems (Wong, 2013).

Such a poor quality environment threatens the lives of the people living there, which in turn

threatens organisations. Even operations that do not have such a negative impact on the

community can hurt the business drastically. The organisation’s reputation can be considered

to be its most valuable long-term asset (Alsop, 2006). According to Minor and Morgan (2011),

the competitive advantage of an organisation lies in its reputation. Organisations which impact

negatively on the community in which they operate can hurt their reputation and they can lose

customers to more reputable organisations. Those which recognise the importance of people

often engage in corporate social responsibility/investment (CSR/I) initiatives. These initiatives

are organisational actions taken to improve the quality of life of employees as well as for

society at large, while still ensuring economic development (Holme & Watts, 1999; World

Business Council for Sustainable Development, nd). A study done by Park and Pavlovsky


(2010) found that of the companies that engage in these social initiatives, the focus is on

improving working conditions. The study also found that community-oriented efforts are made.

These initiatives are not limited to social engagements and may have an environmental focus.

According to Minor and Morgan (2011), engaging in CSR can act as insurance towards

maintaining an organisation’s reputation.

The importance of sustainability for organisational continuity also has a legal basis. Numerous

countries, including South Africa, have a regulatory framework in place to ensure that

organisations meet certain sustainable objectives (Eisma, Christie and Hershman, 2005; Patlis,

2005; Holmes-Watts & Watts, 2008). Willard (2005) categorises organisations into one of five

stages of sustainability, as described in the next section.

2.2.6 Stages of sustainability

Community pressure and legal regulations have stimulated the acceptance of responsibility for

sustainability in many organisations (Silvius et al., 2012). This acceptance is described by

Willard (2005) as being at one of the five sustainability stages. Figure 2.3 provides an

adaptation of the sustainability stages. The first two stages, pre-compliance and compliance,

indicate whether the organisation fails to meet the social and environmental regulations or

whether it complies with the regulations and no more, respectively. Organisations which do

not comply with regulations face the threat of fines, removal of licences and legal action

(Schaltegger & Burritt, 2010).

Figure 2.3: Sustainability stages (adapted from Willard, 2005)

Stage 1 Pre-compliance: At stage 1 the organisation feels that the only obligation it has

is to achieve profits. Cutting corners and breaking the law are tactics used in the pursuit

of profit. Sustainability is ignored and the organisation may actively fight against

regulations that are imposed on it.

Stage 2 Compliance: At stage 2 the organisation reduces its liabilities by complying

with regulations. It only does what it has to legally and treats social and environmental

actions as costs.


Stage 3 Beyond compliance: Organisations at stage 3 and higher take a proactive

approach to sustainability. They realise that they can save on expenses by increasing

efficiencies, handling waste better and using cleaner processes. They also participate in

social and environmental investments as a way of reducing uncertainty. Sustainability

is adopted within organisations but it is still only marginal.

Stage 4 Integrated strategy: At the third stage sustainability is viewed as an add-on that

can have certain benefits for the organisation. At the fourth stage sustainability is

integrated with the organisation’s strategy. Sustainability is seen as an investment and

opportunity that can lead to competitive advantages.

Stage 5 Purpose and passion: Organisations at stage 5 are passionate about

sustainability and it becomes a driver for decisions that the organisation makes.

Organisations at this stage are committed to improving the world in which they operate.

The stage at which an organisation is at is important, as it will determine what sustainable

endeavours the organisation is likely to engage in. It is only at stage 3 that the organisation will

look to actively include sustainability in its operations. The extent of this inclusion may only

be as far as to implement some CSR initiatives which do not represent a meaningful

contribution (Smith & Sharicz, 2011). At stages 4 and 5 there is a significant adoption of

sustainable thinking, which may result in the inclusion of sustainable principles in the projects

that an organisation undertakes.

The sustainability stages reinforce the notion that sustainability is linked to an organisation’s

governance structure. Alänge and Steiber (2009) as well as Willard (2005) maintain that the

inclusion of sustainability within an organisation relies on the top executives and managers, as

they have the authority to make decisions. Oram (2010) regards sustainability as an ethical

principle that needs to be considered by organisations. Schwartz, Dunfee and Kline (2005)

claim that it is the directors of an organisation who have overall responsibility for the ethics of

the organisation, as well as for setting the tone.

2.2.7 Difficulties incorporating sustainability

In spite of the apparent importance of sustainability for organisations, there are issues regarding

how it is incorporated, if at all. The TBL concept advocates a balance between the dimensions

of sustainability, but organisations value profit above the other two aspects, resulting in the

social and environmental dimensions being neglected (Labuschagne, Brent and Van Erck,

2005; Edum-Fotwe & Price, 2009; Singh, Murty, Gupta and Dikshit, 2009; Smith & Sharicz,

2011; Ullah, Lai and Marjoribanks, 2013; Martens & De Carvalho, 2014). These authors also

note that the social dimension is the one most often neglected.

According to Nidumolu, Prahalad and Rangaswami (2009), there are many organisations which

neglect the social and environmental dimensions of sustainability, as they are under the

impression that efforts in this regard will erode the competitiveness of the organisation. The

justification is that catering for these dimensions will require funding that will not produce

immediate benefits of a financial nature. This implies that the future benefits achieved from

http://0-www.emeraldinsight.com.ujlink.uj.ac.za/action/doSearch?ContribStored=Steiber%2C+A


acting sustainably are not perceived to be as important as the immediate benefits which can be

achieved by not acting sustainably.

A portion of the reduction of the application of sustainable initiatives can be attributed to CSR

projects being implemented for the wrong reasons. CSR projects have been used as public

relations (PR) ‘stunts or exercises’ by several organisations (Frankental, 2001; Strategic

Directions, 2002; Kim, 2014). A study conducted on the McDonald’s franchise found that the

CSR initiatives that were implemented were little more than PR stunts which did not result in

significant sustainable developments (Strategic Directions, 2002). Smith and Sharicz (2011)

identify other factors for why CSR initiatives fail to address the sustainability responsibilities

of organisations. One such factor is that CSR is an ill-defined concept which has led to

conflicting interpretations and implementations (Smith & Sharicz, 2011). The lack of a

definition results in unclear guidelines for how CSR should be adopted. Organisations end up

using their own guidelines and mechanisms to manage CSR. Measuring CSR performance then

becomes problematic, as it is impossible to draw valid conclusions between the data produced

and the differing measuring mechanisms used (Smith & Sharicz, 2011). Smith and Sharicz

(2011) state that even when organisations engage in sustainable endeavours such as CSR, it

only constitutes a marginal activity at best.

According to Kendall and Willard (2014), the biggest contributor to the failings of

organisations’ sustainable performance is the gap between awareness and action. The authors

report that the majority of business leaders recognise the need for sustainability, but

underestimate what needs to be done. This in turn leads to a gap between current performance

and the performance required with regard to sustainability.

Alänge and Steiber (2009) attribute the difficulties of implementing sustainability to the

governance structure of an organisation. How sustainability is implemented within an

organisation depends on the understanding and orientation of the board. Top management

needs to have the correct understanding of sustainability, which ties into the ‘awareness and

action’ that was mentioned by Kendall and Willard (2014). Alänge and Steiber (2009) also note

that even if top management understands and supports sustainability, eventually this sentiment

changes. There is a risk that with the inevitable change of management, this understanding and

support of sustainability may not be reflected in the direction given by new management.

Including sustainability in organisations can also be considered at project level, but inherent

problems are still present. According to Gareis et al. (2013:11), projects that include sustainable

development principles, termed sustainable development projects, are not necessarily

integrated into the business processes as they may not be within the focus of the companies’

activities. This implies that sustainable development projects are not an integral part of the

organisation’s operations and therefore the first to get cancelled during economic hardship.

Wanger (2007) notes that to receive performance benefits from sustainability, it needs to be

integrated into the core functions and processes of the organisation. Sustainability is even being

linked to company performance by some researchers (Orlitzky, Schmidt and Rynes, 2003).




The next section concerns the second objective, which is to understand projects and project

management.

2.3 Understanding projects and project management

The Project Management Institute (PMI) (2013) describes a project as an activity that has the

following characteristics: (i) projects are temporary in that they have a defined start and end,

(ii) projects are unique in that they are not routine operations, and (iii) projects are undertaken

by an individual or group of people. Projects are also described as temporary organisations

which contribute to the continued existence of the organisation (Marnewick, 2015; Silvius et

al., 2012). As a temporary organisation, a project itself should include sustainability principles

(Silvius et al., 2012).

The importance of projects cannot be understated. Organisational stagnation is recognised by

Weitzel and Jonsson (1989) as a source of organisational decline which impacts on the

sustainability of organisations. Lacking the ability to adjust as markets dictate can lead to the

liquidation of an organisation. Silvius et al. (2012) recognise projects as the mechanism to

deliver change to organisations. Nearly all organisations implement projects which serve as

instruments of change, enabling these organisations to pursue their goals and sustain their

existence (Silvius et al., 2012). Turner, Huemann, Anbari and Bredillet (2010) estimate that

approximately 30% of economic activities worldwide are initiated through projects.

Project management is described as applying skills, knowledge and techniques in order to

execute projects efficiently and effectively (Project Management Institute, 2013). Project

management is recognised as a strategic competency that facilitates project results, which in

turn leads to the achievement of business goals (Project Management Institute, 2013).

The importance of both projects and sustainability in organisations is echoed by numerous

authors, yet projects and sustainability may represent differing perspectives (Gareis et al., 2013;

Silvius et al., 2012). The characteristics and nature of projects and sustainable development

can lead to the conclusion that they are not ‘natural friends’ or best suited to go together (Silvius

et al., 2012). Table 2.1 shows the contrast between the nature of projects and sustainability.

Table 2.1: Contrast between sustainability and projects (Silvius et al., 2012)

Sustainable Development Project Management

Both long-term and short-term oriented Short-term oriented

The interests of the current and future

generation are taken into account

The interests of the stakeholders/sponsor are

taken into account

Life cycle oriented Deliverable/result oriented

Concerned with economic, social and

environmental elements

Concerned with scope, time and budget

Increasing complexity Reduced complexity

The contrasting nature of projects and sustainability may be perceived to indicate that projects

and sustainability do not go hand-in-hand. While this may be the case, it does not mitigate the


need for sustainability within projects. The next section deals with the link between projects

and sustainability.

2.4 Linking projects to sustainability

The connection between projects and sustainability is now discussed.

2.4.1 Relating sustainability to projects

“The need to integrate sustainability in project management has emerged” (Martens & De

Carvalho, 2014). The field of sustainability integrated with project management is considered

to still be an emerging field and as such there is a paucity of research. McKinlay (2008)

describes the future of project management as connected to sustainability. According to Gareis

et al. (2013:11), sustainability principles are considered in specific project types. These types

include public, engineering and construction projects. Gareis et al. (2013:11) identify several

studies that focus on each of the aforementioned industries with regard to sustainability and

projects.

Gareis et al. (2013:7) point out that sustainability is relevant not only to societies and

organisations, but also projects. As society moves towards a more sustainable orientation, it

requires the implementation of effective projects in order to realise this change (Silvius et al.,

2012).

Gareis et al. (2013:7-9) note that sustainability has been considered at strategic level, but

operational levels, including projects and programmes, have yet to receive focus. There are

many organisations which have embraced sustainability as a fundamental aspect of doing

business (Silvius et al., 2012). This embracing of sustainability orientates the business context

of projects to address sustainability. This includes the way that projects are managed and

executed with regard to sustainability.

The relationship that has been identified between sustainability and project management has

been gaining recognition and interest among academics and professionals (Silvius, Schipper

and Nedeski, 2013). Sustainability and project management have been the focus in a multitude

of studies but the relationship between and intersection of the two constructs have been

addressed in only a few studies (Martens & De Carvalho, 2014). These authors do note that

there are studies in progress on the intersection, but considerable additional research is needed

in order to develop project management techniques, tools and methodologies relevant to

sustainability.

Silvius et al. (2012) describe six principles of sustainability that have an implication

specifically for projects and project management. The principles as well as their accompanying

descriptions can be seen in table 2.2 (Silvius et al., 2012).


Table 2.2: Sustainability principles

Number Sustainability Principle Description

1 Sustainability is about

balancing or harmonising

environmental, social and

economic interests.

In accordance with the TBL concept of

sustainability, the integration of sustainability in

projects and project management requires that all

three dimensions of sustainability are considered.


both short-term and long-

term orientation.

The definition of sustainability identifies both the

short- and long-term orientation of sustainability.

Projects, however, have a short-term orientation. As

noted above, Gareis et al. (2013:74) state that the

boundaries of project management may end up being

expanded, which may allow for the inclusion of a

long-term orientation.


local and global

orientation.

The business world is increasingly becoming more

global. The impact that projects may have on

communities and environments is no longer confined

to those found locally. Project teams, suppliers and

beneficiaries of projects may exist across several

countries for the same project.


consuming income, not

capital.

Meeting the needs of the present without

compromising on the future generation’s ability to

meet their needs requires that resources not be

exhausted. There are several resources utilised in

projects such as people and raw materials. While a

project is temporary, there will be future projects

that may rely on the same resources.


transparency and

accountability.

The accountability for the economic aspect of a

project is clearly presented in project management.

Sustainability requires that the environmental and

social aspects also be accounted for. The project

manager controls the flow of information, most often

with the goal to influence or manipulate the

perceptions that stakeholders have about a project.

Sustainability requires the expansion of stakeholders

to include the social and environmental aspects with

more transparency.


personal values and

ethics.

Sustainability is regarded by some as an ethical

decision which ultimately comes down to the values

and beliefs of those involved in a project. Project

managers can refer to codes of ethics and

professional conduct to determine the professional

ethics and values they should subscribe to. The PMI

code of ethics and professional conduct states that

the decisions and actions taken by project managers

are based on the best interests of society, public

safety and the environment. There is a clear

connection between ethics and professional conduct

with the concepts of sustainability.


In light of these principles Silvius et al. (2012) provide their own definition of sustainability in

projects and project management:

“Sustainability in projects and project management is the management, development and

delivery of project-organised change in, processes, resources, policies, assets or

organisations, with consideration of the six principles of sustainability, in the project, its

results and its effects.”

The next section deals with the aspects constituting a project and the implication of

sustainability on them.

2.4.2 Scope of sustainability in projects

Applying sustainability in projects and project management requires that the scope or system

boundaries of project management be discussed (Silvius et al., 2012:35). Silvius et al. (2012)

note that there is debate amongst researchers and practitioners about what should be considered

to be in scope. The remainder of this section focuses on the differing views on which processes

are in scope for considering sustainability within projects. Figure 2.4 illustrates the

consideration of sustainability in the full scope of projects.

Figure 2.4: Consideration of sustainability in the full scope of projects (adapted from Silvius

et al., 2012)

The differing perspectives of scope when considering sustainability, discussed in the following

sections, refer to the processes illustrated in figure 2.4. The successive scope perspectives build

on the previous perspectives in that they include the processes discussed in the previous

perspectives.


2.4.2.1 Scope of considering sustainability in the project management process

The SustPM1 research project considers the scope of including sustainability in projects as

being limited to the project management processes and methods (Gareis et al., 2009). Including

sustainability within the project management processes is promoted by Gareis et al. (2009), as

they suspect that this will support the achievement of sustainable project results. The temporary

nature of projects causes the project management process to be overlooked by organisations in

striving to achieve a more sustainable business, requiring that the project management process

receive more appreciative consideration (Silvius et al., 2012).

Project managers are responsible for the project management process, making them vital to

project execution. The importance of project managers with regard to sustainability in projects

has also been recognised in the literature. Silvius and Schipper (2014a) recognise that project

managers play a pivotal role in realising sustainable development in organisations. McKinlay

(2008) envisions that in the future of project management, sustainability will be considered and

that project managers will be required to take responsibility for sustainability. Russell (2008)

asserts that project managers are perfectly positioned to influence the operations of an

organisation to include a sustainable orientation. Integrating and implementing sustainable

design or technology into projects is even considered a responsibility of project managers

(Wang et al., 2013).

The relevance and importance of project managers with regard to sustainability are apparent.

It is recognised that project managers are not sufficiently equipped to contribute to sustainable

development within an organisation (Silvius et al., 2012). Kendall and Willard (2014) echo this

sentiment as they are of the opinion that business leaders understand the need for sustainability,

but lack knowledge about the action that needs to be taken. There is evidence that suggests that

educational programmes and training can be effective in elevating the awareness of

environmental issues as well as the ecological impact of organisational activities (Cordano,

Ellis and Scherer, 2003). Cordano et al., (2003) note that sustainability-oriented technical skills

and procedures can also be conveyed. Cramer (2005) notes that the “critical reflection on

existing principles and values”, required for a deeper understanding as well as

operationalisation of sustainability principles, may not be successfully stimulated by training.

The question of whether managers, even those who have undertaken formal training with

regard to sustainability or social responsibility, undertake the effort to incorporate

sustainability considerations into the decision-making process, as it may not be seen as

legitimate (Pava & Krausz, 1997; Springett & Kearins, 2001; Thomas, 2005; Thomas & Lamm,

2012). Simply training managers in sustainability principles may not be sufficient for

sustainability to be incorporated into projects.

2.4.2.2 Scope of considering sustainability in project management

As mentioned previously, the system boundaries of project management may end up being

expanded (Gareis et al., 2013; Silvius & Schipper, 2014b). This conclusion was derived by

1 A research project conducted as part of a broader research initiative about sustainability and undertaken in

cooperation between the PROJEKTMANAGEMENT GROUP and the Research Institute for Managing

Sustainability.


following the notion that integrating sustainability into projects should not be limited only to

the project management processes. According to Silvius et al. (2012), project management

extends to include the project resources and project delivery processes within its scope.

2.4.2.3 Scope of considering sustainability in the project

Considering sustainability in projects may extend to the project as a whole (Silvius et al., 2012).

Projects undertaken by a permanent organisation may overlap with the resources, assets and

operations of that organisation. Sustainability in the project considers the result or product at

the end of a project. The resources, assets and operation processes of the permanent

organisation are included when considering sustainability in the projects.

2.4.2.4 Scope of considering sustainability in the project life cycle

The scopes previously mentioned examine the way in which the project is run and how the

product or result is delivered; however, they fail to examine the motivation for doing the project

in the first place, namely the goals to be achieved. Considering sustainability in the life cycle

of projects extends the scope to cover the effects of projects (Silvius et al., 2012). Sustainability

in the project life cycle considers all processes related to projects, including the deliverable and

its impact. Considering the result of the project indicates another area where the system

boundaries have expanded due to the integration of sustainability (Silvius & Schipper, 2014b).

Labuschagne and Brent (2005) highlight the importance of the deliverable or “product”; they

state that the project itself will only have minimal environmental, social and/or economic

consequences. The deliverable or “product” of the project, on the other hand, will have these

impacts and consequences. The project itself is subject to its own sustainability efforts, but also

contributes to the sustainability of the organisation (Keeys, 2014). While the project itself must

be executed in a sustainable fashion, it is of greater importance that the deliverables contribute

to the sustainability of the organisation (Keeys, 2014). Therefore projects cannot be executed

for their own sake and must fit into the context of what the organisation is attempting to

achieve. This makes sustainability important within the strategic management of an

organisation.

Marcelino-Sádaba, González-Jaen and Pérez-Ezcurdia (2015) support the life cycle approach,

but their interpretation of the scope is different. Figure 2.5 presents the conceptual model for

managing projects sustainably developed by Marcelino-Sádaba et al. (2015). The model is

based on four dimensions, unlike the processes presented in figure 2.4. The first dimension

focuses on sustainable products of the project. The second dimension focuses on the processes

which help to include sustainability in the project. The third dimension focuses on

organisations that undertake projects and are committed to sustainability. The last dimension

focuses on the members of the project team who are trained and are aware of sustainability.


Figure 2.5: Four dimensions of sustainable projects (Marcelino-Sádaba et al., 2015)

2.4.3 The extent of including sustainability in projects

Research currently done on sustainability in project management is considered to be

interpretive (Silvius et al., 2012; Silvius & Nedeski, 2014) as well as conceptual (Martens &

De Carvalho, 2014). These studies give meaning as to how the concepts of sustainability could

be interpreted within the context of projects (Silvius & Schipper, 2010). Seeing as the studies

are interpretive, they provide the ingredients but not a clear recipe on how sustainability should

be integrated into projects. In light of this, a goal at the 2010 International Project Management

Association (IPMA) Expert Seminar was to translate the concepts of sustainability into

practically applicable tools which can be used by project management professionals. One such

tool that was developed is a sustainability checklist, shown in table 2.3. The checklist provides

specific areas in a project for which sustainability can be considered.

Table 2.3: Checklist for integrating sustainability in projects (Silvius & Schipper, 2010)

Economic

sustainability

Return on investment - Direct financial benefits

- Net present value

Business agility - Flexibility/optionality in the project

- Increased business flexibility

Environmental

sustainability

Transport - Local procurement

- Digital communication

- Travelling

- Transport


Energy - Energy used

- Emission/CO2 from energy used

Waste - Recycling

- Disposal

Material and resources - Reusability

- Incorporated energy

- Waste

Social sustainability Labour practices and

decent work

- Employment

- Labour/management relations

- Health and safety

- Training and education

- Organisational learning

- Diversity and equal opportunity

Human rights - Non-discrimination

- Freedom of association

- Child labour

- Forced and compulsory labour

Society and customers - Community support

- Public policy/compliance

- Customer health and safety

- Products and services labelling

- Market communication and

Advertising

- Customer privacy

Ethical behaviour - Investment and procurement

practices

- Bribery and corruption

- Anti-competition behaviour

Similar to the checklist, the four dimensions of the sustainable projects model as per figure 2.5

includes all three dimensions of sustainability. The product, process and organisation

dimensions specifically indicate that all three of the sustainability dimensions are to be

included. The four dimensions of the sustainable projects model are, however, less specific in

terms of how sustainability is addressed and rely on other guides, some of which are not project

specific (Brones, De Carvalho and De Senzi Zancul, 2014). As such, there is great emphasis

on the learning and training of the project team members (Marcelino-Sádaba et al., 2015).

With regard to the extent to which sustainability should be included in projects, Silvius and

Schipper (2010) have developed a maturity model. However, as research in this field is

interpretive, the maturity model is for monitoring, assessing and improving the incorporation

of the concepts and principles of sustainability within projects (Silvius & Nedeski, 2014).

Figure 2.6 illustrates the maturity model assessment.


Figure 2.6: Conceptual model of the assessment (Silvius & Shipper, 2010)

The maturity model is based on two concepts.

1. The first concept is that project sustainability maturity is expressed in terms of depth of

vision (Silvius & Nedeski, 2014; Silvius & Schipper, 2010). This approach is based on

the observation and experience of the authors that sustainability can be considered at

different levels. The maturity model consists of four levels which exclude the state at

which sustainability does not feature within a project. The first level is resources used

in the project. The authors provide the example of using hybrid cars over normal cars

to reduce environmental impact. This action reduces the negative impact of the project,

but does not change the cause of the project to be sustainability focused. The second

level is the business process of delivering or managing the project. Teleconferencing

instead of travelling to a physical location detracts from the cause of non-sustainable

effects. The third level of consideration is the business model within which the project

is executed. Changing the contract of a project from merely the construction phase to

the full life cycle can produce favourable effects on the project delivery. This is due to

the emphasis in moving from a single phase to all the phases that are involved. The

fourth level of consideration is the deliverable or result of the project. Considering

sustainability in the deliverable or result connects the sustainability in the management

of the project with the sustainability of the project itself. The levels reflect how the

focus has shifted to become more positive by making services, products and processes

that make customers more sustainable (Silvius et al., 2012).

2. The second concept that the maturity model builds upon is the principles of

sustainability, operationalised in the sustainability integration checklist. Each of the

four levels of the model is assessed according to different aspects or criteria which are

grouped into one of the dimensions of sustainability (Silvius & Nedeski, 2014). The

model assesses the level, namely resources, business process, business model,

products/services (deliverable/result), at which the different aspects or criteria of

sustainability are embodied in the project.


The maturity model for projects is similar to that for business maturity in that they both imply

an origin or base where no sustainable activity is contemplated (Silvius & Shipper, 2010;

Willard, 2005). The business maturity model stages and the project maturity levels both

indicate a ranking, which implies that the last stage and level is the optimal position for

businesses and projects, respectively, with regard to sustainability. For the purpose of

determining the extent to which sustainability should be included in projects, the highest level

of the project maturity model can be used. According to the business stages of maturity, it is

only at the third stage that organisations take a proactive approach to incorporate sustainability

within their projects.

The maturity model, now known as SPM3, has since evolved to using a different set of maturity

levels, namely compliant, reactive, proactive and purpose (Silvius & Schipper, 2015). The first

level is compliant and is concerned with considering sustainability minimally and implicitly

with the intention of only complying with laws and regulations. The second level is reactive

and is concerned with considering sustainability explicitly but only to reduce the negative

impacts of the project. The third level is proactive and considers sustainability explicitly and

as one of the areas that the project contributes to. The fourth and final level is purpose, which

considers making a contribution to sustainability as one of the drivers behind the project and,

as such, sustainability considerations are included in the justification of the project.

The model works the same way as it did with the previous levels, that is to say that each of the

four levels of the model is assessed according to different aspects or criteria which are grouped

into one of the dimensions of sustainability. More detail is provided on how the checklist may

be used and the variables in the checklist may be tailored to the specific project at hand (Silvius

& Schipper, 2015). This model works by allowing for each dimension to be broken up into

smaller aspects and assigning a score. This allows for sustainability to be judged in detail as

well as for incremental changes to be made as each aspect is a potential area for improvement.

All the aspects in a dimension can be aggregated to give a score for that dimension and all

dimensions can be aggregated to give a score for overall sustainability.

2.4.4 Sustainability as a requirement for success

Success criteria are an integral part of project management and are required to direct the project

team and discern whether or not a project was successful in the eyes of the stakeholders (Müller

& Turner, 2007; Wateridge, 1998). As a directing force, success criteria influence the way in

which a project is carried out as well as what is included in the project. Should a requirement

not be viewed as a success criterion, especially in projects under tight constraints, the

requirement of sustainability may not be met. Only those factors which are regarded as success

criteria are likely to be pursued. As such, it is important to understand what criteria are used to

determine whether a project was successful or not.

Unfortunately the definition of project success in current literature is ambiguous (Baccarini,

1999; Belassi & Tukel, 1996; Marnewick & Labuschagne, 2009). Success, according to Belassi

and Tukel (1996) as well as Lim and Mohamed (1999), is defined and interpreted differently

by various stakeholders. This creates the probability that there will be a difference in the


perception of stakeholders as to whether a project was successful or was a failure. The mere

fact that there is variation across project types dictates that there cannot be a single definition

of project success (Camilleri, 2011:16). Project success was initially measured against

technical terms, namely whether the project was functional after it was completed (Erasmus &

Marnewick, 2012). As project management evolved, project success came to be defined as

completing the project on time, within budget and at an expected level of quality (Erasmus &

Marnewick, 2012; Ika, 2009). These three criteria have come to be known as the iron triangle,

golden triangle as well the holy trinity (Atkinson, 1999; Ika, 2009). The definition of project

success has since evolved even further to include a variety of other criteria (Joseph, 2013).

Figure 2.7 illustrates the project success criteria, including those identified by the Project

Management Institute, ISO 21500, P2M, APM and PRINCE2 (OGC).

Figure 2.7: Project success criteria (adapted from Joseph, 2013)

While different success criteria may be used on a project, there will be those success criteria

that are regarded as prime objectives and those that are not (Atkinson, 1999). The implications

are that there can be levels of success and that certain stakeholders will be more influential on

the outcome of a project. Of the success criteria illustrated in figure 2.7, there is scope to include

sustainability concepts within some of them, but none of them address sustainability

specifically. Without any success criteria addressing sustainability specifically, there is no

standard by which a project can be measured in terms of sustainability. As such, only those

success criteria that are specifically stated will be pursued.

While there may not be specific sustainability success criteria, there are authors who recognise

the importance of sustainability. Chan, Scott and Lam (2002) maintain that environmental

sustainability plays a big role in determining the success of a project. These authors advocate

that an impact analysis of the environment should be conducted after a project is completed to

determine what impact the project has had. These authors specifically mention construction


projects, indicating that the same considerations may not be found in IT projects. A study

conducted by Khang and Moe (2008) found that the sustainability of the project deliverable or

result has a larger bearing on the perceived success of a project over all the other criteria of

success. Serving sustainable environmental and social development needs are also recognised

as a priority in stakeholder evaluations.

Sustainability is evidently considered within projects, but the extent is unknown. In the case of

the project deliverable being sustainable, there is no indication if the project was completed in

a sustainable manner, for example the sourcing of materials and handling of waste materials

are not discussed. Successful projects also need to meet the sustainability requirements set out

in legislation (Gibson, 2006). It can therefore be concluded that project-specific sustainability

considerations need to be met for a project to be assessed as being as successful. However, this

selective approach goes against the holistic essence of sustainability.

In the following section the relationship between IT projects and sustainability is explored.

2.5 Sustainability and IT projects

According to Gareis et al. (2013), sustainability principles are considered in specific project

types. These types include public, engineering and construction projects. Gareis et al. (2013)

identify several studies that focus on each of the aforementioned industries with regard to

sustainability and projects. There is an apparent void in the literature regarding sustainability

and its consideration in information systems (IS) projects and IT projects.

2.5.1 Definitions of IT and IS

There is a realisation amongst authors that there is some confusion between IS and IT

(Checkland & Holwell, 1997:9; Gunasekaran, Love, Rahimi and Miele, 2001). IS is defined as

“a wider concept which refers to how information flows are designed in an organisation so as

to meet an organisation’s information needs” (Gunasekaran et al., 2001). IT is defined as “a

generic term for the convergence of computers, hardware, software, telecommunications,

internet, electronics and the resulting technologies” (Gunasekaran et al., 2001). The confusion

arises in that there are items contained within the IT definition that exist within IS (Checkland

& Holwell, 1997:39). Checkland and Holwell explain that the field of IS is the orderly

provision of data and information within an organisation using IT. In addition to IT and users,

Kroenke, Bunker and Wilson (2013:10) include procedures within the composition of IS.

Kroenke et al. (2013:10) recognise that IS do not necessarily require a computer/IT component.

IS that do make use of a computer/IT component can be termed computer-based IS. This

research focuses only on computer-based IS. An information system is recognised as a user-

machine system that supports decision making and communication. Due to such a significant

portion of these systems comprising IT, IS projects will be considered as IT projects. Figure

2.8 depicts the relationship between the components of an information system.


Figure 2.8: Relationship between IS components

While existing literature considers sustainability linked to information systems and technology

projects, the African continent is not included (Marnewick, 2015; Silvius & Nedeski, 2014).

There are several studies that have examined sustainability in projects that include an element

of IT (Cox, 2002; Bengtsson & Ågerfalk, 2011; Dao, Langella and Carbo, 2001). However,

these are not IT projects and the inclusion of IT is to support the sustainability initiatives of

other areas.

The IT project aspect differs in several ways from projects in other fields, which warrants

further investigation in the IT field. The result or deliverable of IT projects is not entirely

concrete. While there is hardware present, typically computers and servers, there is also a

software component (Schwalbe, 2013:64). Unlike the physical result of IT projects and the

result of other industries such as construction, agriculture and manufacturing, software is

intangible. Judging the result of an IT project can therefore be difficult, especially from the

perspective of the customers who may not have an IT background. Schwalbe (2013:64)

describes how IT projects differ from projects of other industries as they can be very diverse.

Even when just reviewing the area of IT projects, there is a plethora of decisions that need to

be made from deciding on hardware types, technologies, scale, typology to even the language

used for the software component. As IT forms a significant portion of IS, it is necessary to

explore the relationship between IT and sustainability.

2.5.2 Sustainability and IT

The relationship between IT and sustainability is discussed below according to the three

dimensions of sustainability, for the purpose of discerning whether all three dimensions of

sustainability should be considered within the IT field.

2.5.2.1 Economic considerations

Possibly the biggest reason for such a wide adoption of IT is the impact on the bottom line

(Gunasekaran et al., 2001). A competitive advantage is necessary to sustain an organisation

from the economic perspective and IT is necessary to sustain a competitive advantage


(Gunasekaran et al., 2001). Thite (2000) states that IT management is a strategic component of

any business today.

Despite the apparent need for IT in business, there is concern regarding the rate at which IT

and IT-related projects fail (Eveleens & Verhoef, 2010; Joseph, 2013; Marnewick, 2012;

Whittaker, 1999). Eveleens and Verhoef (2010) reveal that in 2009, 24% of IT projects failed,

44% of IT projects were challenged and only 32% of IT projects were successful. Marnewick

(2012) reveals, from a South African perspective, that in 2011, 12% of IT projects failed, 29%

of IT projects were challenged and only 59% of IT projects were successful. Joseph (2013)

estimates that in 2009 alone US$777 billion was squandered on IT projects. In South Africa

for 2011 the estimated value that was squandered is R13.68 billion. The International Data

Corporation (IDC) (2015) predicted that expenditure on IT and telecommunications

expenditure worldwide would exceed US$3.8 trillion in 2015.

2.5.2.2 Social considerations

IT affects virtually everyone on a daily basis. According to Boren (2014), there are more mobile

devices (7.22 billion) than there are people in the world (7.19 billion). The rate at which new

technology is developed makes it seemingly impossible to keep up with what is new and how

it affects us (Vicente, 2010). The impact on the social dimension is greatly expanded as IT is

included more and more into daily life, and the impact that IT can have on humanity therefore

needs to be recognised. Cheng, Zhang and Tan (2005) describe how protection of privacy is a

key issue that has resulted from the inclusion of technology in people’s lives. People

continuously store information about their personal lives online and in computer systems. If

privacy of information is not protected, then some form of misfortune may befall the

owner/author of the information. One example of such misfortune is computer-related fraud

(Haugen & Selin, 1999; Vasiu & Vasiu, 2004).

2.5.2.3 Environmental considerations

Typically what is thought of when sustainability is mentioned is the environment. While the IT

field does not appear to have a large environmental impact, there is mounting concern in this

regard (Du Buisson & Naidoo, 2014). The most recognisable impact that the IT industry has

is its energy consumption (Du Buisson & Naidoo, 2014; Lincke, 2012). According to Lincke

(2012), data centres require 40 times more energy than ordinary offices. Gartner estimates that

2% of global CO2 emissions are attributable to information and communication technology

(ICT) (Goasduff & Forsling, 2007). Given that the Gartner study only considered ICT and was

conducted in 2007, the current day percentage for the IT industry is in all likelihood greater.

The term ‘green IT’ is used to describe information technology and system programs and

initiatives that are aimed at addressing environmental sustainability (Jenkin, Webster and

McShane, 2011). Du Buisson and Naidoo (2014) note that green IT refers to IT that is

environmentally sound. Green IT is the study and practice of designing and using IT-related

components (computers, printers, monitors, networks, communication systems and storage

devices) effectively and efficiently with as little impact on the environment as possible.

Hopkins (2009) as well as Du Buisson and Naidoo (2014) comment on how there are financial


benefits that can be achieved by acting in a sustainable fashion. By simply using less, in this

case energy, money is saved.

Du Buisson and Naidoo (2014) believe that IT workers should turn their attention to green IT.

They should become custodians and ambassadors of green IT and create green IT cultures in

the communities in which they operate.

Based on the literature the following research questions were formulated

1. What is the perceived importance of the aspects of sustainability?

2. What is the commitment to the three dimensions of sustainability as well as the

relationships between them?

3. What is the commitment to sustainability in terms of the SPM3 model?

4. Are there any underlying factors that may be present in the assessment of sustainability?

5. Is the initial structure of sustainability adequate within the context of IT projects?

2.6 Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter was to assess the notion of sustainability within projects, more

specifically IT projects, through the critical evaluation of the literature pertaining to this topic.

This chapter was successful in this regard by building an understanding of sustainability and

project and IT project, exploring the relationship between sustainability and IT projects and

determining how sustainability is measured within projects.

The notion of sustainability is widely recognised as crucial to the efforts of humanity in meeting

current and future needs. Sustainability is an important concept for organisations that are

oriented primarily towards viable future circumstances. As projects are the mechanisms

through which organisations attempt to adapt and position themselves for future success, it

would seem short-sighted to consider projects and sustainability as being mutually exclusive.

While there is substantial literature on sustainability and project management, only a small

fraction of this pertains to both sustainability and project management in a joint context.

Research in this regard is still emerging, but at a slow pace. When narrowing the focus to IT

projects, the lack of research in this area is even more apparent. The practical inclusion of

sustainability into IT projects is largely unknown and presents a void in research. In order to

develop this line of research, it is important to build a current understanding of how

sustainability is perceived and included within IT projects. IT project managers are those

stakeholders who are in a position to influence how IT projects are undertaken thereby making

them key stakeholders for ensuring that these projects are undertaken with sustainability in

mind. In accordance with developing research that redresses the paucity of research in this

field, more specifically the state of sustainability in IT projects, this study aims to determine

the extent to which IT project managers are committed to sustainability.

The various research methods that could be employed when conducting research are discussed

in the next chapter.

30 Chapter 3 – Research methodology

Chapter 3 - Research methodology

3.1 Introduction

Human beings are inquisitive by nature, and this is evident in the desire to learn new approaches

to doing something, or understanding why we learn as a means to explain a phenomenon of

interest (Picardi & Masick, 2013:6). This inquisitive nature frequently leads to questions of

who, where, why, when, what and how with regard to the particular area of interest (Dane,

2010:12; Picardi & Masick, 2013:6). In order to answer these questions, a scientific approach

can be followed. However, research of this ilk requires an understanding of the scientific

approach to problem solving (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000:3). The goal of this chapter is to:

Examine and discuss the concept of research in order to discern an appropriate research

method for this study.


formulated:

1. To examine the concept of research.

2. To explore the concept of research design.

3. To explore the possible research paradigms and determine the appropriate paradigm

presented in this study.

4. To review the various design frames and data-gathering techniques

5. To select an appropriate sampling technique.

6. To define the data analysis framework used in this study.

7. To explore potential modelling techniques and select the appropriate technique for this

study.

The structure for the chapter is as follows: in sections 3.2 and 3.3, the concepts of research and

research design are examined, respectively. Section 3.4 deals with exploring the possible

research paradigms. In section 3.5 the various design frames and data-gathering techniques are

reviewed. The sample used in the study is described in section 3.6. Section 3.7 covers the

definition of the data analysis framework used in this study. The potential modelling techniques

are explored in section 3.8.

3.2 The concept of research

The best way to start to learn about a new topic is to start at the beginning, and in research that

beginning is the definition (Dane, 2010:3). Dane (2010:3) points out that there is no single

definition of research, as just about everyone who writes about research proposes some

definition or another.

Nachmias and Nachmias (1981:22) provide the definition that research is the “overall scheme

of scientific activities in which scientists engage in order to produce new knowledge”. Dane

(2010:3) is of the opinion that while research is conducted by scientists, it is not exclusive to

scientists. Research done by non-scientists tends to be conducted differently, but this does not


necessarily lead to research being carried out poorly (Dane, 2010:3). This sentiment contradicts

the definition provided by Nachmias and Nachmias (1981:22) and Kerlinger and Lee (2000:14)

therefore uses the following definition: “research is systematic, controlled, empirical, amoral,

public and critical investigation of natural phenomena”. This does not indicate who undertakes

the research. Kerlinger and Lee’s definition does, however, come with other restrictions, one

of them being that the more controlled and systematic the research is, the better that research

is. Kerlinger and Lee refer to this type of research as scientific research.

Fox and Bayat (2007:5) broaden the definition of research to make reference to a research

design and research process. Their definition reads as follows: “Research is a study or

investigation in order to discover facts or gain information. It is a universal activity by which

a specific phenomenon in reality is studied objectively in order to create a valid concept of that

phenomenon. The process of research simply constitutes the formation of a problem, from

which may flow a question or questions and the methods used to gain the information needed

to answer it or them.”

The definitions presented here are not exhaustive and only serve as a starting point for

understanding the research concept. The following section covers the second objective, which

is to explore the concept of the research design as identified in the definition provided by Fox

and Bayat (2007:5).

3.3 Research design

The research design is the plan and structure for the research (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000:449;

Thomas, 2013:103). Kerlinger and Lee (2000:449) describe the research design as

encapsulating the overall research scheme, from hypothesis formation through to data analysis.

Tomas (2013:104) makes note of a design route or research process that will ultimately be

considered when addressing the research design. Goddard and Melville (2004:12) echo this

sentiment, mentioning a “research recipe” that should be employed when conducting research.

The research recipe provided by Goddard and Melville is illustrated in figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Research recipe (adapted from Goddard and Melville, 2004:12)

The first step is that the researcher becomes aware of and selects an area of interest as well as

defines a problem within that area. The topic for this study is project management and

sustainability with regard to IT projects in particular. The problem identified is the lack of

literature on and investigation into the area of IT projects and sustainability. The second step

involves converting the identified problem into a well-defined research problem or goal. This

study assesses the commitment of IT project managers to sustainability.

Become aware of a topic and

problem

Convert the problem into a

well-demarcated

research problem

Carry out the research (data

collection)

Analyse the results

Write up the findings


In order to achieve this goal, several research objectives were devised. The first and second

research objectives pertain to the third step in the research recipe. The third step prescribes that

the data needs to be collected. Data collection takes place in two phases. The first phase, which

is also the first objective, is data collection through conducting a literature review. A literature

review in this study was necessary to assess the notion of sustainability and its implications for

IT projects. The second phase (the second objective) focuses on examining the various research

methods which can be employed when conducting the research. The selected research methods

are then employed in order to acquire the data. The fourth step involves analysing the acquired

data and comparing it with the information found in the literature review. This is accomplished

through the third research objective, which is to analyse and discuss the data collected to

achieve the research goal. The final step is to document the findings of the research so that it

may contribute to the body of knowledge and provide insight for further research. This step is

achieved through the composition of a research paper (Goddard & Melville, 2004:12).

There are varying interpretations of the research design, not discussed here, yet there are

inherent similarities between some of them which lead to correlating views (Joseph, 2013). Of

the research design interpretations analysed by Joseph (2013), they all begin with identifying

a topic area of interest and then narrowing the topic to a specific research problem or goal.

Once the research problem or goal is identified, the next step is to collect and analyse the data

that is required to solve the research problem or achieve the research goal. Research does not

stop there, however, as doing the research itself may result in new questions being raised

(Leedy, 1989:9; Thomas, 2013:3).

Joseph (2013) notes that inherent gaps may be present in research designs, so three critical

questions should be asked by both novice and seasoned researchers:

1. Which research paradigm is to be adopted? This question refers to whether a

quantitative or qualitative research methodology will be followed.

2. When and how is the research to be conducted and the relevant data collected? This

question refers to the research strategy, data collection technique and time frame.

3. From where is the data collected? This question refers to the unit of analysis used for

the research.

In light of these questions, the next section deals with exploring the research paradigms in order

to identify the most appropriate research methodology for this study.

3.4 Research paradigms

Paradigm is the term used to describe how we think about and research the world (Thomas,

2013:105). Thomas (2013:106) and Neuman (2000:64-65) identify two main paradigms for

how we seek and use knowledge, namely positivism and interpretivism. Table 3.1 presents the

differing characteristics between positivism and interpretivism.


Table 3.1: Positivism and interpretivism paradigms (adapted from Oakley, 2000:26-27)

Positivism Interpretivism

Researcher aims to: Predict and explain, usually

generalising from carefully

selected samples

Understand the particulars,

contributing to building a

framework of multiple realities

Researcher makes use of: Survey, experiment,

structured observation

Unstructured observation, case

study, unstructured interview,

participant observation

Researcher aims to be: Independent, an outsider Interacting with participants,

an insider

Researcher looks at: Things that can be counted

and quantified

Perceptions, feelings, ideas,

thoughts, actions as heard or

observed

Researcher analyses: Variables decided on in

advance of fieldwork

Emergent patterns

Design of research is: Fixed Flexible

Summed up using these

terms:

Nomothetic, quantitative,

scientific

Naturalistic, qualitative,

idiographic

The research paradigm followed by the researcher will impact on the nature of the data and the

research problem, which dictates the research method to be used (Leedy, 1989:139). According

to Leedy (1989:139) and Thomas (2013:116), all data that reaches the researcher does so as

either numbers or words. The quantitative research methodology is associated with numbers

and the qualitative research methodology is associated with words (Leedy, 1989:139-143;

Thomas 2013:116). The link between the research paradigm and the research methodology

comes from positivism lending itself to the quantitative approach and interpretivism to the

qualitative approach (Neuman, 2000:122; Thomas, 2013:116). Qualitative and quantitative

methodologies have distinct differences in that they are governed by different assumptions and

ground rules. However, this does not mean that they are incompatible; on the contrary, these

two methodologies are said to complement each other (Neuman, 2000:122; Thomas,

2013:116).

Mixing methods, according to Leedy (1989:143), falls under the concept of triangulation.

Triangulation in social sciences indicates viewing from several points, as it is better than

viewing from one (Thomas, 2013:146). Triangulation is not limited to a methodology, but can

be used for data, investigator and theoretical perspectives (Leedy, 1989:143).

While quantitative and qualitative methodologies are recognised to complement each other, a

divide is also recognised between the two methodologies (Leedy, 1989:143; Neuman,

2000:122). The differences between the methodologies leads to confusion among researchers,

as researchers of one particular methodology can find it difficult and often disappointing when

reviewing research carried out based on the alternative methodology. Neuman (2000:122)

points out that it is best to appreciate the strengths of each style, but in order to do this, the


differing orientations must be understood. The quantitative and qualitative methodologies are

discussed next.

3.4.1 Quantitative methodology

The quantitative methodology is often referred to as the cold approach as the researcher takes

an impersonal approach (Leedy, 1989:142). With the endeavour to collect objective data, the

researcher elects to remain an ‘outsider’ (Joseph, 2013; Walliman, 2005:247). The nature of

the data used in research following the quantitative methodology is numerical and is analysed

using statistical techniques (Leedy, 1989:140; Thomas 2013:116). The results derived from the

quantitative methodology aim to be generalisable to environments, phenomena or instances

which are similar to those from which the data was collected (Glesne, 2006:7). The reliance on

statistical analysis often leads to a process that can be replicated by other researchers (King,

Keohane and Verba, 1994:3). Following the quantitative methodology allows for the researcher

to develop predictions about the area of interest (Glesne, 2006:7).

3.4.2 Qualitative methodology

In contrast to the quantitative methodology, the qualitative methodology is often referred to as

the warm approach as a great part of the research is concerned with human beings and their

personal values, beliefs, thoughts, meanings, interpersonal relationships and feelings (Leedy,

1989:142). Researchers following the qualitative methodology adopt an ‘insider’ position with

the commitment to “see through the eyes” those under observation (Walliman, 2005:247). Data

in the qualitative methodology is not limited to numbers, so analysis is done through flexible,

ongoing processes of measure, which leaves the data in varying forms (Neuman, 2000:158).

As such, there is less emphasis placed on the generalisability of the results or repetition of the

process (Neuman, 2000:123).

3.4.3 Qualitative and quantitative methodology comparison

A comparison is now made between the qualitative and quantitative methodologies.

Table 3.2: Comparison between quantitative and qualitative methodology (adapted from

Glesne, 2006:7; Joseph, 2013; King et al., 1994:3; Neuman, 2000:16 & 123)

Quantitative Methodology Attributes Qualitative Methodology Attributes

Test hypotheses that were established at the

beginning

Capture and discover meaning when the

researcher becomes immersed in the data

Data is in the form of numbers Data is in the form of words

Procedures are standard, replication is

assumed

Research procedures are particular, and

replication is very rare

Analysis proceeds by using statistics, tables,

charts and discussing how what they reveal

relates to the formulated hypotheses

Analysis proceeds by extracting themes or

generalisations from evidence and

organising data to present a coherent and

consistent picture

Measure objective facts Construct social reality and cultural

meaning

Focus is on variables Focus is on interactive events and processes

Reliability is key Authenticity is key


Reliability and validity stem from vigilant

instrument construction

Trustworthiness stems from the researcher’s

skill and competence

Independent of the context Situationally constrained

Researcher is detached Researcher is involved

Many subjects, large sample size Few subjects, small sample size

Generalisations Extrapolations

Erasmus and Marnewick (2012) explain that qualitative research investigates the ‘what’,

‘where’ and ‘when’, whereas quantitative research investigates the ‘why’ and ‘how’. The

purpose of this research was to assess the extent to which (how much) sustainability is

incorporated in IT projects. Various statistical methods were employed, making it necessary to

express data in numerical form. Research already undertaken in this area by Silvius, Schipper

and Nedeski (2013) followed the quantitative approach, which supports the decision to follow

a quantitative approach with this current research. These factors led to the quantitative

approach being adopted for this research.

The following section deals with the fourth objective of this chapter, which is to review the

various design frames and data-gathering techniques.

3.5 Design frame

The design frame or research strategy constitutes the most important element in the way

research is structured (Joseph, 2013; Thomas, 2013:133). The design frame is the ‘scaffold’

within which research is structured (Thomas, 2013:133). Joseph (2013) echoes this by calling

the design frame a thorough plan of action, approach or method in order to realise the research

goal. There are a variety of design frames which can be utilised and in some research projects

more than one design frame can be used (Walliman, 2005:271). Each design frame provides

an alternative approach and involves its own logic for collecting and analysing data (Walliman,

2005:271). Thomas (2013:133) notes that the design frames do not prescribe how data will be

collected, but rather how it can be collected.

3.5.1 Design frame selection

There are a variety of possible design frames but only those that are most prevalent are

discussed (Joseph, 2013; Neuman, 2000:149; Thomas, 2013:133; Walliman, 2005:272). These

design frames are (i) action research, (ii) experiment, (iii) survey, (iv) case study and (v)

ethnography. These design frames as well as their advantages and disadvantages are reflected

in table 3.3.


Table 3.3: Prevalent research designs (Joseph, 2013; Maree, 2007; Picardi & Masick, 2013; Thomas, 2013)

Design frame Description Advantages Disadvantages

Action

research

Action research is understood to be research

undertaken by and/or with practitioners (teachers,

social workers, nurses, doctors) of the area of

enquiry. This research takes a hands-on approach

with a focus on finding a practical solution. Action

research is a flexible design frame where the initial

assumption is revisited throughout the process and

revised. This research takes place within real-

world environments where a problem has been

identified. The strong focus on understanding a

problem as well as working closely with people

involved places action research under the

qualitative approach.

Research is done in the area of the

researcher as well as other

practitioners, so skills and

knowledge about the area are

present.

The output of this research is an

actual solution to real-world

problems and not just a theory.

The resulting benefit from action

research is for both the researcher

and the environment in which the

research was done.

The research setting may be unique and the

solutions derived may only be for the setting in

which the research was undertaken. This calls into

question the generalisability of the results.

Action researchers have minimal control over the

various variables due to the real-world setting. This

creates challenges for the researcher.

The level of involvement and position of the

researcher may introduce some bias into the

research with regard to data collection and

contamination.

Once the researcher leaves the setting or forgoes the

researcher role, there may be an impact on the

setting, which in turn may impact on the

effectiveness of the solution.

Experimental

research

Experimental research seeks to answer a specific

type of research question which is cause and effect.

Experimental research has three characteristics that

differentiate it from other designs:

1. Manipulation: some of the participants or

variables receive some kind of treatment.

2. Control: some of the participants or variables

are used as a control, as they do not receive

the treatment.

3. Randomisation: the way in which participants

are assigned to groups.

Experimental research relies on controlled

conditions to ensure accurate measuring of cause

and effect. A wide range of statistical analysis

methods are employed in this design.

The control employed in

experiments leads to a repeatable

process, allowing other researchers

the chance to replicate the results.

Experimental research has been

regarded as the most scientific and

credible form of research.

The use of randomisation aids in the

reliability of results for the purpose

of generalisation.

The controlled environment in which the research

takes place can call into question the real-world

applicability of the results.

There is concern about whether the control group

and experiment group constitute a ‘matched pair’.

Should the two groups not possess the same

characteristics, then the effect of the treatment may

not be accurately measured.

It can be a great challenge to control the wide

variety of variables that may be present in the

research environment.

Case study

Case study research is in-depth research into one

or a set of cases for the sake of describing and

explaining the phenomenon. The phenomenon is

investigated in its real-life context through the use

Findings from a case study tend to

be more descriptive and offer a

deeper understanding of a

Case studies typically have a small sample size and

the uniqueness of each case study reduces the


of multiple sources of evidence. A case study is

not limited to a set of established rules, parameters

or criteria with the manner of conducting it and

data collection varying from case study to case

study. This design frame falls under the qualitative

approach due to the data typically collected.

phenomenon over other types of

non-experimental research.

Theories and hypotheses can be

derived from the finding, forming a

starting point for further research.

This multi-perspective approach

enforces validation of the results.

likelihood that there will be any degree of

generalisability.

The theories and hypotheses derived from the

finding need to be tested through experimental or

quasi-experimental methods.

The variety of data sources may introduce access

difficulties and ethical dilemmas such as

maintaining confidentiality.

Ethnography

Ethnography is a highly interpretive research

design sometimes referred to as ‘case study’;

however, as seen in the case study section, many

more methods are encompassed. In this design the

researcher spends time with the community or

subject under study in an attempt to learn from

them. The primary method for gathering data is

through observation. Ethnography is used

primarily for the purpose of studying cultures and

communities. Ethnography falls under the

qualitative approach.

Ethnography normally results in

gathering rich data.

Data can be obtained on events that

are either unobtainable via other

methods or potentially overlooked

by the subjects under investigation.

Ethnographic research can be used

to develop and test theories.

The involvement of the researcher may raise ethical

issues where privacy and consent are concerned.

The researcher may have to spend considerable time

and effort just to gain access to the environment

before data capturing can actually begin.

Ethnography rarely facilitates generalisations due to

the unique environments and subjects under study.

Ethnography may lead to purely theoretical

conclusions (story telling).

Survey

Surveys are the most widely used method of

gathering information from people. A survey

involves selecting a sample of respondents and

then administering questionnaires or conducting

interviews. The research collects information about

attitudes, values, feelings, opinions and

demographics. Surveys generally have two

characteristics:

1. Sample sizes are generally large.

2. Many variables are measured.

Surveys may be used in both quantitative and

qualitative approaches, but are generally used in

the quantitative approach.

Data retrieved from surveys comes

directly from the respondent and

may only be obtainable in this way.

Surveys are an effective method of

data gathering due to their

affordability and ability to cover a

large number of respondents.

Surveys can be used for both

qualitative and quantitative

approaches.

Surveys can facilitate generalisation

through the use of large sample sizes

and certain sampling techniques.

The variety of data collection

methods allows the researcher to

select the most appropriate ones for

their research.

Surveys cover a wide number of respondents

(breadth) rather than focusing on a select number of

respondents (depth), which can lead to a lack of

detail in the data acquired.

Survey distribution is relatively inexpensive;

however, obtaining responses can take time as the

onus is on the respondent.

Respondents may have a ‘rating style’ where they

consistently select an answer independent of the

question (e.g. always select the middle option).


Each design frame has inherent advantages and disadvantages and the researcher needs to

decide which design frame will best help facilitate the research goal (Maree, 2007:70; Thomas,

2013:133). In order to realise the research goal of this study, covering a large number of

variables was a key criterion. The design frame should also correspond to the aforementioned

research paradigm employed in the research. Ethnography, action research and case study

design frames focus on depth and acquiring rich data over gaining an initial understanding of

the situation. These design frames also fall under the qualitative approach. For these reasons

they were rejected. A key characteristic of experimental design frames is the ‘manipulation’

applied to some of the participants. For this research there was no need to apply any

manipulation or control variables to the extent required by experimental designs. Experimental

design frames were therefore rejected.

The design frame implemented in this study was a survey. The survey design frame allows for

many variables to be measured, enabling a wide view of phenomena. The focus of this study

was on breadth rather than depth, which mitigates the weakness associated with the lack of

richness of data obtained through surveys. The survey design frame affords the researcher the

option to take either a quantitative or qualitative approach, which supports its selection for this

study. In addition to the advantages that match the key requirements of the study, surveys allow

for relatively cost-effective data collection which aids in obtaining a meaningful number of

responses.

Using the survey design frame, the researcher can follow either the questionnaire or interview

method (Joseph, 2013). The questionnaire was the method employed in this study. The

questionnaire method better facilitates obtaining a meaningful number of responses as well as

collecting data in a standardised form (Maree, 2007:155).

3.5.2 Time frame

When using data relating to large numbers of individuals or groups, the researcher must decide

whether they will undertake a longitudinal or cross-sectional study (Thomas, 2013:170).

Longitudinal and cross-sectional studies have their own advantages and disadvantages and

must be chosen according to the research goal (Beins, 2004:282; Thomas, 2013:170).

Longitudinal studies involve studying a group of individuals or cases spanning an extended

period. Time is used to examine a change in the variables of interest. The researcher will collect

data from the same respondents or cases several times. When conducting a longitudinal study

the researcher must decide on the distance (time) between the collection points. Frequency of

change in the variables will determine how frequently the data should be collected (Thomas,

2013:170). Longitudinal studies are typically used to examine trends as well as make

predictions (Beins, 2004:282; Thomas, 2013:170).

Cross-sectional studies relate to groups or a group which is studied at a single point in time

typically referred to as a snapshot (Beins, 2004:284; Thomas, 2013:173). This type of study

can explore several variables to determine if there is a relationship between them, or examine

differing cases to determine if there is a relationship between them. The key aspect is that the


observations are all made at the same time (Thomas, 2013:173). Table 3.4 gives a comparison

between the two possible research time frames.

Table 3.4: Time frames (Beins, 2004; Joseph, 2013; Thomas, 2013)

Time Frame Advantages Disadvantages

Longitudinal studies:

study of the same

individuals or groups

over time

Examines trends Making observations

over time makes this

type of study time

consuming.

There is the risk that

participants may drop

out during the study.

Cross-sectional

studies: study of

various individuals or

groups at a single point

in time

Only making observations at a

single point in time makes this

type of study time efficient.

Participation is short term,

which diminishes the issue of

participant attrition.

No examination of

trends.

The cross-sectional approach was adopted in this study, as it was appropriate to achieve the

research goal, namely to assess the commitment of IT project managers to sustainability as

described in the literature. Assessing whether there is a change in the commitment to

sustainability did not fall within the scope of this study.

The following section concerns the fifth objective of this chapter, which is to select an

appropriate sampling technique.

3.6 Study sample

Research is the process by which new knowledge is created about a phenomenon, and in order

to do research, data about the phenomenon is required (Fox & Bayat, 2007:5; Walliman,

2005:275). While a researcher can make the choice as to what it is they want to investigate, the

data they collect must be relevant to the phenomenon they are investigating (Walliman,

2005:275).

The objects researchers study are more commonly referred to as units of analysis (Graneheim

& Lundman, 2004). These units take many forms such as an organisation, a community, a

country, a classroom or a person. The importance of the unit of analysis is that it is from these

objects that we obtain the data for research (Joseph, 2013). The unit of analysis for this study

was managers who had been involved in IT-intensive projects or projects in which a significant

portion could be attributed to the IT component. These project managers were chosen as they

were involved throughout the project’s life cycle. As such, they represented the ideal candidates

for gathering data about how sustainability is catered for in these types of projects. Working

on these projects throughout their life cycle should impart knowledge about the organisation

governing the project and their stance on sustainability. An important note is that this study


was not limited to specific industry types. The data gathered from these individuals allows for

insights to be gained into the commitment of IT project managers to sustainability.

A study may be concerned with the entire population (all IT project managers), but in many

cases it is not possible to gather data from the entire population (Dane, 2010:107; Kerlinger &

Lee, 2000:163; Maree, 2007:172; Picardi & Masick, 2013:154). Time and cost are the main

restrictions as to why gathering data from the entire population is not practical, which leads to

most researchers making use of sampling (Maree, 2007:172).

There are various sampling techniques, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. The

various sampling techniques are described in the next section.

3.6.1 Sampling techniques

A sample is a portion of the population that inherently has characteristics of the population,

making it somewhat representative of the population (Picardi & Masick, 2013:154). Thought

should go into selecting a sample, as a representative sample allows for inferences to be made

with confidence as well as for generalisations about the population as a whole (Picardi &

Masick, 2013:154). Sampling techniques which facilitate a representative sample fall under the

probability category (Beins, 2004:100; Maree, 2007:172; Picardi & Masick, 2013:155; Sekaran

& Bougie, 2013:255). Conversely, sampling may be done where representativeness of the

sample is not critical for the study. These sampling techniques fall under the non-probability

category. In such cases, the study may be more concerned with obtaining information quickly

and economically, or information that is only relevant and available with certain groups or the

study is exploratory in nature (Beins, 2004:103; Maree, 2007:176; Picardi & Masick, 2013:156;

Sekaran & Bougie, 2013:255). The most prominent survey techniques as well their advantages

and disadvantages can be seen in table 3.5.


Table 3.5: Sampling techniques (Beins, 2004; Dane, 2010; Joseph, 2013; Maree, 2007; Sekaran & Bougie, 2013)

Sampling Technique Description Advantages Disadvantages

Probability

sampling

techniques

Simple

random

sampling

Every element (constituent) in the

population is known to the researcher. This

precise knowledge allows for each element

to have an equal opportunity of being

selected. Elements are selected using a

planned process that ensures randomisation.

The sample from this technique

is likely to be representative of

the entire population.

A representative sample

facilitates generalisation.

There is low bias from this

sampling technique which

provides an objective view.

Identifying the population

precisely as well as the

process of sampling can be

time consuming and costly.

Systematic

sampling

Systematic sampling is very similar to

simple random sampling with the exception

of the process of actually selecting the

sample. For this technique a random starting

position is chosen and then every nth

element is chosen.

More efficient than simple

random sampling when a large

sample frame or sample size is

used.

The researcher must be sure

that the list from which they

select the sample is in a

random order to reduce the

probability of bias and

misrepresentation.

Stratified

sampling

Stratified sampling is used when there are

subgroups within the population who need to

be represented in the sample. Samples from

each of these subgroups are aggregated and

this can be done either in proportion to how

much of the population they make up or

disproportionately. Selection of the samples

from each subgroup can be done with simple

random sampling or systematic sampling.

This technique ensures that

subgroups within the population

are accounted for.

Insight can be gained into

differing groups within the

population and not just the

population as a whole.

This sampling technique is

only viable if subgroups can

be identified.

Cluster

sampling

In many cases the researcher does not have

the capability to select randomly from the

entire population. Such would be the case of

sampling school teachers. Several schools

(clusters) would be randomly selected and

the teachers of these schools would form the

sample. This technique is similar to stratified

sampling; however, there is likely to be a

higher level of homogeneity across clusters

rather than within them. The clusters should

Provides a means of sampling

when the entire population

cannot be used.

Data collection costs are reduced.

There is the greatest chance

with this method that the

sample will be less

representative of the

population.


reflect the heterogeneity of the population as

much as possible.

Double

sampling

In some instances a subgroup within the

original sample is identified. This subgroup

may warrant additional investigation so

these participants are sampled again.

The subgroup may provide a

more detailed understanding of

the area of study.

Participants may not be

inclined to participate again.

Any bias or intervening

factors may affect the results

of the new survey.

Non-probability

sampling

techniques

Convenience

sampling

(accidental

sampling)

Information is collected from members of

the population who are conveniently able to

provide it.

This sampling method can be

quick and inexpensive to execute.

This sampling method is good for

exploratory research where the

researcher is interested in getting

a quick approximation of the

situation.

The researcher cannot attest

to the representativeness of

the sample which calls into

question the generalisability

of the results.

Quota

sampling

Quota sampling is very similar to stratified

sampling in that subgroups of the population

are represented in the proportions (quota)

desired by the researcher. This can be

proportional or disproportional to the

composition of the population. This

technique differs in that it is based on

convenience.

Ensures that insight is gained into

all subgroups, especially when

minority groups are involved.

Serves as a good starting point

for further research.

The generalisability of the

results is questionable as this

technique is based on

convenience.

Snowball

sampling

Snowball sampling is used where the

population is difficult to identify or the

researcher is studying a group of

interconnected people. The researcher starts

off by making contact with some individuals

from the population and requests from them

information about who else could form part

of the sample.

Gain access to participants who

are difficult to find or identify.

Good starting point when very

little information is known about

the population, for example

people in a rare job.

Good for exploratory research.

Generalisability is highly

unlikely as the researcher

must gain insight into the

population. There is also bias

in participant selection which

can reduce the

representativeness of the

sample.

Purposive

sampling

(judgement

sampling)

Purposive sampling is used when the

researcher targets specific people. The

researcher may only want individuals with

certain expertise. The research may identify

these individuals as most advantageously

positioned to provide the information

required.

Participants are considered

subject matter experts, which

allows for critical insight into the

area of study.

The selection of certain

individuals (a subgroup)

dictates that the results can

only be generalised to their

grouping and not the

population.


Simple random sampling, systematic sampling, stratified sampling and cluster sampling all

require precise knowledge about the population. The population used in this study was not well

known and the resources needed to acquire the required knowledge fell outside the budget for

this study. For these reasons, these techniques were rejected. Double sampling provides the

capabilities to gain a deeper understanding of the research area at the cost of additional

resources. Double sampling is not exclusive to the probability category, as it is very much

dependent on the initial sampling technique used. This lends itself to being used in conjunction

with other sampling techniques. The additional resources required exceeded those available for

this study and therefore double sampling was rejected.

Convenience sampling is the simplest sampling technique, making it an appropriate option for

this study. This sampling method, however, is not ideal for collecting a sample where the

population is largely unknown. While this technique supports exploratory research, it is not

adequate for acquiring a meaningful sample size in this instance. For these reasons convenience

sampling was rejected. Quota sampling follows on from convenience sampling, but with the

additional factor of accounting for subgroups within the sample. For this study there was no

need to account for subgroups within the population as they fell outside the scope of this study,

and thus quota sampling was rejected. In purposive sampling individuals are selectively chosen

from the population. In order to do so, the researcher must understand the composition of the

population as well as recognise subgroups within the population. This study was not concerned

with subgroups in the population and therefore purposive sampling was rejected.

The sampling technique adopted for this research was snowball sampling. As the population is

largely unknown, relying on members of the population to recommend the inclusion of other

participants greatly increases the chances that meaningful data will be obtained. Beins

(2004:226) refers to snowball sampling as a chain-referral method that allows for the researcher

to find hidden populations. Snowball sampling is used in a similar fashion to convenience

sampling in that the acquired sample comprises those who are available. In this situation

snowball sampling better facilitates the acquisition of sample participants. Snowball sampling

also lends itself to exploratory research. Based on these factors, snowball sampling was

selected.

3.6.2 Sample size

Sample size is regarded as difficult to determine due to the number of factors involved (Maree,

2007:178). Maree (2007:178) describes three primary factors, namely (i) type of statistical

analysis, (ii) accuracy of results required and (iii) homogeneity of population - which determine

how large a sample size should be. Maree (2007:179) concludes that the larger the sample size,

the better these factors can be catered for. The benefits of having a larger sample size are echoed

throughout the literature on the topic with some authors maintaining that a larger sample size

reduces deviation from population values (Dane, 2010:114; Kerlinger & Lee, 2000:175).

A large sample size is regarded as important when representativeness is critical for the study

(Sekaran & Bougie, 2013:255). However, there are factors which support a smaller sample size


such as time, cost and whether a representative sample is needed, which must also be

considered (Beins, 2004:99; Maree, 2007:178).

Joseph (2013) takes the approach of determining sample size by identifying the end goal of

developing a model. The type of model being developed must be considered as it also has an

impact on the required sample size. Exploratory models, such as the one used in this study,

often require sample sizes smaller than models used in predictive analysis (Shmueli & Koppius,

2011). Joseph (2013) concludes that sample sizes in excess of 250 are sufficient for a variety

of modelling, including structural equation modelling.

The next section covers the sixth objective, namely to define the data analysis framework used

in this study.

3.7 Data analysis

The previous section covered how data is collected as well as from where it is collected. This

section deals with how data is prepared and analysed. Various statistical techniques were used

in this study, which enabled the extraction of meaningful information from raw data (Downing

& Clark, 2010:1). Before data analysis can take place, the data must first be prepared (Sekaran

& Bougie, 2013:274). The data analysis process encompasses data collection all the way

through to interpretation and discussion. This study made use of a data analysis framework

based on the data analysis processes of Biggam (2008:113-127), Sekaran and Bougie

(2013:275-297) and Joseph (2013). An overview of the data analysis framework used in this

study can be seen in figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2: Data analysis framework (adapted from Biggam, 2008:113-127; Joseph, 2013;

Sekaran & Bougie, 2013:275-297; Walliman, 2005)

3.7.1 Data collection

The data collection strategy employed in this study was a survey (research strategy) and, more

specifically, in the form of a structured questionnaire (research method), as discussed in the

previous section.


3.7.2 Data preparation

Data preparation is a necessary step before data analysis can take place (Neuman, 2000:313-

317; Sekaran & Bougie, 2013:276-280). In the event that data analysis takes place without data

preparation first occurring, the researcher cannot attest to the validity and reliability of the data

(Joseph, 2013; Sekaran & Bougie, 2013:276). Data preparation comprises three elements, as

depicted in figure 3.2, namely (i) coding and data entry, (ii) editing data and (iii) data

transformation.

3.7.2.1 Coding and data entry

Neuman (2000:314) describes coding data as converting the data so that it can be analysed via

computers. Sekaran and Bougie (2013:276) note that computers play a crucial role in the

analysis of data. Coding data simply means assigning a unique identifier to each participant as

well as identifiers for questions that have more than one possible answer, for example 1 for yes

and 2 for no (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013:276). In this study, participants were identified by a

number and questions were allocated a numeric identifier for the answer according to the

number of possible options. Once the raw data has been coded, it can be entered into any

analysis software (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013:276).

3.7.2.2 Editing data

Editing data covers a variety of issues that can be present in a data set, including the handling

of blank responses (missing values), outliers, illogical data, inconsistent data and errors made

when entering the data (Neuman, 2000:316; Sekaran & Bougie, 2013:279).

There are several techniques available to the researcher when dealing with ‘unclean data’,

including the removal of incomplete entries, using proxy variables, allocating a mean value or

making use of algorithms such as classification and regression trees (Sekaran & Bougie,

2013:279; Shmueli & Koppius, 2011). When dealing with outliers or inconsistent responses,

the researcher can simply remove the respondent if the respondent is determined to be an ‘error’

(Sekaran & Bougie, 2013:279). Sekaran and Bougie (2013:279) state that caution must be

exercised when dealing with these errors as they may not necessarily be an error and removing

them may introduce bias. In this study, outliers were identified through scatterplots and

removed where necessary. Incomplete responses were removed if more than 75% of the survey

was not completed.

3.7.2.3 Data transformation

Data transformation involves changing the initial numerical representation of a quantitative

value (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013:280). Data transformation is typically used to avoid running

into problems at a later stage in the data analysis process (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013:280). There

was no need to alter the numerical representation of quantitative data in this study.

3.7.2.4 Reliability and validity

Reliability is a measure of the extent to which a research instrument consistently reflects the

construct it is measuring (Field, 2009:673; Sekaran & Bougie, 2013:228; Thomas, 2013:138).

That is to say, if a study is conducted again at another point in time under similar circumstances,

then the results of the second study should be comparable to the first. This study made use of


scales in the assessment of sustainability and, as such, Cronbach’s alpha was used as it is a

measure scale reliability (Field, 2009:674). A Cronbach’s alpha value of .7 or greater is used

to determine if there is internal consistency (Field, 2009:675).

The validity relevant in this study was instrument-based validity as the primary concern was

whether the research instrument measured what it was supposed to measure (Sekaran &

Bougie, 2013:225; Thomas, 2013:140). The specific instrument-based validity considered was

construct validity as all other forms of validity are just offshoots of construct validity (Thomas,

2013:140). Construct validity is the extent to which the results of the ‘test’, in this case the

survey, conform to the theoretical construct around which the test is designed. The survey used

in this study was based on the survey developed by Silvius et al. (2012) and so construct validity

was ensured.

3.7.3 Data analysis

Data analysis following the quantitative approach makes use of mathematical operations to

investigate the properties of data (Walliman, 2005:302). The analysis of data through the use

of mathematical operations for the purpose of investigating properties of data is referred to as

statistics (Walliman, 2005:302). The varying range of statistical tests fall under two main

categories, namely parametric and non-parametric. Parametric tests can be further broken down

into descriptive and inferential statistics as depicted in figure 3.2 (Walliman, 2005:303).

3.7.3.1 Parametric statistics

Parametric statistics are based on populations where a parameter serves as a constant feature

among them, for example frequency distribution (Walliman, 2005:304). A bell curve for height

and a bell curve for marks are instances of a common factor. Parametric statistics can be further

broken down into descriptive statistics and inferential statistics (Walliman, 2005:302).

Parametric data is said to behave in the form of a Gaussian curve (Walliman, 2005:307).

Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics describe the characteristics of data such as where the centre is and how

broadly the data is spread (Walliman, 2005:304). Descriptive statistics typically assess

frequency distribution, measures of central tendency and measure of dispersion (Downing &

Clark, 2010:9; Neuman, 2000:317; Sekaran & Bougie, 2013:283-287; Walliman, 2005:304-

305). The following descriptive statistics tests were used in this study:

Frequency: the measure of how many times an answer is selected. Frequency is

typically measured within the context of a question or category and is expressed as a

number or percentage of the sample (Downing & Clark, 2010:20-22; Sekaran &

Bougie, 2013:283).

Mean: the measure of the average answer with regard to a question or category. Mean

is a measure of central tendency that identifies the central item (Downing & Clark,

2010:10; Sekaran & Bougie, 2013:285).

Mode: this statistic is also a measure of central tendency and identifies the value or

answer that appears the most (Downing & Clark, 2010:12; Sekaran & Bougie,


2013:286). It is not uncommon for more than one mode to be found for a given data set

(Joseph, 2013).

Inferential statistics

Inferential statistics are used to produce correlations between variables, make predictions

through inferences drawn on the data analysed and test statistically based hypotheses (Neuman,

2000:338; Walliman, 2005:305). The data in this study was of the nominal and ordinal type

which made certain parametric tests inappropriate (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013:288). For this

reason, no inferential statistics were used in this study.

3.7.3.2 Non-parametric statistics

Non-parametric statistical tests were devised as specialised methods to cater for data that is

‘non-curve’, namely nominal and ordinal data (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013:288; Walliman,

2005:305). Even though certain parametric tests are inappropriate for nominal and ordinal data,

there are non-parametric counterparts for some of these tests. The following non-parametric

statistics tests were used in this study:

Correlation: the measure of the relationship between two variables including the

strength and direction of the relationship (Downing & Clark, 2010:228-229; Sekaran &

Bougie, 2013:288; Thomas, 2013:257). Correlation was used in this study to determine

whether the commitment to one of the sustainability dimensions (economic,

environmental and social) has a correlation with the commitment to the others.

Correlation was also used to determine the relationship between the variables of each

dimension.

Variance: the measure of the spread of data about the mean (mathtutordvd, 2013). The

spread can be measured within a group and between groups (Downing & Clark,

2010:349-351; Stephens, 2006:299-305). Variance was used in this study to determine

the confidence level at which it can be assumed that the dimensions are the same, as

well as the uniformity of responses within the dimensions.

Factor analysis: the process by which variables are transformed into variable sets that

are uncorrelated (Blunch, 2013:51). The resulting variables, referred to as factors, are

fewer than the initial set of variables and each represents a dimension of the data

(Blunch, 2013:51; Kaplan, 2000:45; Lambert, 2014). Factor analysis was used in this

study to explain the underlying covariance between variables.

3.7.4 Interpretation and discussion

The interpretation phase entails documenting and describing the results acquired from the data

analysis phase (Biggam, 2008:129-132; Neuman, 2000:472-473). The discussion phases focus

on scrutinising the results within the context of the literature review (Biggam, 2008:129;

Thomas, 2013:271). Thomas (2013:271) describes this as “coming full circle”, where gaps in

the literature may be filled. In addition to filling gaps, Biggam (2008:130) states that the results

should be used to compare and contrast what was described in the literature.


The next section covers the seventh objective, namely to explore potential modelling

techniques and select the appropriate technique for this study.

3.8 Models

Researchers in many different fields utilise models for various reasons, including clarification,

prediction, conceptualisation, simplicity and mathematical manipulations, to assess maturity

and as a means to capture the critical components of a process or system (Frank & Andreas,

2015; Joseph, 2013; Milani, Dumas, Ahmed and Matulevičius, 2016; Olivier, 2009:45-49;

Prema & Rao, 2015; Silvius & Schipper, 2015). Olivier (2009:45) notes that it is not required

or possible to create a fully comprehensive model for any given process or system. Olivier

(2009:45) claims that models can have different levels or views, making it highly unlikely that

a single model will be fully comprehensive.

While sustainability is not a new field of research, the focus on IT is still novel and models

with this focus are therefore meagre (Silvius & Nedeski, 2014). Initial models tend to have the

aim of providing clarification about the area of research as can be seen with the example of the

three dimensions of sustainability model, sustainability stages model and system boundaries of

projects model in the literature review (Olivier, 2009:46). The purpose of subsequent models

moves from clarification to analysis of the problem or area (Olivier, 2009:46). For the purpose

of this study the maturity model, SPM3, proposed by Silvius and Schipper (2015) as described

in the literature review, was used. The SPM3 model is a subsequent model that allows for the

analysis of the research area. By measuring the maturity of the IT project management process,

with regard to sustainability, the commitment of IT project managers to sustainability could be

assessed.

The subsequent models mentioned previously do not necessarily become the final model for a

particular area of research (Olivier, 2009:46). Differing assumptions as well as specific forms

of the research area stem from analysis of the research area and result in new models known as

differentiated models. Once sufficient ‘differentiated’ models have been proposed trends may

be determined and these models aggregated into a general model which caters for the

assumptions made by earlier models (Olivier, 2009:46). In addition to using the SPM3 model,

this study endeavoured to determine if a differentiated version of this model was appropriate

for the focus on IT projects. The questionnaire used was developed by Silvius et al. (2012)

based on the SPM3 model.

3.9 Conclusion

The purpose of this chapter was to examine and discuss the concept of research in order to

determine an appropriate research method that could be employed when conducting this study.

Research is the process by which new knowledge is created. The research process followed can

be controlled and systematic, which is believed to lead to better research. As research is a

process, several steps are followed, referred to in this study as the research design.

This study was conducted following a quantitative approach as the focus was on investigating

the ‘how’ of the research area. The statistical techniques employed in this study required that


the data be expressed in numerical form, and research already conducted in this area followed

a quantitative approach. The design frame employed in this study was a survey. The survey

was selected as it allowed for the collection of data appropriate for this study within the

parameter constraints of time and cost while still allowing for the quantitative approach to be

followed. The study is cross-sectional as the aim was not to assess trends, but rather to build

an initial view of the commitment of IT project managers to sustainability, and this serves as a

starting point to which subsequent studies may compare results.

Snowball sampling was used to acquire participants because the population was largely

unknown and this type of sampling supported the exploratory nature of this study. The data in

this study was analysed in accordance with the data analysis framework described. Various

statistical techniques were used in conjunction with the Silvius and Schipper (2015) SPM3

maturity model to assess the commitment of IT project managers to sustainability. The final

goal of the analysis section is to determine if any adjustments to the SPM3 model should be

proposed in accordance with the data. Figure 3.3 provides a graphic representation of the

method followed in this study.

Figure 3.3: Study method

The next chapter covers the analysis, interpretation and discussion of the data collected.

50 Chapter 4 – Data analysis and discussion

Chapter 4 - Data analysis and discussion

4.1 Introduction

The goal of this research was to assess the commitment of IT project managers to sustainability,

and in order to answer the questions posed in this research, some kind of evidence had to be

relied on (Thomas, 2013:20). Gathering data is the first step in acquiring evidence to answer

the research question, but in its raw form little sense can be made of it, necessitating the analysis

of this data (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000:192; Walliman, 2005:301). Analysis of the research data

does not in itself provide answers to research questions, as interpretation of the data must be

coupled with the analysis in order to be meaningful (Kerlinger & Lee, 2000:191). The goal of

this chapter is to:

Analyse, interpret and discuss the data collected for the purpose of assessing the



formulated:

6. To discuss the process of collecting and preparing the data.

7. To examine and discuss the biographic and demographic characteristics of the

respondents.

8. To explore and discuss the perceived importance of the aspects of sustainability.

9. To explore and discuss the commitment to the three dimensions of sustainability as well

as the relationships between them.

10. To assess the commitment to sustainability in terms of the SPM3 model.

11. To identify any underlying factors that may be present in the assessment of

sustainability.

12. To assess the initial structure of sustainability within the context of IT projects.

The structure for the chapter is as follows: in section 4.2 the data analysis framework used is

discussed. Section 4.3 deals with the process of collecting and preparing the data. In section

4.4 the biographic and demographic characteristics of the respondents are examined and

discussed, the commitment to the three dimensions as well as the relationship between them

are explored and the commitment to sustainability according to the SPM3 model is assessed.

Section 4.5 covers the structure of sustainability with regard to IT projects.

4.2 Data analysis framework

The data analysis framework, as discussed in chapter 3 (figure 3.2), is followed. The phases of

the data analysis framework are discussed in terms of how they apply to this study. The phases

are discussed below.

4.3 Data collection and preparation

The data collection instrument adopted in this study was a survey, administered as a

questionnaire. Responses were obtained through manual distribution of the questionnaire to


project managers. Responses were captured on an Excel spreadsheet, which served as a

template to facilitate consistent capturing of the responses.

Apart from serving as a template, the Excel spreadsheet served as a master spreadsheet. Of the

responses, 34 were not captured in accordance with the template and made no logical sense, so

they were removed. A further 55 entries had the respondents’ answers captured with a prefix

of the question number. For these spreadsheets, the prefixes were removed. A total of 1 107

responses were collected into the single master spreadsheet.

Preparation of the data is described in further detail below.

4.3.1 Data editing

Of the 1 107 responses, 8 were removed due to being deemed incomplete (less than 75%

complete). A further 161 responses were removed as they were not IT related, leaving 938

usable responses.

All answers have been checked by the researcher to determine if they were valid options for

the question. Several of the biographic and demographic sections contained answers in

differing formats which required editing, so that only one format for an answer remained.

4.3.2 Data coding and entry

Missing sensitive information was captured as “prefer not to say” and other missing values

remained unchanged as valid percentages were used. The data was coded as follows: only

numerical values were used to signify a response. Dichotomous questions used 1 for yes and 0

for no. The Likert scale questions were coded as follows: level 1 (1), level 2 (2), level 3 (3) and

level 4 (4). The biographic and demographic questions used numeric values based on the

number of possible options from which the respondents could choose.

Due to an error in the template, question 7, which deals with the regions that the project would

have an impact on, had to be manually captured by the researcher. The question was broken up

into the six possible geographic regions and assigned a 1 or 0, depending on whether the region

was impacted or not.

The master spreadsheet consisting of 938 responses and only numeric values were then

imported into SPSS. The following section deals with the second, third and fourth objectives.

4.4 Data analysis, interpretation and discussion

Reliability and validity is the first objective discussed in this section.

4.4.1 Reliability and validity

The questionnaire used in this study was tested for reliability by means of Cronbach’s alpha as

seen in table 4.1. An alpha value of .745 resulted from the analysis and indicates that there is

internal consistency.


Table 4.1: Cronbach’s alpha

Cronbach’s Alpha N of Items

.745 24

As mentioned in chapter 3, construct validity was ensured as the questionnaire developed by

Silvius et al. (2012) was used as the basis for the questionnaire in this study.

4.4.2 Biographic and demographic characteristics

The respondents were asked several questions about their biographic and demographic

characteristics. The purpose of these questions was to establish which respondents were viable

candidates for this study and whether these characteristics had an impact on the respondents’

commitment to sustainability.

4.4.2.1 Gender

The distribution of the gender within the sample is illustrated in figure 4.1.

Figure 4.1: Gender distribution

Figure 4.1 shows that males accounted for 55.65%, females 40.19% and those who decided not

to indicate their gender, the remaining 4.16%. These results reflect a far more equal distribution

than the results found in the Prosperus report 2008 and Prosperus report: African edition where

female representation was 22.1% and 34.2%, respectively (Eloff, Labuschagne, Marnewick,

Steyn and Tobin, 2013; Labuschagne & Marnewick, 2008). These results indicate a trend of

increasing female representation in the IT project management domain.

When examining gender in the context of job title, the representativeness of each gender is

fairly indicative of the composition of the sample. Table 4.2 lists the job titles and their

respective gender representation. What is apparent is that across nearly all jobs there was strong

female representation. In a study conducted by Joseph (2013) there was found to be 62.9%

male representation and only 31.1% female representation in the project management domain.

The figures in this study differ significantly from those of Joseph (2013) as an average of above

40% for female representation across the various project management designations was found.


For certain jobs, namely project coordinator, programme manager and portfolio manager, there

was a higher representation of females. Even though the difference is slight, this in addition to

the high representativeness of females overall may be an indication of a shift away from a male-

dominated IT workplace (Festing, Knappert and Kornau, 2015).

Table 4.2: Job title and gender representation

Of the jobs represented, project managers (19.8%) and business analysts (12.2%) were the

majority. Nearly a fifth (19%) of respondents held a position not listed on the questionnaire

and were subsequently categorised as Other.

4.4.2.2 Age

The age distribution is illustrated in figure 4.2. The majority of respondents were between the

ages of 30 and 49 (65.24%), with 37.63% in the age group 30-39. The results indicate a

preponderance of maturity, which implies that experience is an important factor in management

positions. The remainder of the age distribution is as follows: a miniscule 0.11% of respondents

were below the age of 20, 20.26% were between the ages of 20 and 29, 8.85% were 50-59,

0.85% were 60 or older and 4.69% decided not to indicate their age.

Job Title Male Female

Prefer

Not to

Say

Percentage

of Total

Assistant Project Manager 26 25 3 5.8%

Project Coordinator 36 37 5 8.3%

Project Manager 101 77 8 19.8%

Senior Project Manager 38 25 2 6.9%

Project Leader/Project Team Leader 36 22 4 6.6%

Programme Manager 25 30 2 6.1%

Portfolio Manager 12 13 0 2.7%

Project Implementation Manager 12 4 3 2%

IT Manager 31 20 3 5.8%

Business Analyst 71 42 1 12.2%

Project Management Consultant 39 6 1 4.9%

Other 95 76 7 19.0%

Total 522 377 39 100%


Figure 4.2: Age distribution

4.4.2.3 Highest qualification level

The respondents were asked to indicate their highest qualification. The qualification

distribution is illustrated in figure 4.3.

Figure 4.3: Qualification distribution

Just over half (57.04%) of the respondents had either a bachelor’s degree (31.77%) or an

honours degree (25.27%). The remainder of the distribution is as follows: Grade 12/Matric

made up 6.82%, diplomas 15.99%, master’s degrees 17.06%, doctoral degrees 0.77%, and

those who decided not to say made up the remaining 2.35%. It is clear that that a tertiary

qualification holds significant importance as 90.83% of respondents fell into this category.


4.4.2.4 Project type

While not all of the projects were strictly IT projects, for the purpose of this study, projects that

included a large IT component were considered as IT projects. Consequently, the responses of

those respondents who were not involved in IT-related projects were removed, resulting in the

aforementioned 938 usable responses. The distribution of project types is illustrated in figure

4.4.

Figure 4.4: Project type

IT projects were the most represented projects with a 41.26% share. Organisational change

projects represented 14.07% of the responses and research and development projects 11.83%.

The ‘other’ segment included projects that were not IT specific and did not fall under

organisational change or research and development. ‘Other’ represents the remaining 32.84%

of the responses.

4.4.2.5 Project industry segment

The respondents were asked to indicate the industry segment in which the project they were

undertaking was in. The results of the industry distribution are listed in table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Project industry segment

Agriculture 1.8%

Industry 5.9%

Energy 6.5%

Building and construction 2%

Healthcare 3.6%

Wholesale and retail 3.9%

Logistics services 6.4%

Financial services 25.6%

Facility and real estate services 1.7%

Legal services 0.2%

HR services 1.4%


ICT and communication services 14.9%

Consulting 5.2%

Public administration 7.2%

Education and training 3.7%

Other 9.8%

Total 100%

The most notable industries were the financial services (25.6%) and ICT and communication

services (14.9%). Numerous industries were represented, but due to there being 16 options,

each industry’s representation is marginal except for the two already mentioned. Consequently,

the results from this study may not apply to all industries represented here. There is also the

recurring theme of the pervasiveness of IT. The large number of IT-specific projects (figure

4.4) coupled with the variety of jobs represented in table 4.2 indicates the presence of IT

throughout organisations. The large number of industries represented in table 4.3 indicates that

IT is not limited to specific industries. The apparent presence of IT throughout organisations is

a characteristic of the information era (Beaudry & Green, 2002).

4.4.2.6 Regions impacted

The respondents were asked to indicate which regions of the world would be impacted by the

project they were working on. The results are illustrated in figure 4.5.

Figure 4.5: Countries impacted

Close to 90% of projects (88.59%) would have an impact on the African continent, which is

not surprising given that part of the projects were managed in South Africa. What is of more

interest is the 11.41% of projects that would not have an impact on the African continent. The

reason for this is possibly the nature of IT projects in that the physical location of projects is

less important than in other types of projects. The rest of the regions all have some

representation, be it only minimal. These results do indicate that IT projects may not be


localised, so any sustainability considerations should be made with this in mind, as

sustainability is not just a local concern.

4.4.2.7 Project budget

A question regarding the budget of the project was included in the questionnaire. The results

are listed in table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Project budget

<R1 million 24%

Between R1 and R10 million 41.8%

Between R10 and R100 million 22.9%

> R100 million 11.3%

Total 100%

The breakdown of the project budget aspect is as follows: 24% of projects had a budget below

R1 million, 41.8% of projects had a budget between R1 and 10 million, 22.9% had a budget

between R10 and 100 million and the remaining 11.3% of projects had a budget in excess of

R100 million. While the significance of the investment in these projects cannot be verified,

there is still substantial investment with 34.2% of the projects having a budget of R10 million

or more. With such investments it is important that sustainability be considered, as it is most

likely that these projects are initiated in order to contribute to the sustainability of their

respective organisations.

4.4.3 Perceived importance of the aspects of the sustainability definition

The respondents were given aspects of the definition of sustainability and asked to rank them

in order of their importance. The perceived importance of the aspects of sustainability is

illustrated in figure 4.6.

Figure 4.6: Perceived importance of the aspects of sustainability


The weighted averages of each aspect clearly show their order of importance (gcccmu, 2013).

The weightings are as follows: most important (5), very important (4), moderately important

(3), slightly important (2) and least important (1). A point of interest is the substantial and

overwhelming difference between the first two aspects (meeting current needs and the

economic dimension) and the last two (the social and environmental dimensions). The most

notable order of importance is that of the three dimensions. The economic dimension was

regarded as the most important by a substantial margin, with the social dimension placing

second with a negligible margin over the environmental dimension. The findings correspond

for the most part with what was found in the literature, but in this instance, the social dimension

was regarded as more important (Labuschagne et al., 2005; Edum-Fotwe & Price, 2009; Singh

et al., 2009; Smith & Sharicz, 2011; Ullah et al., 2013; Martens & De Carvalho, 2014). This

difference, even though only marginal, may be due to the nature of IT and those industries

which are considered to be relatively clean in terms of energy, water and paper usage (Jeucken

& Bouma, 1999).

A breakdown of the perceived importance of the aspects of sustainability is illustrated in figure

4.7.

Figure 4.7: Breakdown of the perceived importance of the aspects of sustainability

From the breakdown, the extent to which each aspect was favoured is evident. Meeting current

needs and the economic dimension collectively represented 74.4% of the most important rating

and 57.3% of the very important rating. On the other hand, the social and environmental

dimensions collectively only represented 14.6% of the most important rating and 26.5% of the


very important rating. As seen in figure 4.6, the social and environmental dimensions appear

to be almost identical. In figure 4.7 it can be seen just how similar these two dimensions are.

This may imply that the respondents were divided between these two dimensions. Of the three

dimensions, it is clear that the economic dimension was regarded as the most important.

The sustainability definition contains within it a duality which must be understood as a point

of compromise and regarded as equal. This duality is meeting current needs while still allowing

for future needs to be met. The results show that these two aspects were not regarded as equal,

with meeting current needs comprising 73.3% of the most important and very important ratings.

Allowing for future needs to be met, on the other hand, only comprises 37.7% of the most

important and very important ratings. These results are concerning, as without this duality

being treated as equal, the fundamental aim of sustainability will not be met.

The perceived importance of the aspects of sustainability was analysed, while taking into

account the demographic and biographic characteristics of the respondents, to assess whether

these characteristics had an impact on the aspect ratings. The results indicate that there is a

negligible difference in the ratings of the aspects based on the demographic and biographic

groupings.

4.4.4 Overall perspective

The sustainable project management maturity model questionnaire, developed by Silvius et al.

(2012), was used as the basis for the questionnaire in this study. Silvius and Schipper (2015)

note that the specific aspects used in the sustainability assessment may be tailored to the

organisation or project involved. Since the questionnaire was distributed to many participants,

as few changes as necessary were made to the questions to allow for them to remain general

and applicable to as many participants as possible. The questionnaire was also adjusted to

conform to the four-level approach used in the SPM3 model (Silvius & Schipper, 2015). The

levels represent the transition from ‘do no harm’ (level 1) to making a ‘positive contribution’

(level 4). As such, each aspect was measured on a four-level scale to allow for the measuring

of maturity according to the SPM3 model.

The overall perspective focuses on what percentage of projects were at each level, at what level

sustainability was positioned in the strategy of the organisation, at what level the organisation

found itself and project reporting with regard to sustainability.

4.4.4.1 Overall sustainability position

The overall position of sustainability is calculated as the average percentage of each level of a

project. The results are illustrated in figure 4.8.


Figure 4.8: Overall sustainability position

What is apparent from the figure is that on average sustainability was generally disregarded.

The highest percentage was for the level 1 category, measuring 42.28%. The second highest

was level 2 at 22.06%. The majority of projects (64.34%) were at the first or second level. Only

19.26% and 16.4% of projects were at the third or fourth levels, respectively.

The respondents were asked to indicate the highest level at which sustainability was positioned

in the strategy of the organisation. These results were then compared to the number of projects

that fell under each level. The level which a project fell under was calculated based on the

overall average and rounded to the nearest level. The comparison is illustrated in figure 4.9.

Figure 4.9: Sustainability position in strategy and project level groupings

There is a clear disparity between how sustainability was positioned in the strategy of the

organisation and how sustainability was addressed in projects. For the organisational strategy


aspect, the largest portion of respondents (33.37%) felt that sustainability was positioned at the

fourth level. There is a stark difference between this figure and the 0.43% of projects that were

categorised under the fourth level. A similar difference is noticeable in the level 2 category

between the organisational strategy aspect (19.69%) and the project sustainability aspect

(64.18%), but the difference is in favour of the project aspect. These results indicate that the

majority of organisations (57.11%) recognise the importance of sustainability, yet this

awareness does not translate to projects, as only 21.97% of projects were deemed to be at level

3 or higher.

4.4.4.2 Overall reporting position

The respondents were asked to indicate the level at which the organisation addressed

sustainability reporting. Sustainability reporting forces the organisation to take cognisance of

how it is performing with regard to acting in a sustainable manner. The organisational

sustainability reporting was compared to the project reporting for each of the sustainability

dimensions. The results are illustrated in figure 4.10.

Figure 4.10: Organisational and project reporting comparison

There is an observable difference between the organisational and project reporting with regard

to sustainability. This difference is most noticeable at the first level. Nearly one-third (27%)

of the respondents felt that their organisation’s reporting in respect of sustainability was at the

first level, yet project reporting for each of the dimensions of sustainability was above 50% of

the responses for level 1. For the higher levels organisational sustainability reporting had

higher percentages than project reporting, with the exception of “people” for level 3. This

implies that organisational sustainability reporting does not translate to project reporting. An

overall trend is also observable and that is that the higher the level, the fewer the number of


respondents. The results indicate that sustainability reporting is inadequately addressed and

more so from the project perspective. These are concerning factors as underestimating what

needs to be done when addressing sustainability is considered the biggest contributor to the

failings of organisations’ sustainable performance (Kendall & Willard, 2014). Projects are the

vehicles through which sustainable change is realised, which makes understanding sustainable

performance all the more important (Silvius et al., 2012).

Sustainability reporting is not inconsequential and is in fact included in the corporate

governance framework known as King III. Reporting on sustainability is a key requirement of

King III and considered part of the holistic representation advocated by King III (Institute of

Directors Southern Africa, 2009). King III states that sustainability reporting should not be

limited to the organisation overall, but should rather include all areas of performance. King III

also notes that sustainability reporting is reporting that includes economic, social and

environmental issues. Despite this, the majority of respondents felt that sustainability reporting

was only addressed at either the first or second levels.

The relationship between organisational and project sustainability reporting was assessed from

a different perspective to determine where the majority of respondents fell according to both

reporting aspects. The results are displayed in table 4.5 as the percentage of projects that are at

each of the intersecting points.

Table 4.5: Cross-tabulation between organisation and project sustainability reporting

Organisational

Reporting

Project Reporting

(Economic)

Project Reporting

(Environment)

Project Reporting

(Social)

Level 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

1 16.6 5.3 2.2 2.9 18.9 3.3 3.4 1.5 17.7 3.4 3.3 2.7

2 21.6 8.3 3.2 4.6 24.9 5.2 4.6 3.0 20.0 7.2 6.5 4.0

3 7.6 6.6 2.9 2.6 8.8 4.1 4.3 2.6 7.8 4.6 5.7 1.7

4 6.6 4.1 1.8 2.9 4.2 3.8 3.6 3.8 5.5 2.0 5.0 2.9

The results show that that the highest percentage of respondents fell under level 1 for project

reporting and levels 1 and 2 for organisational reporting. The results are consistent across the

dimensions (economic: 38.2%, environmental: 43.8%, social: 37.7%) and show in greater

detail the distribution of figure 4.10. Table 4.5 does indicate that there is no consistency

between organisational and project sustainability reporting in that all possible combinations

have some representation. The relationship between these two types of reporting was further

tested by means of correlation. Positive correlations were found between organisational

reporting and each dimension in project reporting, but the strength of these correlations is weak

at best. This may imply that organisational reporting may have an impact on project reporting

with regard to sustainability, albeit only minimally.


The results from both figure 4.10 and table 4.5 indicate that both organisational and project

sustainability reporting are in a poor state, with project sustainability reporting the worst off of

the two.

4.4.5 Three dimensions of sustainability

The remainder of the questionnaire was divided into three sections, namely the economic

perspective, the social perspective and the environmental perspective. Each of these sections

focused on their respective sustainability dimensions and comprised several aspects.

4.4.5.1 The economic dimension

The economic dimension comprises four aspects, namely investment evaluation, managerial

flexibility, direct financial benefits and project reporting profit. The overall averages for each

of these aspects are presented in figure 4.11. Investment evaluation has the highest average at

2.76, followed by managerial flexibility (2.66), direct financial benefits (2.6) and lastly project

reporting profit with an average of 1.83. The first three aspects have similar averages,

indicating that they are addressed to a similar extent. On the other hand, project reporting is

substantially lower, which is expected from the results in figure 4.10.

Figure 4.11: Averages of economic dimension aspects

The breakdown for each of the economic aspects is illustrated in figure 4.12. The breakdown

indicates the percentage of respondents who felt they achieved a certain level in each of the

economic dimension aspects.


Figure 4.12: Breakdown of economic dimension aspects

Each level of each aspect is addressed sequentially together with what those levels mean.

The investment evaluation aspect is concerned with the evaluation methods used in the

selection of IT projects. Level 1 had the smallest percentage of IT projects (11.4%), indicating

that only a small portion of IT projects were evaluated and selected based predominantly on

the payback period. Nearly a quarter of IT projects (23.5%) were evaluated and selected based

primarily on the net present value of the investment or its return on investment. Level 3 had

the highest percentage of IT projects (42.4%), implying that most IT projects were evaluated

and selected based on a combination of short-/medium- and long-term returns. Just over a fifth

of IT projects (22.7%) were categorised as being at the fourth level, which shows that a

substantial portion of IT projects were evaluated and selected, based not only on the level 3

criteria, but also the consideration of economic, environmental and social aspects.

The managerial flexibility and optionality aspect is concerned with the extent to which IT

projects allow for future decision making. Nearly a fifth of IT projects (18.6%) were at the first

level which indicates that this aspect was only considered implicitly and in accordance with

company regulations. The remaining 81.4% of IT projects were considered explicitly, but the

25.4% of IT projects at level 2 indicate that this was only done reactively. The level 3 IT

projects (27.6%) imply that this aspect was one of the areas that IT projects contribute to. Level

4 accounts for the highest percentage of IT projects (28.5%), which is in itself is a positive

occurrence and indicates that contributing to this aspect was part of the justification for IT

projects.

The direct financial benefits aspect is concerned with the types of benefits that are recognised

in the business case of the project. The 19% of IT projects at level 1 indicate that nearly a fifth

of IT projects recognised benefits implicitly. A further 22.8% of IT projects only recognised

benefits in the form of cost savings or reduced use of resources. Level 3 reflected the most IT

projects for this aspect (37.5%), which indicates that these IT projects recognised benefits from


improved business processes and/or improved models for existing offerings. The level 4 IT

projects indicate that just over a fifth (20.7%) of IT projects recognised benefits in terms of

increased revenue deriving from improved offerings.

In contrast with the aforementioned economic aspects, the results on project reporting profit

aspects gravitate towards the lower levels. This aspect is concerned with which items are

included in the project reports, including progress reports. Over half of IT projects (52.9%)

only reported on project activities, budget considerations and risk considerations in terms of

planned outcomes and actual results achieved. The percentage of level 2 IT projects (24%)

implies that nearly a quarter of IT projects reported on lessons learned and project

improvements in addition to what was reported at level 1. Only 10% of IT projects reported on

project design and delivery changes as well. The remaining 13% of IT projects reported on

changes such as market conditions which may impact on the business case of the project and

its resulting value, in addition to the previous levels.

For the most part, the economic dimension aspects had favourable distributions with

investment evaluation (65.1%), managerial flexibility (56.1%) and direct financial benefits

(58.2%) being addressed mostly at the third or fourth level. Incidentally, these three aspects

appear to have a somewhat similar distribution, implying that they were deemed to be of similar

importance. In contrast, the majority of projects for the project reporting profit aspect (52.9%)

addressed sustainability only at the first level.

The economic aspects were tested for correlations and while statistically significant positive

correlations were found between them, the correlations are weak. The implication of these

results is that each of these aspects should be addressed specifically, as performance in one

aspect may only have minimal positive impact on the performance in the other aspects of the

economic dimension.

4.4.5.2 The social dimension

The social dimension comprises eight aspects, namely training, education and organisational

learning, society and customers, bribery and anti-competitive behaviour, diversity and equal

opportunity, labour practices and decent work, project reporting people, human rights, and

health and safety. The overall averages for each of these aspects are presented in figure 4.13.

The averages range from 1.82 (health and safety) to 2.28 (training, education and organisational

learning). The averages for all of these aspects are notably similar to each other, in contrast to

those of the economic dimension. The implication is that they all have similar importance.

Another differentiating factor is how the social dimension aspects have noticeably lower

averages than the economic dimension aspects. This indicates that the social dimension is

addressed to a lesser extent, which may be an indication that it is perceived as being of less

importance. The social dimension being regarded as less important than the economic

dimension corresponds with what was found in the literature (Labuschagne et al., 2005; Edum-

Fotwe & Price, 2009; Singh et al., 2009; Smith & Sharicz, 2011; Ullah et al., 2013; Martens &

De Carvalho, 2014).


Figure 4.13: Averages of social dimension aspects

The breakdown for each of the social aspects is illustrated in figure 4.14. It indicates the

percentage of respondents who felt they achieved a certain level in each of the social dimension

aspects.

Figure 4.14: Breakdown of social dimension aspects

Each level of each aspect is addressed sequentially, together with what those levels mean. Due

to the low averages of the social dimension aspects, it is not surprising to see that the highest

numbers of respondents felt that the first level was the highest level in each aspect at which

social sustainability is addressed.

The training, education and organisational learning aspect is concerned with the extent to which

IT projects include training, education and development of stakeholders. The largest portion of


IT projects (34.3%) only included appropriate training and education of end users as part of the

project’s deliverable. The second level accounted for 23.6% of the responses, indicating that

these projects included training and education for team members to improve performance in

the project. Just over a fifth of the IT projects (21.7%) showed that they included training for

improved performance after the project had been completed. The remaining 20.3% of IT

projects included activities for developing relevant competences in all stakeholders.

The society and customers aspect is concerned with the extent to which IT projects follow a

socially responsible approach towards the society in which they operate. Only recognising

social responsibility towards external stakeholders in the society of operation is what was

achieved by 40.2% of IT projects at level 1. Close to a quarter of IT projects (22.9%) required

that suppliers and partners of the project take on social responsibility towards the societies in

which they operated. For just over a fifth of IT projects (21.1%), results of the project were

designed in such a way as to translate into social responsibility towards external stakeholders

in the society in which they operated. Those IT projects in the level 4 category (15.9%)

extended this translation towards society as a whole.

The bribery and anti-competitive behaviour aspect is concerned with the extent to which IT

projects reject bribery and anti-competitive behaviour. According to the 2015 bribery survey,

released by the Ethics Institute of South Africa, bribery within South Africa is a serious issue

(Dobie, 2015). The survey found that 74% of the participants knew someone who had been

asked to pay a bribe and of those who were asked, 75% ended up paying the bribe. The most

disheartening statistic drawn from this survey is the 78% of participants who felt that paying a

bribe was a necessity to get through life. This apparent acceptance of bribery is a possible

reason for the poor results in the bribery and anti-competitive behaviour aspect. Based on these

results, it is not surprising to find that 44.3% of IT projects were at the first level, where the

team members are held accountable for rejecting bribery and anti-competitive behaviour. Just

over a fifth of IT projects (20.9%) also required that their suppliers and partners reject bribery

and anti-competitive behaviour. The 18% of IT projects at the third level indicates that bribery

and anti-competitive behaviour was prevented in the organisation by the way the project

deliverable and result were designed. The remaining 16.8% of IT projects indicates that bribery

and anti-competitive behaviour prevention was also extended to the community in which the

project result was directed.

The diversity and equal opportunity aspect is concerned with the extent to which IT projects

apply policies or standards for diversity and equal opportunity which reflect the society in

which they operate. Due to South Africa’s history, the diversity of the workforce is not

representative of the population. This necessitates that steps be taken to rectify the injustices

of the past. South Africa has a unique regulation known as broad-based black economic

empowerment (BBBEE) which has the aim of addressing diversity in the workforce. The

inclusion of this regulation in South Africa puts additional pressure on South African

organisations to comply with regulations. The added pressure in turn makes it more difficult

for these organisations to progress past the first level and may play a role in the following

results. The highest percentage of IT projects (41.5%) merely complied with applicable


standards and regulations regarding equal opportunity in areas such as gender, religion and

race. Just under a third of IT projects (27.9%) required such compliance from suppliers and

partners as well. Only 16.1% of IT projects designed deliverables to improve diversity and

equal opportunity within the organisation and even fewer (14.5%) designed deliverables to

improve diversity and equal opportunity within the community as well.

The labour practices and decent work aspect is concerned with the extent to which policies or

standards for labour practices and decent work are applied to IT projects. The highest

percentage of IT projects (39.8%) just complied with applicable standards and regulations

regarding labour practices and decent work. Just over a third of IT projects (31.1%) required

such compliance from suppliers and partners as well. Close to a fifth of IT projects (17.2%)

designed deliverables to improve labour practices and decent work in the organisation. The

remaining 11.9% of IT projects designed deliverables to improve labour practices and decent

work in the communities towards whom the result was directed.

The project reporting people aspect is concerned with whether IT projects report on indicators

of social sustainability. Just over half of IT projects (51.4%) only reported on what was

necessary in order to comply with laws and regulations. Almost a fifth of IT projects (16.8%)

reported on social sustainability in terms of the resources used. Just over a fifth of IT projects

(20.5%) reported on social sustainability in terms of the project deliverables. The remaining

11.3% of IT projects also reported on social sustainability in terms of the use and disposal of

the project deliverables.

The human rights aspect is concerned with the extent to which IT projects apply policies or

standards for respecting and improving human rights such as non-discrimination, freedom of

association and stopping child labour. Over half of the IT projects (50.2%) only recognised this

aspect implicitly and only complied with the necessary laws and regulations. Close to a quarter

of IT projects (23.3%) considered this aspect explicitly, but only reactively with the intention

of not compromising stakeholder interests. Only 14.3% of IT projects explicitly considered this

as an area that the project contributed to. The remaining 12.2% of IT projects considered

making a contribution to this aspect as part of the justification for the project.

The health and safety aspect is concerned with the extent to which policies or standards for

health and safety are applied in IT projects. Health and safety is an aspect that is more

commonly associated with projects in the construction and engineering fields, but this does not

mean that IT projects are exempt. Nearly half of IT projects (49.5%) just complied with the

applicable standards and regulations regarding health and safety. A further 28% of IT projects

required such compliance from suppliers and partners of the project. As little as 13.4% of IT

projects designed the deliverables of the project in such a way as to improve health and safety

conditions within the organisation. Less than a tenth of IT projects (9.1%) extended this

improvement to the communities towards whom the project results were directed.

The similarity between the bribery and anti-competitive behaviour aspect and the majority of

the other aspects in the social dimension may indicate similar dispositions towards these


aspects. What is more concerning are those aspects that are noticeably in a worse position such

as project reporting people, human rights and health and safety, whose level 1 responses made

up 51.4%, 50.2% and 49.5% of their total responses, respectively. The rest of the aspects had

a level 1 representation ranging from 34.3% to 44.3%. The highest level 3 and 4 representation

was for training, education and organisational learning at 42%. This number drops to 22.5%

for health and safety, with the rest of the aspects falling between these two. Overall it is clear

that the social dimension is poorly catered for. While the measurements of the social dimension

cannot be compared to the literature, what is common in both the literature and this study is

that the social dimension is addressed to a lesser extent than the economic dimension.

The social aspects were tested for correlations and several interesting correlations were found.

Only those with a moderate or greater strength are included. The correlations are listed in table

4.6.

Table 4.6: Correlations between social aspects

Health and Safety Human Rights Society and Customer

Spearman

Correlation

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Spearman

Correlation

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Spearman

Correlation

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Labour

practices and

decent work

.413** .000

Diversity and

equal

opportunity

.402** .000 .404** .000

Human rights .402** .000

An interesting point is that these noteworthy correlations between the aspects of the social

dimension are positive, moderate in strength and statistically significant (p < 0.001). As the

correlations are all positive, an increase in one of the aspects presented in table 4.6 would

indicate a moderate increase in its corresponding aspect. Based on these results, it can be

concluded that acting sustainably in one aspect may result in other aspects being addressed in

a sustainable way as well. Furthermore, the aspects that have correlations are closely related to

each other. From these results, it can be said that a plausible reason for this may be due to

processes or policies that overlap several closely related aspects, which may be an important

consideration for organisations fostering more sustainable practices.

From the correlation analysis it was discovered that there is a three-way correlation between

the human rights, diversity and equal opportunity, and society and customer aspects. This

correlation relationship can be seen in figure 4.15. This specific correlation relationship is

mentioned as it may be an indicator of a latent variable. Whether a latent variable exists requires

factor analysis to be performed. As such, this relationship is taken into consideration for the

factor analysis discussed later in this chapter.


Figure 4.15: Social dimension three-way correlation

4.4.5.3 The environmental dimension

The environmental dimension comprises seven aspects, namely procurement, travel, waste,

energy, water, project reporting planet and, lastly, materials. The overall averages for each of

these aspects are presented in figure 4.16. The averages range from 1.77 (materials) to 2.57

(procurement). The majority of the aspects have similar averages, with only procurement

standing out as the best addressed aspect having the highest average outside of the economic

dimension. The procurement average is similar to the investment evaluation, managerial

flexibility and direct financial benefits aspects of the economic dimension and this may be due

to procurement being associated with the economic dimension. Apart from procurement, the

other environmental aspects have similar averages to the aspects of the social dimension. This

similarity with the social dimension also having lower averages than the economic dimension

corresponds with what was found in the literature.

Figure 4.16: Averages of environmental dimension aspects

The breakdown for each of the environmental aspects is illustrated in figure 4.17. The

breakdown indicates the percentage of respondents who felt they achieved a certain level in

each of the environmental dimension aspects.


Figure 4.17: Breakdown of environmental dimension aspects

Each level of each aspect is addressed sequentially, together with what those levels mean. As

in the case of the social dimension aspects, it is not surprising that the environmental dimension

aspects have high percentages of level 1 responses.

The procurement aspect is concerned with the criteria against which suppliers for IT projects

are selected. Just over a quarter of IT projects (26.3%) selected suppliers based solely on laws

and regulations. In South Africa laws and regulations can be increasingly imposing due to

additional factors such as BBBEE which weigh heavily in the choice of supplier. A very similar

portion of IT projects (26.5%) selected suppliers based on cost and location while still ensuring

that the interests of stakeholders were not compromised. Only around a tenth of IT projects

(11.2%) selected suppliers based on the supplier’s use of natural resources and environment-

enhancing policies. Surprising and positive is that the highest percentage of IT projects (35.9%)

were at the fourth level, indicating that suppliers were selected based on their ability to help

deliver the project in a more sustainable way or aid in the contribution of the project result to

sustainability.

The travel aspect is concerned with the extent to which travel policies of the project consider

environmental aspects. Travel can form a major part of IT projects as team members may need

to meet with various stakeholders. In project rollouts that are geographically dispersed, the

need for travel is that much more important. In just over half of IT projects (51.3%) travel is

based on necessity for completing project activities and selected based on time and cost. 12%

of IT projects based travel on necessity for completing project activities, but the means of travel

was selected while taking into account environmental aspects. Just over a fifth of IT projects

(21.7%) sought alternatives to travel such as video conferencing when possible. The remaining

15% of IT projects designed their deliverables and results to minimise the required travel.

The waste aspect is concerned with the ways in which the project tries to minimise waste. Just

under half of IT projects (48.6%) considered this aspect implicitly and merely ensured


compliance with laws and regulations. Just over a fifth of IT projects (20.9%) considered this

aspect explicitly, but only reactively with the aim of not compromising stakeholder interests.

15% of IT projects considered this aspect explicitly and as one of the areas the project

contributed to. The remaining IT projects (15.5%) considered contributing to this aspect as part

of the justification for the project.

The energy aspect is concerned with whether the project has any specific policies regarding

energy consumption. Nearly half of IT projects (48.9%) had no specific energy consumption

policies and followed the general energy consumption policies of the organisation. Another

22.9% of IT projects had energy consumption policies, but only promoted the smart use of

energy and energy-efficient equipment where possible. 17% of IT projects kept energy

consumption as low as possible and attempted to acquire the necessary energy from ‘green’

sources. The remaining 11.1% of IT projects considered minimising energy consumption as

one of the parameters in the design of the project.

The water aspect is concerned with whether the project has any specific policies regarding

water consumption and pollution. Clean water is a scarce resource in South Africa and while

water usage during an IT project’s implementation may be low, the project manager should be

take note of how water is managed in the manufacturing of equipment and how it is managed

by the team members. More than half of IT projects (56.7%) had no specific water consumption

policies and followed the general water consumption policies of the organisation. Just under a

fifth of IT projects (17.8%) had water consumption policies, but they only promoted the smart

use of water and water-saving equipment where possible. A further 13.3% of IT projects kept

water consumption as low as possible and recycled or purified the water utilised. The remaining

12.1% of IT projects considered minimising water consumption and pollution as one of the

parameters in the design of the project. Water was recycled or purified if it was to be disposed

of.

The project reporting planet aspect is concerned with whether IT projects report on indicators

of environmental sustainability. More than half of IT projects (56.4%) only reported on what

was necessary in order to comply with laws and regulations. A further 16.9% reported on

environmental sustainability in terms of the resources used. A little over 15% of IT projects

(15.6%) reported on environmental sustainability in terms of the project deliverables. The

remaining 11% also reported on environmental sustainability in terms of the use and disposal

of the project deliverables.

The materials aspect is concerned with the criteria against which materials for the project are

selected. Of all the aspects included in this study, the materials aspect had the highest level 1

representation with 62.4% of IT projects falling into this category. While this result appears to

be negative, it should be considered in context. IT projects make use of very few materials,

with the exception of infrastructure projects, which makes it logical to find such a high level 1

representation for this aspect. These projects indicated that materials for the project were

selected solely on cost as well as functional and technical requirements. Just over a tenth of the

projects (11.7%) also selected materials for the project based on the waste they caused. A


further 12.2% of IT projects selected their materials based also on the energy they consumed

and pollution created during their production. The remaining 13.7% of IT projects, in addition

to what has been previously mentioned, selected materials based on their reuse capabilities and

value.

Procurement (26.3%) is the only environmental aspect that had a level 1 representativeness of

less than 48.6%. It also had the highest level 4 representativeness at 35.9%, which is more than

double any of the other environmental aspects. Procurement is the most noticeable

environmental aspect, with the remaining ones all having similar distributions. The implication

is that these other aspects have similar importance. These results also indicate that the

environmental dimension is in a poor position, even more so than the social dimension. Once

again, the actual measurements cannot be compared to the literature; however, it is clear that

the environmental dimension was not addressed to the same extent as the economic dimension,

which conforms to what was found in the literature.

The environmental aspects were tested for correlations and several correlations were found.

Only correlations with a moderate or greater strength are included. The correlations are listed

in table 4.7.

Table 4.7: Correlations between environmental aspects

Water Waste

Spearman

Correlation

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Spearman

Correlation

Sig. (2-

tailed)

Energy .579** .000 .466** .000

Water .447** .000

The correlations found between the environmental dimension aspects follow a similar trend to

the correlations found between the social aspects in that they are positive, moderate in strength

and statistically significant (p < 0.001). Only three correlations were found between the aspects

of the environmental dimension and are as follows: energy with water (0.579), energy with

waste (0.466) and water with waste (0.447). Once again, the correlations are between closely

related aspects and may be explained by processes or polices that overlap the aspects.

The correlations between the water, energy and waste aspects form a three-way correlation.

This correlation relationship can be seen in figure 4.18. Just as in the social dimension analysis,

this three-way correlation merits special mention as it may be an indicator of a latent variable.

Whether a latent variable exists requires factor analysis to be performed. As such, this

relationship is taken into consideration for the factor analysis discussed later in this chapter.


Figure 4.18: Environmental dimension three-way correlation

4.4.5.4 Dimension comparison

The dimensions as a whole were assessed and compared with each other in order to determine

their overall standing within projects and with each other. The overall dimension standing is

determined as the average of all the aspects comprising it. The results are displayed in figure

4.19.

Figure 4.19: Sustainability dimension averages

Not surprising, based on the results from the individual dimension analysis and the definition

analysis, the economic dimension has a noticeably higher average than the social and

environmental dimensions. These results correspond with what was found in the literature,

except for the social dimension appearing to be better addressed than the environmental

dimension, albeit only slightly (Labuschagne et al., 2005; Edum-Fotwe & Price, 2009; Singh

et al., 2009; Smith & Sharicz, 2011; Ullah et al., 2013; Martens & De Carvalho, 2014). Once

again, the balance between the dimensions of sustainability as advocated by the TBL concept

is not maintained, reinforcing the point that this is a problem regarding the incorporation of

sustainability. The overall average for sustainability is only 2.15, indicating that the

commitment of IT project managers to sustainability is somewhat lacking.

1.98

2.02

2.46

1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 2.3 2.5 2.7

Environmental dimension

Social dimension

Economic dimension


An explanation for the environmental dimension reflecting such poor results in this study, more

so than the social dimension, can possibly be attributed, in part, to the adoption of green IT.

Utilising green IT is perceived as addressing environmental sustainability within the IT field

(Jenkin et al., 2011). Green IT looks at designing and using IT-related components effectively

and efficiently to reduce the impact on the environment as much as possible (Du Buisson &

Naidoo, 2014). Green IT addresses the development and use of IT components, but does not

explicitly address the implementation of IT. The travel and reporting aspects of the

environmental dimension are examples of areas that may fall outside the scope of green IT.

Furthermore, IT is considered as relatively clean when looking at environmental sustainability

with energy consumption being the most prominent aspect, and as such, the other aspects may

fall by the wayside.

However, according to figure 4.16 and figure 4.17, the energy aspect is addressed to a similar

extent to most of the other environmental dimension aspects. The extent is poor, indicating that

environmental sustainability is not of particular importance in IT projects. Procurement, having

the highest average of aspects other than those in the economic dimension, highlights that

money is still the primary focus. The similarly dismal results are seen in the social dimension,

indicating that social sustainability is also not of particular importance in IT projects. The

similarity between the social dimension and environmental dimension results may signify that

there is a relationship between these dimensions that is separate from the economic dimension.

The relationships between the aspects of each dimension were tested for correlations and one

interesting correlation was found. Correlations between the aspects of the dimensions were

tested to determine what the relationship between the aspects of differing dimensions may be.

Only one correlation was of significant strength to warrant mentioning and is shown in table

4.8.

Table 4.8: Correlation between dimension aspects

Project Reporting People

Spearman Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)

Project reporting planet .407** .000

The correlation found is between project reporting planet from the environmental dimension

and project reporting people from the social dimension. The correlation is positive and

significant (p < 0.001), indicating that as one is addressed better, so is the other and vice versa.

These results support the notion that the social and environmental dimensions are addressed

separately from the economic dimension while being linked to each other.

The relationships between the dimensions as a whole were tested for correlations and one

noteworthy correlation was found. The correlation found is between the social and

environmental dimensions and is shown in table 4.9.


Table 4.9: Correlation between dimensions

Social Dimension

Spearman Correlation Sig. (2-tailed)

Environmental dimension .505** .000

The correlation is positive as well as significant (p < 0.001) and further supports the idea that

the social and environmental dimensions are linked. As one of the two is better addressed, so

is the other. These results may be an indication that the social and environmental dimensions

are in fact perceived and/or treated as one dimension. If this is the case, then a fair assessment

would be to say that these dimensions are only half addressed.

The following section deals with the fifth objective, namely to assess the commitment to

sustainability in terms of the SPM3 model.

4.4.6 Factor analysis

Through factor analysis, the structure or dimensionality of a set of variables (in this case

aspects) can be better understood (Brown, 2006:20; Field, 2009:628). Factor analysis is used

in this study to examine the underlying covariance between the sustainability aspects of each

dimension in order to determine if latent variables (factors) exist in the data (Brown, 2006:13;

Field, 2009:628). From this the human-made construct of sustainability can be compared to a

mathematical model based on the same variables. The results of this comparison can then be

used to refine or reaffirm the understanding of sustainability.

Factor analysis was performed within each dimension to determine if any factors existed within

a dimension. Factor analysis was also done on all the aspects to determine if there were aspects

that formed a factor with aspects outside of their respective dimensions.

4.4.6.1 Economic dimension factor analysis

A maximum likelihood extraction factor analysis was conducted on the four aspects

(investment evaluation, managerial flexibility, direct financial benefits and project reporting

profit) using the direct oblimin rotation to allow for the factors to correlate with each other

(Field, 2009:643-644; how2stats, 2011a). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of

sampling adequacy found the analysis to be 0.584 (miserable), indicating that performing factor

analysis on this set of data was justified (Field, 2009:651; how2stats, 2011b).

Only one factor was found to have an eigenvalue over Kaiser’s threshold of 1 and explains

14.98% of the variance. This result was compared with the scree plot and also led to the

conclusion that one factor should be retained (Field, 2009:652). The factor loadings for the

economic dimension are shown in table 4.10. All aspects in the economic dimension load on

this factor, which suggests that this factor represents the economic aspects. As such, the

economic dimension is in and of itself the factor.


Table 4.10: Economic dimension factor loadings

Factor 1: Economic Dimension

Direct financial benefits .467

Managerial flexibility and optionality .415

Investment evaluation .347

Project reporting profit .297

While the factor loadings are somewhat small, especially the project reporting profit aspect, all

the aspects contribute to the economic perspective

4.4.6.2 Social dimension factor analysis

A maximum likelihood extraction factor analysis was conducted on the eight aspects (training,

education and organisational learning, society and customers, bribery and anti-competitive

behaviour, diversity and equal opportunity, labour practices and decent work, project reporting

people, human rights, and health and safety) using the direct oblimin rotation to allow for the

factors to correlate with each other (Field, 2009:643-644; how2stats, 2011a). The KMO

measure of sampling adequacy found the analysis to be 0.83 (middling), indicating that doing

factor analysis on this set of data was justifiable.

Three factors were found in the analysis of the social aspects. Only two of the factors had

eigenvalues over Kaiser’s threshold of 1. However, after consideration of the scree plot, a third

factor was retained (Field, 2009:652). The factor loadings for the social dimension are shown

in table 4.11. The item clusters suggest that factor 1 represents training, education and

organisational learning, factor 2 represents human consideration and factor 3 represents well-

being.

The three-way correlation (figure 4.15) uncovered between the human rights, diversity and

equal opportunity, and society and customer aspects in the social dimension analysis was

revealed through factor analysis to not be a factor. These three variables are in fact spread

across two factors.

Table 4.11: Social dimension factor loadings

Factor 1:

TEOL

Factor 2: Human

Consideration

Factor 3:

Well-being

Training, education and organisational

learning (Q26) .995 .029 -.015

Society and customers (Q29) -.030 .798 -.097

Project reporting people (Q31) .021 .657 .013

Bribery and anti-competitive behaviour

(Q30) .117 .436 .103

Diversity and equal opportunity (Q27) .081 .385 .259

Health and safety (Q25) -.029 -.014 .717

Labour practices and decent work (Q24) .074 -.034 .569

Human rights (Q28) -.075 .313 .430


Figure 4.20 illustrates the results of the factor analysis for the social dimension using the factor

plot in a rotated factor space diagram rendered in SPSS. The factor plot confirms that there are

in fact three factors. Factor 1 is denoted by the red grouping. Factor 2 is denoted by the blue

grouping. Factor 3 is denoted by the green grouping.

Figure 4.20: Social dimension factor plot

4.4.6.3 Environmental dimension factor analysis

A maximum likelihood extraction factor analysis was conducted on the seven aspects

(procurement, travel, waste, energy, water, project reporting planet and materials) using the

direct oblimin rotation to allow for the factors to correlate with each other (Field, 2009:643-

644; how2stats, 2011a). The KMO measure of sampling adequacy found the analysis to be

0.794 (middling), indicating that doing factor analysis on this set of data was justifiable.

Two factors were found in the analysis of the environmental aspects. Only one of the factors

had an eigenvalue over Kaiser’s threshold of 1. However, after consideration of the scree plot,

a second factor was retained (Field, 2009:652). The factor loadings for the environmental

dimension are shown in table 4.12. The item clusters suggest that factor 1 represents resource

provision and reporting, and factor 2 represents travel.

The three-way correlation (figure 4.18) uncovered between the water, energy and waste aspects

in the environmental dimension analysis was revealed through factor analysis to not be a factor


by themselves. These three variables are in fact part a factor that includes project reporting

planet, materials and procurement.

Table 4.12: Environmental dimension factor loading

Factor 1: Resource

Provision and Reporting Factor 2: Travel

Water (Q20) .885 -.211

Energy (Q19) .743 -.063

Waste (Q21) .493 .218

Project reporting planet

(Q23) .385 .252

Materials (Q18) .368 .096

Procurement (Q17) .239 .098

Travel (Q22) .047 .560

Figure 4.21 illustrates the results of the factor analysis for the environmental dimension using

the factor plot in a rotated factor space diagram rendered in SPSS. The factor plot confirms that

there are in fact two factors. Factor 1 is denoted by the blue grouping. Factor 2 is denoted by

the red grouping.

Figure 4.21: Environmental dimension factor plot


4.4.6.4 Overall factor analysis

A maximum likelihood extraction factor analysis was conducted on all 19 sustainability aspects

using the direct oblimin rotation to allow for the factors to correlate with each other (Field,

2009:643-644; how2stats, 2011a). The aim of this analysis was to assess whether a three-

dimension approach to sustainability conforms to the data as well as what the compositions of

the dimensions may be. The KMO measure of sampling adequacy found the analysis to be

0.849 (middling), indicating that doing factor analysis on this set of data was justifiable.

The initial analysis suggested the presence of four factors. This number of factors is based on

Kaiser’s threshold of 1 as well as consideration of the scree plot (Field, 2009:652). The factor

loadings for all of the sustainability aspects are shown in table 4.13.

Table 4.13: All sustainability aspects’ factor loadings on four factors

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4

Society and customers .793 .023 -.167 .055

Project reporting people .568 .089 .059 .083

Bribery and anti-competitive

behaviour .486 -.061 .173 .074

Diversity and equal opportunity .451 .133 .149 -.013

Human rights .396 .196 .268 -.211

Water .077 .780 -.194 -.005

Energy -.092 .773 -.021 .024

Waste -.006 .536 .099 .065

Project reporting planet .134 .368 .136 .060

Materials .011 .327 .155 .074

Labour practices and decent work .101 .008 .641 -.062

Health and safety .176 .195 .437 -.115

Project reporting profit -.041 -.003 .409 .133

Training, education and

organisational learning .232 -.039 .246 .226

Travel .012 .168 .216 .092

Direct financial benefits -.186 .021 .140 .495

Procurement .031 .114 .001 .466

Managerial flexibility and

optionality .118 .079 -.064 .383

Investment evaluation .133 .001 -.017 .240

The results indicate that the majority of sustainability aspects form a factor with other aspects

in their respective dimensions. Factor 1 consists entirely of aspects from the social dimension,

namely society and customers, project reporting people, bribery and anti-competitive

behaviour, diversity and equal opportunity, and human rights. Factor 2 comprises water,

energy, waste, project reporting planet and materials. Factor 3 comprises labour practices and

decent work, health and safety, project reporting profit, training, education and organisational

learning, and travel. Factor 4 comprises direct financial benefits, procurement, managerial

flexibility and optionality, and investment evaluation.


There are three sustainability aspects that form factors with sustainability aspects outside of

their respective dimensions. These are project reporting profit, travel and procurement. The

project reporting profit and travel aspects form a factor with three other aspects which all derive

from the social dimension. As such, the project reporting profit aspect’s grouping does not

make logical sense. The travel aspect’s grouping can be explained in the sense that it is

employees who are affected. This grouping brings into question whether travel should be a part

of the social dimension or whether there is a strong social element that should be considered.

The procurement aspect forms a factor with aspects from the economic dimension, which is

not unexpected due to the results of the dimensions analysis. This introduces the notion that

the procurement aspect should rather be associated with the economic dimension.

Since the project reporting profit aspect was grouped in a manner that did not make logical

sense, it was removed and factor analysis was rerun. Three factors were found in the analysis

of all of the sustainability aspects after removing the project reporting profit aspect. The KMO

measure of sampling adequacy found the analysis to be 0.851, which is a slight improvement

on the previous measure. The factor loadings for the sustainability aspects, without project

reporting profit, are shown in table 4.14.

The results indicate that, once again, the majority of sustainability aspects form a factor with

other aspects in their respective dimensions. Factor 1 comprises all the aspects from the social

dimension. Factor 2 comprises all the aspects from the environmental dimension with the

exception of procurement. Factor 3 comprises all aspects from the economic dimension, with

the exception of the project reporting profit aspect and the inclusion of the procurement aspect.

The travel aspect has weak loadings that are very similar across the factors. It has readings that

signify cross-loading and imply that it does not fit into a single factor. Perfect simple structure

is not expected from this data due to the correlations, but cross-loadings this significant can

affect the model. The procurement aspect retains the grouping it had in the previous analysis.

This further supports the procurement aspect being associated with the economic dimension.

Table 4.14: Sustainability aspects’ factor loadings on three factors

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Society and customers .646 -.011 -.085

Project reporting people .620 -.057 .001

Bribery and anti-competitive behaviour .615 .111 .051

Diversity and equal opportunity .560 -.087 -.019

Human rights .555 -.164 -.160

Health and safety .410 -.171 .004

Labour practices and decent work .406 -.017 .105

Training, education and organisational learning .377 .078 .273

Energy -.093 -.788 .020

Water .011 -.730 -.052

Waste .054 -.524 .109

Project reporting planet .229 -.344 .081

Materials .109 -.320 .097


Travel .132 -.167 .141

Direct financial benefits -.138 -.019 .560

Procurement .006 -.102 .478

Managerial flexibility and optionality .060 -.075 .342

Investment evaluation .115 .004 .194

Factor analysis was rerun after removing the travel aspect as it was cross-loading on all three

aspects. Three factors remained in the analysis of all of the sustainability aspects after removing

the travel aspect in addition to removing the project reporting profit aspect. The KMO measure

of sampling adequacy found the analysis to be 0.851, which is the same as the previous

measure. The factor loadings for the sustainability aspects, excluding the project reporting

profit and travel aspects, are shown in table 4.15.

All remaining aspects, with the exception of procurement, are grouped by their dimension. The

results strongly reflect the number of dimensions and composition of dimensions proposed by

Silvius et al. (2012). Once again, the procurement dimension is grouped with the economic

aspects. These consecutive occurrences make a strong case for considering the procurement

aspect as part of the economic dimension rather than the environmental dimension.

Based on the composition of each factor, they are named according to the dimensions from

which the aspects originate.

Table 4.15: Revised sustainability aspects’ factor loadings on three factors

Factor

1: Social

Factor 2:

Environmental

Factor 3:

Economic

Society and customers .642 -.008 -.065

Project reporting people .620 -.057 .001

Bribery and anti-competitive behaviour .614 .109 .044

Diversity and equal opportunity .559 -.086 -.011

Human rights .555 -.163 -.153

Health and safety .412 -.172 .007

Labour practices and decent work .410 -.021 .080

Training, education and organisational learning .379 .071 .252

Energy -.090 -.782 .033

Water .011 -.727 -.032

Waste .062 -.518 .096

Project reporting planet .234 -.344 .062

Materials .112 -.319 .093

Direct financial benefits -.134 -.020 .568

Procurement .009 -.100 .493

Managerial flexibility and optionality .062 -.071 .354

Investment evaluation .114 .006 .214


Figure 4.22 illustrates the results of the factor analysis for the final factor analysis iteration

performed on all of the sustainability aspects using the factor plot in a rotated factor space

diagram rendered in SPSS. The factor plot confirms that there are in fact three factors. Factor

1 is denoted by the green grouping. Factor 2 is denoted by the red grouping. Factor 3 is denoted

by the blue grouping.

Figure 4.22: Three dimensions factor plot

4.4.7 SPM3 model

The SPM3 model was developed to assess the integration of sustainability into a project based

on four levels (Silvius & Schipper, 2015). The model is typically used to assess an individual

project and therefore the scores for each of the aspects are at definitive levels. In this study

many projects were assessed so the mean score as well as the spread about the mean (coefficient

of variation) were used instead. The mean is used to assess the position of each aspect and the

spread about the mean is used to determine the variability between projects.

The SPM3 model also uses the desired state which is derived from the participants by means

of an additional input for each aspect on the questionnaire. The desired state is simply the level

for each aspect that the participants would like the project to be at. As the aim of this study was

to assess the current commitment of IT project managers to sustainability, the desired state was

not necessary and was subsequently left out.


Based on the results of the factor analysis, one aspect, namely project reporting profit, was

excluded from the model as its inclusion in this grouping did not make logical sense. The travel

aspect was removed from the final factor analysis iteration as it was cross-loading on all three

factors, but this does not mean that travel should not be considered when addressing

sustainability. The travel aspect also had low factor loading values, which may be due to travel

being poorly addressed in IT projects. The travel aspect is placed in the environmental

dimension, as this is where it had the highest factor loading value. Even though in the survey

the procurement aspect was associated with the environmental dimension, the results of this

study indicate that procurement is associated with the economic dimension to a greater degree

for IT projects. The notion that procurement should in fact fall under the economic dimension

is accepted in this study and the procurement aspect is therefore regarded as an economic

dimension aspect. The SPM3 model is illustrated in figure 4.23. The mean for each aspect is

indicated as the black line separating the upper and lower bound coefficient of variation

(shaded area).

The model clearly indicates the poor commitment of IT project managers to sustainability with

the majority of aspects only being addressed at the first level. The economic dimension is the

only dimension where all aspects are at the second level and more than that, there is an

indication of a shift towards the third level. All of the aspects in the environmental dimension

are at the first level, but there is an indication of a shift towards the second level. The majority

of the aspects in the social dimension are at the second level. Unlike with the other dimensions’

aspects, the aspects in the social dimension show little indication of a shift to the next level.

The coefficient of variation reveals some interesting insights as the variability of each aspect

can be compared with the others. The economic dimension aspects have the smallest

coefficients of variation, indicating that there is some consistency in these aspects across IT

projects. On the other hand, the aspects from both the social and environmental dimensions

have significantly higher coefficients of variation. The implication is that there is little

consistency in these aspects across IT projects. These results further support the idea that the

economic dimension is better addressed and introduces the notion that the economic dimension

aspects are afforded similar importance across IT projects. For the other dimensions it can be

seen that their aspects are addressed to a similar extent, on average, but the variability indicates

that these aspects do not hold similar importance across IT projects.


Figure 4.23: SPM3 model


4.5 Structure of sustainability

The result of the factor analysis indicates that the sustainability aspects of project reporting

profit and travel do not fit in the current overall sustainability structure and that the procurement

aspect has more association with the economic dimension. Structure refers to the conceptual

understanding of sustainability and how its components, the three dimensions and their aspects,

are arranged.

The sustainability structure is, however, a human-made construct and is therefore not defined

by mathematical procedures. This does not mean that mathematical procedures should be

excluded, but rather incorporated in a manner which makes logical sense and adds to the

understanding of sustainability. It is well within reason to assume that aspects designed for a

general project may not be applicable to projects within a specific industry. Leaving project

reporting profit and travel out of the sustainability structure when assessing IT projects is

therefore logically plausible.

The procurement aspect being related more to the economic dimension than the environmental

dimension is also logically sound. The dimension with which an aspect is associated is not

necessarily static since an aspect can have links to other dimensions. The dimension that has

the greatest association with an aspect in a given context is the dimension to which that aspect

belongs. In a different context this association may change, resulting in a different

configuration. In this instance, even though the procurement was associated with the

environmental dimension initially, the results of the analysis suggest that it should belong to

the economic dimension. This association indicates that IT projects are concerned more with

the economic impact of procurement rather than the environmental impact.

The factor analysis reveals yet another interesting consideration and that is whether the

sustainability structure should contain one or more other levels. The original structure consists

of three levels as seen in figure 4.24. This structure does not take into consideration the

possibility of factors amongst the aspects and how they may affect the structure.

Figure 4.24: Original sustainability structure

Figure 4.25 illustrates the structure of sustainability after taking into account the results of the

factor analysis. With the addition of factors, another level becomes evident. The social and

environmental dimensions are composed of at least one factor, which in turn is composed of

several aspects, thus adding an additional level to the structure.


Figure 4.25: IT project sustainability structure


Overall, sustainability is still composed of the three dimensions and this is supported by the

results of the overall factor analysis (table 4.15). The economic dimension is composed only

of aspects including the procurement aspect. Table 4.10 indicates that all aspects in the

economic dimension form one factor, thus indicating that the economic dimension is what is

measured by these aspects. The weakness of the procurement aspect factor loading value in

table 4.12 and the grouping of the procurement aspect in table 4.13, table 4.14 and table 4.15

indicate that it should be placed in the economic dimension. The project reporting aspect is not

included as the groupings in the factor analysis (table 4.13) do not make logical sense.

The environmental dimension is composed of two factors as indicated in table 4.12. The travel

aspect forms a factor by itself and the resource provisioning and reporting factor comprises the

other environmental aspects. This composition also adheres to the factor loadings shown in

table 4.15.

The social dimension is composed of three factors as indicated in table 4.11. Only the training,

education and organisational learning aspect forms a factor by itself. The other two factors,

human consideration and well-being, are composed of the remaining seven social aspects. This

composition also adheres to the factor loadings shown in table 4.15.

As mentioned above, the structure is not static as it is dependent on the aspects included, how

the aspects are associated with the dimension and finally what factors may exist. Figure 4.25

represents the overall sustainability structure for IT projects.

4.6 Conclusion

Data collection and preparation followed a meticulous and systematic process so as to not

introduce any bias or capturing error. The data was also coded to allow for ease of use within

the data analysis software used in this study.

The demographic and biographic details of the respondents were analysed and discussed in

order to determine if they had an impact on the sustainability results as well as to develop the

context from which these results originated. There was found to be no indication of the

demographic and biographic details having any discernible impact on the results. The age and

qualification aspects were of the greatest interest, as they seemed the most likely aspects to

have an impact. The results, however, reveal that the younger generations have just as little

regard for sustainability as the older generations. Qualification was suspected of having an

impact on the results because exposure to sustainability is more likely as employees study

further in their respective fields; however, this was not the case.

Asking the respondents to rank the various aspects of sustainability in terms of importance

revealed two interesting themes. The first of these is that the ‘current’ is considered to be

substantially more important than the ‘future’. This is a point of concern as it contradicts one

of the fundamental aims of sustainability, which is to be forward thinking. The second theme

is the ranking of the sustainability dimensions. The economic dimension being regarded as

more important than the other two corresponds with what was found in the literature. The

similar ranking of the social and environmental dimensions also corresponds with what was


found in the literature. These results show the perception of the respondents and give insight

into how sustainability is addressed.

The position of sustainability in the overall strategy of the organisation is compared with the

position of sustainability in projects. There is a clear disparity between these two with the

majority of respondents indicating that sustainability in the overall strategy of the organisation

is at the third and fourth levels, but sustainability in projects is only at the first or second levels.

A similar outcome can be seen when comparing sustainability reporting of the organisation

with that of projects. The conclusion drawn from these results is that sustainability is treated

as less important in IT projects than the organisation as a whole and that organisation level

sustainability aspects do not carry over to IT projects.

The assessment of each dimension shows in detail the non-commitment of IT projects to each

aspect as well as the respective dimensions overall. The results reveal that the economic

dimension, not surprisingly, is in a better position than the other dimensions, with the majority

of IT projects addressing sustainability at the third or fourth level for this dimension. The

reverse is found in the social and environmental dimensions, with the majority of IT projects

addressing sustainability at the first or second level. Such a detailed breakdown allows for areas

of poor performance to be identified and addressed, thus aiding in the commitment to

sustainability.

The aspects within each dimension were tested for correlations to better understand the

relationship between them. Several significant correlations were found, indicating that these

aspects are not isolated from each other. The cause of the relationships is unknown, but may

be explained by the way they are addressed, that is to say, the policies which affect one aspect

also affect another. Such knowledge is crucial to organisations in attempting to better address

sustainability within their projects.

In addition to examining each dimension individually, the dimensions were compared overall.

Unsurprisingly and conforming to what was found in the literature, the economic dimension is

addressed to a better extent than the social and environmental dimensions. The dimensions

themselves are tested for correlations and reveal a significant correlation between the social

and environmental dimensions. The implications are that the social and environmental

dimensions are treated as one and not seen as separate areas to be considered. This may be a

potential reason why these dimensions are not addressed to the same extent as the economic

dimension, as effort may be diluted across them.

Overall, the commitment of IT project managers to sustainability is clearly lacking. The extent

to which sustainability is addressed in organisations appears not to carry over into IT projects.

The extent to which IT projects commit to sustainability is poor and is a reflection of the IT

project managers’ commitment to sustainability. It is recognised that project managers are not

sufficiently equipped to contribute to sustainable development within an organisation and these

results support that view (Silvius et al., 2012). This leads to the recommendation that

development of IT project managers should include the facet of sustainability.


Factor analysis reveals two important aspects for consideration. The first is how the aspects are

grouped by dimension. The results of the factor analysis found that, for the majority, the aspects

belonged to their respective dimensions as set out in the survey. It was only the procurement

aspect that was relocated to a different dimension. This development indicates that the position

of aspects may not be static, but rather is dependent on which dimension has the strongest ties

in the given context. In light of this, a more flexible model structure should be considered. The

second aspect is the factors identified within each dimension. The current perception of the

sustainability structure has three levels, but does not take into account the existence of factors.

The consideration of factors within the dimensions of sustainability lead to the conclusion that

a fourth level should be considered in the SPM3 model.

The next chapter concludes this dissertation and provides an overview of the chapters

presented, the outcome of this research and the potential for future research.

91 Chapter 5 – Conclusion

Chapter 5 - Conclusion

5.1 Introduction

The research in this dissertation was conducted with the objective of assessing the commitment

of IT project managers to sustainability. The state of research currently carried out in this regard

is considered to be interpretive (Silvius et al., 2012; Silvius & Nedeski, 2014) and conceptual

(Martens & De Carvalho, 2014). What this implies is that these studies consider how

sustainability could be interpreted within the context of project management rather than the

prescriptive approach of how it should be interpreted. As research in the field of project

management sustainability is emerging, researchers must rely on concepts. Martens and De

Carvalho (2014) state that empirical studies are required to understand how the concepts of

sustainability can be implemented within project management. Current research has been

conducted on the theoretical aspects of this field but leaves a void where the practical

implementation aspects are concerned. This dissertation aims to help fill this void and serve as

a stepping stone for future research.

In spite of the inclusion of sustainability into projects and the growing interest in the field of

sustainability and project management, the various project management standards do not deal

with the sustainability agenda to any significant extent (Eid, 2009). According to Gareis et al.

(2013), as well as Silvius and Schipper (2014a), the system boundaries of project management

should be expanded to include sustainability. This conclusion was derived by following the

notion that integrating sustainability into projects should not be limited only to the project

management processes. All factors involved in a project such as the supply chain and resulting

products and/or services should also be considered. If the project management scope needs to

be expanded to include sustainability, then the standards for project management, in addition

to addressing sustainability, will need to include the new knowledge area of sustainability.

Prior to this dissertation the state of sustainability in project management and IT project

management specifically was unknown. Without a better understanding of the state of

sustainability in project management, any attempt to address sustainability in this context

would be misguided. By assessing the maturity stage of IT projects with regard to

sustainability, the commitment of IT project managers towards sustainability can be

determined. The aim of this chapter is to determine the answer to the research question: to what

extent are IT project managers committed to sustainability?

In order to answer this research question the following goals were formulated, as outlined in

chapter 1:

1. Assess the notion of sustainability within projects, more specifically IT projects,

through the critical evaluation of the literature pertaining to this topic.

2. Examine and discuss the concept of research in order to discern an appropriate research

method for this study.


3. Analyse, interpret and discuss the data collected for the purpose of assessing the


The aim of this chapter is to determine whether the research goals were achieved and ultimately

what the answer to the research question is.

This chapter is structured as follows: section 5.2 provides an overview of each chapter. In

section 5.3 the research question and goals are revisited. The limitations of the study are

identified in section 5.4 and the potential for future research is discussed in section 5.5. The

contribution of this study is described in section 5.6.

5.2 Overview

This section provides an overview of the chapters in this dissertation by reviewing what each

chapter covered and what was learnt from each chapter.

5.2.1 Chapter 2: literature review

The purpose of the literature review chapter was to assess the notion of sustainability within IT

projects through the critical evaluation of the literature pertaining to this topic. The literature

review built the context in which this research was conducted as well as allowing the researcher

to utilise research already conducted in the field so as to not reinvent the wheel. This chapter

provided an understanding of what sustainability is, what projects are, how sustainability and

projects are related, how sustainability in projects can be measured and, lastly, what

sustainability means in IT.

Sustainability is the concept that future and current needs can be met by ensuring that in all

activities a balance is achieved between the economic, social and environmental aspects. The

projects of organisations are included as an activity and are therefore not exempt from

sustainability consideration. However, a balance between the three dimensions is not regarded

as the norm, with the economic dimension taking priority while the social and environmental

dimensions are sidelined.

Projects are uniquely positioned to include sustainability as they are the vehicles through which

organisations deliver change and can thus be used to ensure sustainability through the

deliverable as well as the manner in which it is delivered. This wholly inclusive approach is

known as the life cycle approach. IT projects are no exception; however, how sustainability is

addressed may differ as IT projects are inherently different from other projects such as those

in construction. Sustainability in projects is measureable through the use of the SPM3 model

which indicates the maturity stages of aspects of the project with regard to sustainability.

5.2.2 Chapter 3: research methodology

The purpose of the research methodology chapter was to examine and discuss the concept of

research in order to identify an appropriate research method that could be employed in this

study. Following a controlled and systematic process leads to better research (Kerlinger & Lee,

2000:14). A scientific approach is followed as it allows for controlled and systematic research

to be conducted, but it requires an understanding of the scientific approach. In this chapter the


research methodology followed, the sample and sampling technique used, the approach to be

followed when analysing data and the use of models in this study were explained.

The research paradigm followed set the tone for how the research was conducted. The positivist

paradigm was the most appropriate paradigm given the research question and data used to

answer it. In line with the chosen paradigm and a previous study by Silvius et al., (2013)

concerning the maturity model used, the quantitative methodology was followed as the aim

was to measure utilising numbers. Of the variety of design frames available to the researcher,

the survey was selected as it was the most appropriate given the focus of the study, the

practicality of a survey and its alignment with the quantitative methodology. The sample for

the study was based on a number of factors, including the statistical analysis to be conducted,

accuracy of results required and the homogeneity of the population. A sample size larger than

250 was considered as sufficient for this dissertation. The data analysis itself had to follow the

appropriate steps and in this study was performed according to the data analysis framework

depicted in figure 3.2. The SPM3 model was used to assess the maturity stage of IT projects

with regard to sustainability and ultimately how committed IT project managers are to

sustainability.

5.2.3 Chapter 4: data analysis and description

The purpose of the data analysis and discussion chapter was to analyse, interpret and discuss

the data collected for the purpose of assessing the commitment of IT project managers to

sustainability. The questions posed in research require evidence in order to answer them. This

evidence is drawn from data, but requires analysis before useful information is obtained.

Information does not in itself provide answers to research questions, as interpretation of the

information is necessary. This chapter dealt with the preparation of the data, the analysis and

discussion of the data, the use of the SPM3 model and the structure of sustainability in IT

projects.

Data preparation is an uneventful process, yet necessary to ensure the reliability and validity

of the data used. Meticulous capturing and cleaning of the data must be undertaken. The

analysis of the data was broken up into six parts:

1. Statistical tests were performed to confirm the reliability and validity of the data.

2. The second part dealt with the biographic and demographic profile of the respondents.

The increasing representation of females within the IT domain is recognised as a

possible trend with three benchmarks spanning eight years.

3. The third part concerned the perceived importance of the aspects of the sustainability

definition. The results reflect what was found in the literature and that is that the

economic dimension and meeting current needs are the most important aspects.

4. The fourth part examined the overall composition of projects and reporting with regard

to sustainability. On average, over 40% of IT projects were at the first level in respect

of sustainability. Over half of the IT projects only reported on sustainability at the first

level.


5. The fifth section dealt with each dimension individually and the dimensions were

compared. The economic dimension yielded the best results with a weighted average

of about 2.4 out of 4. The social and environmental dimensions both had noticeably

lower weighted averages of 2.02 and 1.98, respectively. These results reflect what was

found in the literature. The somewhat low dimension averages resulted in the low

overall average for sustainability in IT projects of only 2.15. The maturity of IT projects

with regard to sustainability was displayed according to the SPM3 model (figure 4.23).

The mean of each aspect and the variance about the mean were used since multiple

projects were accounted for. The model clearly shows that the majority of sustainability

aspects were at about the second level. Only the aspects from the economic dimension

leaned towards the third level. Assessing variability within each aspect reveals that the

economic dimension was addressed with more consistency than the social and

environmental dimensions. This, coupled with the higher averages in the economic

dimension, indicates that the economic dimension was recognised by IT project

managers as the most important dimension.

6. Lastly, the structure of sustainability was discussed based on the results of factor

analysis. The initial structure used for the sustainability aspects was based on the

generic questionnaire developed by Silvius et al. (2012). This structure conformed to

the three-dimension structure found in the literature (figure 4.24), but was more

concerned with the placement of the sustainability aspects. The results of the factor

analysis indicate that the procurement aspect was more closely linked to the economic

dimension, and project reporting profit did not fit into the structure in a way that was

logical. The travel aspect had somewhat equal ties to each dimension. The results of the

factor analysis also suggest the existence of factors within the dimensions which add a

new level to the sustainability structure. This change in structure introduces the notion

that the structure of sustainability is not static and may vary depending on the project

type. The structure for sustainability in IT projects is illustrated in figure 4.25.

5.3 Research goals and question

The research goals, whether they were achieved and the outcome of the research question will

now be discussed.

1. The first goal was to assess the notion of sustainability within projects, more

specifically IT projects, through the critical evaluation of the literature pertaining to this

topic. Through the analysis of relevant literature, this goal has been achieved, as

reflected in chapters 1 and 2. Acting in a manner that is sustainable is not only part of

how the project is undertaken, but also relates to the deliverable and how it is delivered.

This approach is known as the life cycle approach. Regardless of the project type, be it

construction, manufacturing or IT, sustainability should be integrated into the project.

The literature proves the importance of including sustainability in project management.

In chapter 2 means by which sustainability in projects can be measured were also

discussed, which was crucial for assessing the commitment of IT project managers to

sustainability.


2. The second goal was to examine and discuss the concept of research in order to discern

an appropriate research method for this study. This goal was achieved through the

analysis and comparison of possible methodologies and designs pertinent to conducting

research as discussed in chapter 3. The research paradigm followed was the positivist

paradigm which lends itself to the quantitative methodology. A previous study,

specifically relating to the maturity model used in this study, followed the quantitative

methodology. Additionally, the quantitative methodology investigates the ‘how’, which

is directly related to the research question. For these reasons the quantitative

methodology was adopted. The survey design frame was chosen as it is practical and

conforms to the quantitative methodology. A sample size of greater than 250 was

required for this research and the survey design frame was therefore the practical

choice. A data analysis framework was decided on to ensure that the appropriate steps

were taken when handling the data. Finally, the SPM3 model was selected to assess the

level to which sustainability is included in IT projects.

3. The third goal was to analyse, interpret and discuss the data collected for the purpose

of assessing the commitment of IT project managers to sustainability. This goal was

achieved through the use of various statistical techniques and the SPM3 model as

discussed in chapter 4. The model allows for detailed assessment of each aspect in the

dimensions as well as an overall assessment of the dimensions and ultimately

sustainability as a whole. Other statistical techniques are used to reveal relationships

between the variables as well as aid in the interpretation of the data with regard to the

model. By assessing the extent to which sustainability is addressed in IT projects, the

commitment of IT project managers to sustainability could be determined.

The answer to the research question is that IT project managers are not committed to

sustainability. It is perplexing that an action taken to ensure sustainability is not sustainable in

its own right. Even though chapter 2 presents evidence showing how important sustainability

in project management is and that there needs to be a balance between the dimensions, the

results of this research do not reflect this sentiment. The averages of the economic (2.46), social

(2.02) and environmental (1.98) dimensions show that the dimensions are not even close to

being equally addressed. The results also show that the overall sustainability average is only

2.15. The higher results of the economic dimension are in line with what was found in the

literature as well as the perceived importance of the aspects of sustainability; however, they

are still less than ideal. There are no aspects that average at level 3 or higher. The majority of

aspects average around level 2, showing that not all aspects of sustainability in IT project

management are committed to.

In order to address sustainability, projects need to be broken down into the various

sustainability aspects. Only by doing this can the extent to which sustainability is addressed in

projects be seen as demonstrated by the SPM3 model (Silvius & Schipper, 2015). Once the

state of sustainability in projects is known, informed decisions can be made to better address

sustainability. Simply being aware of the importance of sustainability in project management


or applying the SPM3 model requires knowledge about sustainability, making it imperative

that this field of research gain greater exposure.

5.4 Limitations

Even though time and effort go into planning research, there are inherent limitations that are

either unknown at the start of the research or revealed while it is being conducted.

1. The first limitation is that the sample used was of the South African population, thus

validating this research in the South African context. While IT projects are not limited

to a single country, the perspective obtained is only that of IT projects in South Africa.

The perspective in other countries may differ from that in South Africa due to differing

cultures and economic standing. Data collection was unfortunately limited to South

Africa as the opportunity to collect data from other regions was not available.

2. The second limitation is that this research does not extend to project management in

general. The data analysed is of IT projects, so projects of a different type may yield

different results.

3. The third limitation is that the quantitative research methodology was used. While this

methodology allows for analysis of many variables (breadth), it does not lead to great

detail (depth). As such, this research focused on covering many variables in order to

answer the research question. If a qualitative methodology had been used, then the

analysis of data would have been more in depth as richness of data is then focused on.

This could have led to a finer, more detailed understanding of sustainability in project

management.

4. The fourth limitation is that the questionnaire used was generic and not tailored to a

specific project type or geographic region. It was based on the questionnaire developed

by Silvius et al. (2012) and requires further research in order to be refined for use in

specific project types or geographic regions. Silvius and Schipper (2015) do note that

for individual projects the questionnaire can be tailored. This is especially true if the

assessment is conducted by someone who is familiar with the project. In this study

multiple projects formed part of the assessment, so tailoring the questionnaire was not

possible.

5. The fifth limitation is the perceived importance of the aspects that constitute the

sustainability definition. The respondents were asked to rank the aspects in order of

importance. While this provided useful information, it did not reveal the margin by

which aspects differ with regard to importance. If this particular question were changed

or another question were included that asked the respondents to distribute 10 or 15

points among the 5 aspects, for example, an idea of the extent to which the levels of

importance differ could be obtained.

6. The sixth limitation is regarding the relationship between the sustainability aspects.

While each aspect is addressed in order to determine at what level it is catered for, the

relationship between aspects was not investigated apart from identifying that there is a

relationship between some of them. The relationship is deduced through significant

correlations, but what the relationship is or what is causing it remains unknown.


5.5 Future research

The results presented in this study as well as the limitations encountered open up considerations

for future research.

The first consideration is comparing the results of this study to others done on different project

types as well as in different geographic regions. Conducting this study on different projects

will allow for a comparison of different project types with regard to sustainability. Conducting

this study in different geographic regions will reveal whether the commitment to sustainability

differs in projects conducted in different regions. Undertaking both of these initiatives would

contribute to acquiring a global assessment of how committed project managers are to

sustainability.

The second consideration is using the results of this study as a benchmark to compare

individual IT projects conducted in South Africa or to compare South African IT projects with

those of other geographic regions.

The third consideration is to use a tailored questionnaire. Only one project or a group of similar

projects could be assessed using a single tailored questionnaire; the results could be more

detailed and inclusive of the aspects in the projects. Tailoring the questionnaire may not need

to be done to such an extent and even adjusting it to focus more on specific project types and

geographic regions may lead to more accurate results. Another modification could be made

and that is to the question which addressed the perception of the importance of the aspects of

the sustainability definition. Changing this question or adding another could be used to measure

the margin by which the level of importance differs.

The fourth consideration is to investigate the relationship between the sustainability aspects.

Several positive correlations were found between them, indicating that there is a relationship.

The extent of this relationship is unknown but may play a role in how sustainability in these

aspects is addressed. These aspects may form a group or be affected by the same policies, which

is important information to know when attempting to better address sustainability.

The fifth consideration is closely related to the fourth and that is to perform an in-depth analysis

of each sustainability aspect. Underlying or external factors may be present that affect the

sustainability performance in an aspect. This study highlights BBBEE as one of these potential

factors, yet others may exist. Analysing these sustainability aspects in depth may reveal

additional aspects or subaspects that should also be considered when examining how

sustainability is addressed in projects.

The sixth consideration is to explore the importance of sustainability in government and civil

society. Due to the scope of this research, only the organisational pillar of society was

considered. The holistic nature of sustainability dictates that all three pillars should be

examined. Special consideration should be given as to how the government and civil society

pillars are addressed as they differ from one another and from the organisational pillar.


5.6 Contribution

Research is conducted in order to solve a research problem or answer a research question. This,

however, is not the full extent of the research impact as it contributes to the humanities body

of knowledge as well as serving as the basis for decision making and future research.

This is an initial empirical study which aims to promote awareness in the sustainability and

project management fields and lead to further studies. In a modest way this study helps fill the

void of research in this area as well as serve as a stepping stone for future research. The results

of this study indicate that sustainability is poorly catered for in IT projects and should be at the

foreground of issues in this field. While this research reveals the state of sustainability in IT

projects in South Africa, the hope is that research on other project types and geographic regions

will be conducted. In doing so, a global view of sustainability and project management will be

acquired.

This research shows that the SPM3 model can be used in specific project types, in this case IT

projects. Furthermore, this research indicates that the SPM3 model can be used for multiple

projects at the same time. The focus then shifts from illustrating how a single project addresses

sustainability to assessing an average. Assessing multiple projects allows for additional

statistical techniques such as averages, correlations and variance to be applied to gain insight

into the population.

Using this model also provides an actionable basis from which sustainability can be addressed.

By assessing sustainability performance in such detail, areas of weakness can be identified and

measures put in place to rectify these areas.

The results in this study also serve as a benchmark against which other IT projects and future

research can be compared. Using this study as a benchmark opens up the possibility for

comparing individual IT projects, the extent to which sustainability is addressed in other

geographic regions and the change in the extent to which sustainability is addressed over time.

5.7 Final word

Research is the process of telling a story in which knowledge is created and shared. This story

has a beginning (the research problem and background), a middle (planning how the research

will take place, gathering the data and analysing it) and an end (interpreting the results and

deciding if the research problem was solved). This story is not written in isolation and becomes

the stepping stone for other research, just as other research was the stepping stone for this study.

As such, the research done must be rigorous so as not to compromise the community of trust.

In order to write this story, the researcher must be able to manage time and resources and stay

focused on the objective. There are no shortcuts to telling this story. Through the process,

problems or limitations may be encountered – this does not dictate that the research is lacking,

but rather forms considerations for future research.

99 References

References

Alänge, S., & Steiber, A. (2009). The board's role in sustaining major organizational change: An empirical

analysis of three change programs. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences, 1(3), 280-293.

Alsop, R. J. (2006). The 18 immutable laws of corporate reputation: Creating, protecting and repairing your

most valuable asset. London: Kogan Page.

Aronson, J., & Neysmith, S. M. (1996). “You’re not just in there to do the work” depersonalizing policies and

the exploitation of home care workers' labor. Gender & Society, 10(1), 59-77.

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.

Azizi,M. (2005). Decision making for raw material procurement in paper making factory. Proceedings of the 8th

International Symposium of the AHP. University of Hawaii, Honolulu.

Baccarini, D. (1999). The logical framework method for defining project success. Project Management

Journal, 30(4), 25-32.

Beaudry, P., & Green, D. A. (2002). Population growth, technological adoption, and economic outcomes in the

information era. Review of Economic Dynamics, 5(4), 749-774.

Beins, B. (2004). Research methods: A tool for life. Boston: Pearson.

Belassi, W., & Tukel, O. I. (1996). A new framework for determining critical success/failure factors in

projects. International Journal of Project Management, 14(3), 141-151.

Bengtsson, F., & Ågerfalk, P. J. (2011). Information technology as a change actant in sustainability innovation:

Insights from Uppsala. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 20(1), 96-112.

Biggam, J. (2008). Succeeding with your master's dissertation: A step-by-step handbook. New York: McGraw-

Hill.

100 References

Blunch, N. (2013). Introduction to structural equation modelling using IBM SPSS statistics and Amos (2nd ed.).

California: Sage.

Boren, Z. (2014). There are officially more mobile devices than people in the world. Retrieved

from http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/there-are-officially-more-mobile-

devices-than-people-in-the-world-9780518.html [Accessed 31 May 2015].

Brones, F., De Carvalho, M. M., & De Senzi Zancul, E. (2014). Ecodesign in project management: A missing

link for the integration of sustainability in product development? Journal of Cleaner Production, 80, 106-

118.

Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.

Brummet, R. L., Flamholtz, E. G., & Pyle, W. C. (1968). Human resource measurement--A challenge for

accountants. Accounting Review, 217-224.

Camilleri, E. (2011). Project success: Critical factors and behaviours. Burlington: Gower.

Chan, A. P., Scott, D., & Lam, E. W. (2002). Framework of success criteria for design/build projects. Journal of

Management in Engineering, 18(3), 120-128.

Checkland, P., & Holwell, S. (1997). Information, systems and information systems. West Sussex: John Wiley

& Sons.

Cheng, H. S., Zhang, D., & Tan, J. G. (2005). Protection of privacy in pervasive computing environments. Itcc

(2), 242-247.

Chuang, C., & Liao, H. (2010). Strategic human resource management in service context: Taking care of

business by taking care of employees and customers. Personnel Psychology, 63(1), 153-196.

Clarke, T., & Branson, D. (2012). The SAGE handbook of corporate governance. London: Sage.

Cordano, M., Ellis, K. M., & Scherer, R. F. (2003). Natural capitalists: Increasing business students’

environmental sensitivity. Journal of Management Education, 27(2), 144-157.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/there-are-officially-more-mobile-devices-than-people-in-the-world-9780518.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/there-are-officially-more-mobile-devices-than-people-in-the-world-9780518.html

101 References

Cox, S. (2002). Information technology: The global key to precision agriculture and sustainability. Computers

and Electronics in Agriculture, 36(2), 93-111.

Cramer, J. (2005). Company learning about corporate social responsibility. Business Strategy and the

Environment, 14(4), 255-266.

Dane, F. C. (2010). Evaluating research: Methodology for people who need to read research. California: Sage.

Dao, V., Langella, I., & Carbo, J. (2011). From green to sustainability: Information technology and an integrated

sustainability framework. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 20(1), 63-79.

Dayal, H., Gupta, S., Trieff, N., Maierson, D., & Reich, D. (1995). Symptom clusters in a community with

chronic exposure to chemicals in two superfund sites. Archives of Environmental Health: An International

Journal, 50(2), 108-111.

Dedhia, N. S. (1995). Survive business challenges with the total quality management approach. Total Quality

Management, 6(3), 265-272.

Dempsey, N., Bramley, G., Power, S., & Brown, C. (2011). The social dimension of sustainable development:

Defining urban social sustainability. Sustainable Development, 19(5), 289-300.

Dillard, D. (1987). Money as an institution of capitalism. Journal of Economic Issues, 21(4), 1623-1647.

Dillard, J., Dujon, V., & King, M. C. (2008). Understanding the social dimension of sustainability. Abingdon:

Routledge.

Dobie, K. (2015). South African citizens' bribery survey 2015. Pretoria: Ethics Institute of South Africa.

Douthwaite, R. (1993). The growth illusion: How economic growth has enriched the few, impoverished the

many, and endangered the planet. Dublin: Lilliput Press.

Downing, D., & Clark, J. (2010). Business statistics (5th ed.). New York: Barron's.

102 References

Du Buisson, W., & Naidoo, R. (2014). Exploring factors influencing IT workers' green computing intention at a

South African firm. Proceedings of the Southern African Institute for Computer Scientists and Information

Technologists Annual Conference 2014 on SAICSIT 2014 Empowered by Technology, 148.

Edum-Fotwe, F. T., & Price, A. D. (2009). A social ontology for appraising sustainability of construction

projects and developments. International Journal of Project Management, 27(4), 313-322.

Eid, M. (2009). Sustainable development & project management. Cologne: Lambert Academic Publishing.

Eisma, R. V., Christie, P., & Hershman, M. (2005). Legal issues affecting sustainability of integrated coastal

management in the Philippines. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48(3), 336-359.

Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks. The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century. Gabriola: New Society.

Eloff, M., Labuschagne, L., Marnewick, C., Steyn, H., & Tobin, P. (2013). Prosperus report, the African

edition. Johannesburg: Project Management South Africa.

Erasmus, L., & Marnewick, C. (2012). Project management – the saviour in turbulent times? A cross-sector

analysis. Proceedings of the 24th Annual Conference of the Southern Africa Institute for Management

Scientists. Stellenbosch: Southern Africa Institute for Management Sciences.

Eveleens, J. L., & Verhoef, C. (2010). The rise and fall of the Chaos report figures. IEEE Software, 27(1), 30-

36.

Festing, M., Knappert, L., & Kornau, A. (2015). Gender‐specific preferences in global performance

management: An empirical study of male and female managers in a multinational context. Human

Resource Management, 54(1), 55-79.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: (and sex and drugs and rock ‘n’ roll) (3rd ed.). California:

Sage.

Fox, W., & Bayat, M. S. (2007). A guide to managing research. Cape Town: Juta.

103 References

Frank, T., & Andreas, J. (2015). Towards a document-driven approach for designing reference models: From a

conceptual process model to its application. Journal of Systems and Software.

Frankental, P. (2001). Corporate social responsibility - a PR invention? Corporate Communications: An

International Journal, 6(1), 18-23.

Gareis, R., Huemann, M., & Martinuzzi, A. (2009). Relating sustainable development and project

management. IRNOP IX, Berlin.

Gareis, R., Huemann, M., & Martinuzzi, A. (2013). Project management and sustainable development

principles. Philadelphia: Project Management Institute.

gcccmu. (2013). Likert scale data [online video]. Retrieved

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYoA5fGZQQE [Accessed 4 December 2015].

Gibson, R. B. (2006). Beyond the pillars: Sustainability assessment as a framework for effective integration of

social, economic and ecological considerations in significant decision-making. Journal of Environmental

Assessment Policy and Management, 8(03), 259-280.

Glesne, C. (2006). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson.

Goasduff, L., & Forsling, C. (2007). Gartner says 50 percent of mid and large sized western European IT

organisations will develop a green strategy by the end of 2008. Gartner.

Gobert, K., & Poitevin, M. (1998). Environmental risks: Should banks be liable? Scientific series 98s-39,

Cirano, Université de Montréal

Goddard, W., & Melville, S. (2004). Research methodology: An introduction. Johannesburg: Juta.

Gore, A. (2006). An inconvenient truth: The planetary emergency of global warming and what we can do about

it. Emmaus: Rodale.

Graneheim, U. H., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: Concepts,

procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Education Today, 24(2), 105-112.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYoA5fGZQQE

104 References

Gunasekaran, A., Love, P. E., Rahimi, F., & Miele, R. (2001). A model for investment justification in

information technology projects. International Journal of Information Management, 21(5), 349-364.

Handy, C. (2002). What is a business for? Harvard Business Review, December.

Hartman, F. (2001). The key to enterprise evolution – future PM. PMI seminars and symposium proceedings.

Project Management Institute, Newtown Square, PA, USA

Haugen, S., & Selin, J. (1999). Identifying and controlling computer crime and employee fraud. Industrial

Management & Data Systems, 99(8), 340-344.

Hedman, J. & Henningsson, S. (2011). Three strategies for green IT. IT Professional, 13(1), 54-57.

Herazo, B., Lizarralde, G. & Paquin, R. (2012). Sustainable development in the building sector: A Canadian

case study on the alignment of strategic and tactical management. Project Management Journal, 43(2), 84-

100.

Higgins, P. (2010). Eradicating ecocide: Laws and governance to prevent the destruction of our planet.

London: Shepheard-Walwyn.

Holme, R., & Watts, P. (1999). Corporate social responsibility. Geneva: World Business Council for

Sustainable Development.

Holmes-Watts, T., & Watts, S. (2008). Legal frameworks for and the practice of participatory natural resources

management in South Africa. Forest Policy and Economics, 10(7), 435-443.

Hopkins, M. S. (2009). What executives don’t get about sustainability (and further notes on the profit motive).

MIT Sloan Management Journal, 43(2), 84-100.

how2stats. (2011a). Factor analysis - SPSS (part 3) [online video]. Retrieved

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0RdXyGbJDY [Accessed 19 January 2016].

how2stats. (2011b). Factor analysis - SPSS (part 4) [online video]. Retrieved

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twDhPCqVkak [Accessed 19 January 2016].

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0RdXyGbJDY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twDhPCqVkak

105 References

Ika, L. A. (2009). Project success as a topic in project management journals. Project Management

Journal, 40(4), 6-19.

Institute of Directors Southern Africa. (2009). King Code of Governance for South Africa 2009. Retrieved from

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iodsa.co.za/resource/collection/94445006-4F18-4335-B7FB-

7F5A8B23FB3F/King_Code_of_Governance_for_SA_2009_Updated_June_2012.pdf [Accessed 24

February 2015]

International Data Corporation. (2015). IDC's worldwide high-performance computing predictions, 2015.

Retrieved from http://www.sap.com/bin/sapcom/en_us/downloadasset.2014-12-dec-19-22.idc-predictions-

2015-accelerating-innovation--and-growth--on-the-3rd-platform-pdf.bypassReg.html [Accessed 31 May

2015].

Jenkin, T. A., Webster, J., & McShane, L. (2011). An agenda for ‘Green’ information technology and systems

research. Information and Organization, 21(1), 17-40.

Jeucken, M. H., & Bouma, J. J. (1999). The changing environment of banks. Greener Management

International, 1999(27), 20-35.

Joseph, N. (2013). A predictive model for information technology project success. Master’s dissertation in

Information Technology Management, University of Johannesburg.

Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions (2nd ed.). California: Sage.

Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (2001). The strategy-focused organization. Strategy and Leadership, 29(3), 41-

42.

Keating, M. (1993). The earth summit agenda for change – a plain language version of agenda 21 and other Rio

agreements. Center for our Common Future. Geneve, Switzerland

Keeys, L. A. (2014). Strategy formation for project sustainable development: Tales of alignment and emergence.

Paper presented at the PMI Research & Education Conference 2014. Portland, Oregon.

Kendall, G., & Willard, B. (2014). Future-fit business benchmark. Public draft 1.

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iodsa.co.za/resource/collection/94445006-4F18-4335-B7FB-7F5A8B23FB3F/King_Code_of_Governance_for_SA_2009_Updated_June_2012.pdf

http://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.iodsa.co.za/resource/collection/94445006-4F18-4335-B7FB-7F5A8B23FB3F/King_Code_of_Governance_for_SA_2009_Updated_June_2012.pdf

http://www.sap.com/bin/sapcom/en_us/downloadasset.2014-12-dec-19-22.idc-predictions-2015-accelerating-innovation--and-growth--on-the-3rd-platform-pdf.bypassReg.html

http://www.sap.com/bin/sapcom/en_us/downloadasset.2014-12-dec-19-22.idc-predictions-2015-accelerating-innovation--and-growth--on-the-3rd-platform-pdf.bypassReg.html

106 References

Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioural research (4th ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart

and Winston.

Khang, D. B., & Moe, T. L. (2008). Success criteria and factors for international development projects: A life‐

cycle‐based framework. Project Management Journal, 39(1), 72-84.

Kilby, P. (2006). Accountability for empowerment: Dilemmas facing non-governmental organizations. World

Development, 34(6), 951-963.

Kim, Y. (2014). Strategic communication of corporate social responsibility (CSR): Effects of stated motives and

corporate reputation on stakeholder responses. Public Relations Review, 40(5), 838-840.

King, G., Keohane, R., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative

research. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Klitgaard, K. A., & Krall, L. (2012). Ecological economics, degrowth, and institutional change. Ecological

Economics, 84, 247-253.

Kroenke, D., Bunker, D., & Wilson, D. (2013). Experiencing MIS. Sydney: Pearson Higher Education.

Kuye, O., Ogundele, O., & Alaneme, G. (2013). Strategic roles of business, government and society: The

Nigerian situation. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 4(12).

Labuschagne, C., & Brent, A. C. (2005). Sustainable project life cycle management: The need to integrate life

cycles in the manufacturing sector. International Journal of Project Management, 23(2), 159-168.

Labuschagne, L., & Marnewick, C. (2008). The Prosperus report 2008. Johannesburg: Project Management

South Africa.

Labuschagne, C., Brent, A. C., & Van Erck, R. P. (2005). Assessing the sustainability performances of

industries. Journal of Cleaner Production, 13(4), 373-385.

Lambert, B. (2014). Factor analysis - an introduction [online video]. Retrieved

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV_jcaDBZ2I [Accessed 29 October 2015].

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV_jcaDBZ2I

107 References

Leedy, P. (1989). Practical research: Planning and design (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Lim, C., & Mohamed, M. Z. (1999). Criteria of project success: An exploratory re-examination. International

Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 243-248.

Lincke, S. J. (2012). Green IT: Serving multiple purposes. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference on

Information Technology Education, 81-82.

Ludwig, D., Hilborn, R., & Walters, C. (1993). Uncertainty, resource exploitation, and conservation: Lessons

from history. Science (Washington), 260(5104), 17.

Marcelino-Sádaba, S., González-Jaen, L. F., & Pérez-Ezcurdia, A. (2015). Using project management as a way

to sustainability. From a comprehensive review to a framework definition. Journal of Cleaner

Production, 99, 1-16.

Maree, K. (2007). First steps in research. Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Marnewick, C. (2012). A longitudinal analysis of ICT project success. Proceedings of the South African

Institute for Computer Scientists and Information Technologists Conference, 326-334.

Marnewick, C. (2015). Project management sustainability in an emerging economy. 3rd IPMA Research

Conference. Stellenbosch: IPMA.

Marnewick, C., & Labuschagne, L. (2009). Factors that influence the outcome of information technology

projects in South Africa: An empirical investigation. Acta Commercii, 9, 78-89.

Martens, M., de Carvalho, M. (2014). A conceptual framework of sustainability in project management. PMI

Research and Education Conference 2014. , USA: Project Management Institute.

mathtutordvd. (2013). What is variance in statistics? [online video]. Retrieved

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOb9b_AtwDg [Accessed 27 October 2015].

McKinlay, M. (2008). Where is project management running to…?, International Project Management

Association, 22nd World Congress, Rome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOb9b_AtwDg

108 References

Milani, F., Dumas, M., Ahmed, N., & Matulevičius, R. (2016). Modelling families of business process variants:

A decomposition driven method. Information Systems, 56, 55-72.

Minor, D., & Morgan, J. (2011). CSR as reputation insurance: Primum non nocere. California Management

Review, 53(3), 40.

Müller, R., & Turner, R. (2007). The influence of project managers on project success criteria and project

success by type of project. European Management Journal, 25(4), 298-309.

Nachmias, D., & Nachmias, C. (1981). Research methods in the social sciences. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Neudorff, L. (2014). ITS eprimer. Retrieved from http://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/eprimer/module11.aspx [Accessed

24 February 2015]

Neuman, W. (2000). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed.). Massachusetts:

Pearson Education.

Nidumolu, R., Prahalad, C. K., & Rangaswami, M. (2009). Why sustainability is now the key driver of

innovation. Harvard Business Review, 87(9), 56-64.

Oakley, A. (2000). Experiments in knowing: Gender and method in the social sciences. Cambridge: Polity

Press.

Olivier, M. (2009). Information technology research: A practical guide for computer science and

informatics (3rd ed.). Pretoria: Van Schaik.

Oram, D. (2010). Designing for sustainability: Negotiating ethical implications. IEEE Technology and Society

Magazine, 29(3), 31-36.

Orlitzky, M., Schmidt, F. L., & Rynes, S. L. (2003). Corporate social and financial performance: A meta-

analysis. Organization Studies, 24(3), 403-441.

Park, C., & Pavlovsky, K. (2010). Sustainability in business today: A cross-industry view. Deloitte Development

LLC, New York.

http://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/eprimer/module11.aspx

109 References

Patlis, J. M. (2005). The role of law and legal institutions in determining the sustainability of integrated coastal

management projects in Indonesia. Ocean & Coastal Management, 48(3), 450-467.

Pava, M. L., & Krausz, J. (1997). Criteria for evaluating the legitimacy of corporate social

responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 16(3), 337-347.

Picardi, C. A., & Masick, K. D. (2013). Research methods: Designing and conducting research with a real-

world focus. California: Sage.

Pike, R. (2012). Social license to operate. Retrieved from

http://www.schroders.com/staticfiles/schroders/sites/Americas/US%20Institutional%202011/pdfs/Social-

Licence-to-Operate.pdf [Accessed 5 March 2015].

Pines, G. L., & Meyer, D. G. (2005). Stopping the exploitation of workers: An analysis of the effective

application of consumer or socio-political pressure. Journal of Business Ethics, 59(1-2), 155-162.

Prema, V., & Rao, K. U. (2015). Development of statistical time series models for solar power

prediction. Renewable Energy, 83, 100-109.

Prescott-Allen, R. (2001). The wellbeing of nations: A country-by-country index of quality of life and the

environment. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Project Management Institute. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowledge. Philadelphia.

Rosen, M. A., & Kishawy, H. A. (2012). Sustainable manufacturing and design: Concepts, practices and

needs. Sustainability, 4(2), 154-174.

Russell, J. (2008). Corporate social responsibility: What it means for the project manager. PMI Global Congress

EMEA, Project Management Institute, Philadelphia.

Schaltegger, S., & Burritt, R. L. (2010). Sustainability accounting for companies: Catchphrase or decision

support for business leaders? Journal of World Business, 45(4), 375-384.

Schwalbe, K. (2013). Information technology project management. Boston: Cengage Learning.

http://www.schroders.com/staticfiles/schroders/sites/Americas/US%20Institutional%202011/pdfs/Social-Licence-to-Operate.pdf

http://www.schroders.com/staticfiles/schroders/sites/Americas/US%20Institutional%202011/pdfs/Social-Licence-to-Operate.pdf

110 References

Schwartz, M. S., Dunfee, T. W., & Kline, M. J. (2005). Tone at the top: An ethics code for directors? Journal of

Business Ethics, 58(1-3), 79-100.

Seghezzo, L. (2009). The five dimensions of sustainability. Environmental Politics, 18(4), 539-556.

Seidman, S. (2003). The social construction of sexuality. New York: Norton.

Sekaran, U., & Bougie, R. (2013). Research methods for business: A skill-building approach (6th ed.). New

York: Wiley.

Shafiee, S. & Topal, E. (2009). When will fossil fuel reserves be diminished? Energy policy, 37(1):181-189.

Shao-lu, Z. (2001). Situation of raw material supply confronts domestic copper smelting enterprises, their

production features, and suggestive strategy for copper resources. World nonferrous metals, 12000.

Shmueli, G., & Koppius, O. R. (2011). Predictive analytics in information systems research. MIS

Quarterly, 35(3), 553-572.

Silvius, A. J. G., & Nedeski, S. (2014). Sustainability in IS projects: A case study. Communications of the

IIMA, 11(4), 1.

Silvius, A. J. G., & Schipper, R. (2010). A maturity model for integrating sustainability in projects and project

management. 24th World Congress of the International Project Management Association.

Silvius, A. J. G., & Schipper, R. P. (2014a). Sustainability in project management: A literature review and

impact analysis. Social Business, 4(1), 63-96.

Silvius, A. J. G., & Schipper, R. P. (2014b). Sustainability in project management competencies: Analyzing the

competence gap of project managers. Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, (2), 40-58.

Silvius, A. J. G., & Schipper, R. P. (2015). Developing a maturity model for assessing sustainable project

management. The Journal of Modern Project Management, 3(1).

111 References

Silvius, A. J. G., Schipper, R. P., & Nedeski, S. (2013). Sustainability in project management: Reality bites. PM

World Journal, 2(2).

Silvius, G., Schipper, R., Planko, J., Van den Brink, J., & Köhler, A. (2012). Sustainability in project

management. Surrey: Gower.

Singh, R. K., Murty, H., Gupta, S., & Dikshit, A. (2009). An overview of sustainability assessment

methodologies. Ecological Indicators, 9(2), 189-212.

Smith, P. A., & Sharicz, C. (2011). The shift needed for sustainability. The Learning Organization, 18(1), 73-

86.

Society Oxford English Dictionary. (2010). s.v. ‘society’ (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sonnenberg, D., & Hamann, R. (2006). The JSE socially responsible investment index and the state of

sustainability reporting in South Africa. Development Southern Africa, 23(2), 305-320.

Springett, D., & Kearins, K. (2001). Gaining legitimacy? Sustainable development in business school

curricula. Sustainable Development, 9(4), 213-221.

Stephens, L. (2006). Beginning statistics (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Strategic Directions. (2002). McDonald’s jumps on the CSR bandwagon. Strategic Direction, 18(9), 8-11.

Thite, M. (2000). Leadership styles in information technology projects. International Journal of Project

Management, 18(4), 235-241.

Thomas, G. (2013). How to do your research project: A guide for students in education and applied social

sciences (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Thomas, T. E. (2005). Are business students buying it? A theoretical framework for measuring attitudes toward

the legitimacy of environmental sustainability. Business Strategy and the Environment, 14(3), 186-197.

Thomas, T. E., & Lamm, E. (2012). Legitimacy and organizational sustainability. Journal of Business

Ethics, 110(2), 191-203.

112 References

Toman, M. A. (2006). The difficulty in defining sustainability. The RFF Reader in Environmental and Resource

Policy, 2.

Trostle, R. (2010). Global agricultural supply and demand: Factors contributing to the recent increase in food

commodity prices. Collingdale: DIANE.

Turner, R. J., Huemann, M., Anbari, F. T., & Bredillet, C. N. (2010). Perspectives on projects. New York:

Routledge.

Turner, R. K., Pearce, D., & Bateman, I. (1994). Environmental economics: An elementary

introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University.

Ugwu, O. & Haupt, T. (2007). Key performance indicators and assessment methods for infrastructure

sustainability—a South African construction industry perspective. Building and environment, 42(2):665-

680.

Ullah, A., Lai, R., & Marjoribanks, T. (2013). A proposed model for business sustainability based on business

and information technology. Journal of Software, 8(11), 2796-2806.

Vasiu, L., & Vasiu, I. (2004). Dissecting computer fraud: From definitional issues to a taxonomy. Proceedings

of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004.

Vicente, K. (2010). The human factor: Revolutionizing the way we live with technology. Toronto: Knopf

Canada.

Walliman, N. (2005). Your research project (2nd ed.). California: Sage.

Wang, N., Wei, K., & Sun, H. (2013). Whole life project management approach to sustainability. Journal of

Management in Engineering, 30(2), 246-255.

Wateridge, J. (1998). How can IS/IT projects be measured for success? International Journal of Project

Management, 16(1), 59-63.

113 References

Weitzel, W., & Jonsson, E. (1989). Decline in organizations: A literature integration and

extension. Administrative Science Quarterly, 91-109.

Weatherford, J. (1997). The history of money: from sandstone to cyberspace. New York: Three Rivers Press

Whittaker, B. (1999). What went wrong? Unsuccessful information technology projects. Information

Management & Computer Security, 7(1), 23-30.

Willard, B. (2005). The next sustainability wave: Building boardroom buy-in. Gabriola Island: New Society

Publishers.

Wong, E. (2013). In China, breathing becomes a childhood risk. Retrieved

from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/world/asia/pollution-is-radically-changing-childhood-in-chinas-

cities.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 [Accessed 4 March 2015].

World Business Council for Sustainable Development. (nd). Corporate social responsibility (CSR). Retrieved

from http://www.wbcsd.org/work-program/business-role/previous-work/corporate-social-

responsibility.aspx [Accessed 5 March 2015].

World Commission on Environment and Development. (1987). Our common future. Oslo: United Nations.

World Economic Forum. (2015). Davos 2015 – What’s next? A climate for action [online video]. Retrieved

from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8qke8EtpI8 [Accessed 25 February 2015]

Yong, Z. (2001). Heavy metal pollution of soil and agricultural products in Shenyang suburbs: Current

situation. Chinese Journal of Soil Science, 4, 011.

Zhang, J., & Smith, K. R. (2007). Household air pollution from coal and biomass fuels in china: Measurements,

health impacts, and interventions. Environmental Health Perspectives, 848-855.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/world/asia/pollution-is-radically-changing-childhood-in-chinas-cities.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/world/asia/pollution-is-radically-changing-childhood-in-chinas-cities.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.wbcsd.org/work-program/business-role/previous-work/corporate-social-responsibility.aspx

http://www.wbcsd.org/work-program/business-role/previous-work/corporate-social-responsibility.aspx

114 Appendix A: questionnaire

Appendix A: Questionnaire

SECTION I: BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

1. BIOGRAPHICAL (Please indicate by making an X in the relevant row. This is an optional question.)

1.1 Gender Prefer not to say Female: Male:

1.2 Age Group Prefer not to say Younger than 20 20 – 29

30 – 39 40 – 49 50 - 59

60 or older

1.3 Highest

Qualification

2. POSITION / ROLE / JOB TITLE (Please indicate by making an X in the relevant row)

2.1 Assistant Project Manager

2.2 Project Coordinator

2.3 Project Manager

2.4 Senior Project Manager

2.5 Project Leader / Project Team Leader

2.6 Programme Manager

2.7 Portfolio Manager

2.8 Project Implementation Manager

2.9 IT Manager

2.10 Business Analyst

2.11 Project Management Consultant

2.12 Other (Please specify)

3. IN WHICH DOMAIN IS YOUR POSITION? (Please indicate by making an X in the relevant row)

3.1 General Management

3.2 Commercial Management

3.3 Financial Management

3.4 IT Management

3.5 Project, Programme or Portfolio Management

3.6 Business Development

3.7 Consulting

3.8 Training or Education

3.9 Other

SECTION II: PROJECT INFORMATION

4. WHAT TYPE OF PROJECT IS BEING ASSESSED? (Please indicate by making an X in the relevant

row)

4.1 Building and Construction Public Infrastructure

4.2 Building and Construction Real Estate

4.3 Building and Construction Development


4.4 Organisational Change

4.5 Information Technology

4.6 Research Development

4.7 Other

5. IN WHAT INDUSTRY SECTOR DOES THE PROJECT TAKE PLACE? (Please indicate by making an

X in the relevant row)

5.1 Agriculture

5.2 Industry

5.3 Energy

5.4 Building and Construction

5.5 Healthcare

5.6 Wholesale and Retail

5.7 Logistic Services

5.8 Financial Services

5.9 Facility and Real Estate Services

5.10 Legal Services

5.11 HR Services

5.12 ICT and Communication Services

5.13 Consulting

5.14 Public Administration

5.15 Education and Training

5.16 Other

6. IS THE PROJECT INTERNATIONAL? (Please indicate by making an X in the relevant row)

6.1 No

6.2 Yes, the result of the project has international consequences

6.3 Yes, the resources working on the project are based internationally

6.4 Yes, the suppliers in the project are based internationally

7. IN WHICH GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS WILL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT?

(MULTIPLE ANSWERS ALLOWED)

7.1 Europe

7.2 North America

7.3 Central and/or South America

7.4 Asia

7.5 Africa

7.6 Australia

8. WHAT IS THE APPROXIMATE BUDGET OF THE PROJECT? (Please indicate by making an X in

the relevant row)

8.1 <R1 million

8.2 Between R1 and R10 million

8.3 Between R10 and R100 million


8.4 > R100 million

9. HOW MANY BUSINESS PARTNERS (SUPPLIERS, SUBCONTRACTORS) WILL PARTICIPATE

IN THIS PROJECT? (Please indicate by making an X in the relevant row)

9.1 0

9.2 1-5

9.3 6-15

9.4 16-50

9.5 >50

Section III: the organisational context of the project

10. Please rank the aspects of sustainability from most important to leas important. (1 being the

most important and 5 being the least)

10.1 Meeting current needs

10.2 The environmental dimension

10.3 Allowing for future generations to meet their needs

10.4 The economic dimension

10.5 The social dimension

11. What is the highest level at which sustainability is positioned in the strategy of the

organisation that commissions the project? (Level 4 being the highest. Please indicate by making an X in

the relevant row)

11.1 The strategy of the organisation only includes statements or ambitions

regarding sustainability to comply with laws and regulations.

11.2 The strategy of the organisation includes statements or ambitions regarding

sustainability but only to the extent where the interests of different stakeholders

of the project are not compromised.

11.3 The strategy of the organisation includes statements or ambitions that the

project explicitly contribute to sustainability.

11.4 The strategy of the organisation includes statements or ambitions that making a

contribution to sustainability is one of the drivers behind the project and is

included in the justification of the project.

12. What does the organisation that commissions the project have by way of sustainability

reporting? (Please indicate by making an X in the relevant row)

12.1 The organisation reports what is required by law with regards to sustainability.

12.2 The organisation reports on their contribution as a part or section of the regular

company reports (e.g. the Annual Report)

12.3 The organisation reports on their contribution as a separate periodic

sustainability report in a self-developed format

12.4 The organisation reports on their contribution as a separate periodic

sustainability report in a format that is based on the sustainability reporting

guidelines of the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI).


Section IV: Questions regarding the assessment of sustainability aspects in the project

For all following questions please choose the highest level that applies. The possible answers for each

question start from the lowest level and progress to the highest.

Economic perspective

13. Direct (Financial) Benefits: Which types of benefits are recognised in the business case of the

project?

13.1 Benefits are implicitly recognised through compliance with laws and

(company) regulations.

13.2 Benefits are recognised in terms of cost savings or reduced use of resources.

13.3 Benefits are recognised in terms of extra revenues from improved businesses

processes and or new business models for existing products and services.

13.4 Benefits are recognised in terms of extra revenues from improved products or

services.

14. Managerial Flexibility and Optionality: To what extent does the project allow for future

decision making and real options?

14.1 This aspect is considered implicitly, in compliance with laws and (company)

regulations. No specific policies are applied in the project.

14.2 This aspect is considered explicitly, but reactively, and with the intention to not

compromise the interests of different stakeholders of the project.

14.3 This aspect is explicitly considered as one of the areas that the project

contributes to.

14.4 Making a contribution to this aspect is one of the drivers behind the project and


15. Project Reporting: Which items are reflected in the project’s (progress) reports?

15.1 The project (progress) reports show items such as activities commenced,

activities completed, budget spent, budget still required, total budget, issues

and risks, all in terms of ‘plan’ and ‘actual’.

15.2 The project (progress) reports also show lessons learned and improvements in

the project.

15.3 The project (progress) reports also show suggestions to (radically) change the

way the project is being designed and delivered.

15.4 The project (progress) reports also show changes (e.g. market conditions) that

may have an effect on the value and business case of the project’s result.

16. Investment Evaluation: Which evaluation methods are used in the selection of projects?

16.1 Projects are evaluated and selected predominantly based on the pay-back

period of the investment.

16.2 Projects are evaluated and selected predominantly based on the return on

investment or net present value of the investment.

16.3 Projects are evaluated and selected predominantly based on their long term

strategic value, in combination with their short/medium term returns.

16.4 Projects are evaluated and selected predominantly based on a balanced set of

quantitative and qualitative criteria that reflect both long term and short term

perspectives and also economic, social and environmental aspects.

Environment Perspective


17. Procurement: Based on which criteria are suppliers for the project selected?

17.1 Suppliers for the project are selected based on laws and (company) regulations

only.

17.2 Suppliers for the project are selected based on cost and location (minimizing

transport) where the interests of different stakeholders of the project are not

compromised.

17.3 Suppliers for the project are selected based on their own use of natural

resources and policies to enhance environmental sustainability.

17.4 Suppliers for the project are selected based on how their know-how and

partnership helps deliver the project in a more sustainable way, and or helps

our products and services to aid sustainability.

18. Materials: Based on which criteria are materials for the project selected?

18.1 Materials for the project are selected based on technical and functional

requirements and their costs.

18.2 Materials for the project are also selected based on the waste they cause in and

for the project.

18.3 Materials for the project are also selected based on the energy consumption

and/or pollution incorporated in the materials because of their production

process.

18.4 Materials for the project are also selected based on their reuse capabilities and

value.

19. Energy: Does the project have any specific policies regarding its energy consumption?

19.1 Next to general policies on energy consumption within the organisation, the

project does not have specific policies and the energy consumption.

19.2 There are policies in the project to promote the smart use of energy and where

possible, energy saving equipment is used.

19.3 Where possible, energy consumption is actively kept to a minimum and the

necessary energy used is acquired as ‘green’ energy.

19.4 Minimizing energy consumption in one of the parameters in the design of the

project deliverables and results.

20. Water: Does the project have any specific policies regarding its water consumption and

pollution?

20.1 Next to general company policies on water consumption and pollution within

the organisation, the project does not have specific policies.

20.2 There are policies in the project to promote the smart use of water and where

possible, water saving equipment is used.

20.3 Water consumption is actively kept to a minimum and where possible, the

project recycles its water and/or purifies it.

20.4 Minimizing water consumption and pollution is one of the parameters in the

design of the project deliverables and results. The project result actively

minimizes water consumption and pollution and the necessary water used is

recycled and/or purified before disposal.

21. Waste: In which way does the project try to minimize its waste?







contributes to.



22. Travel: To what extent does the project apply travel policies that consider environmental

aspects?

22.1 Travelling in the project is based on necessity for the project’s activities and

deliverables. Means of travel are selected on costs and time.

22.2 Travelling in the project is based on necessity for the project’s activities and

deliverables, but means of travel are selected considering environmental

aspects.

22.3 Travel in the project is based on necessity and minimized by actively

promoting and facilitating the use of alternatives for travelling (e.g. video

conferencing).

22.4 The project deliverables and results are designed to minimize travelling.

23. Project Reporting: Does the project’s (progress) reports reflect indicators of environmental

sustainability?

23.1 The project (progress) reports on what is required for compliance with laws

and (company) regulations.

23.2 The project (progress) reports reflect indicators of environmental sustainability

with respect to resources (physical) used.


with respect to the project deliverables or results.


with respect to the use and disposal or the project deliverables and results.

Social Perspective

24. Labour Practices and Decent Work: To what extent does the project apply policies or standards

for labour practices and decent work?

24.1 The project complies with applicable standards and regulations on labour

practices or decent work.

24.2 The project also requires its suppliers and partners to practise good labour

practices and decent work.

24.3 The project’s deliverable and result is designed to improve labour practices and

decent work in the organisation that commissioned the project.

24.4 The project’s deliverables and results are designed to improve labour practices

and decent work in the community in which the result is used or aimed at.

25. Health and Safety: To what extent does the project apply policies or standards for health and

safety?

25.1 The project complies with applicable standards and regulations regarding

health and safety.

25.2 The project also requires its suppliers and partners to enforce good health and

safety practices.

25.3 The project’s deliverables and results are designed to improve health and safety

conditions in the organisation that commissioned the project.


25.4 The project’s deliverables and results are designed to improve health and safety

conditions in the community which the result is used or aimed at.

26. Training, Education and Organisational Learning: To what extent does the project include

training, education and development of stakeholders?

26.1 The project includes activities for appropriate training and education of end

users as part of the project’s deliverables.

26.2 The project includes activities for training and education of team members for

improved individual and team performance in the project.

26.3 The project includes activities for training and education of team members and

partners for improved individual and team performance after the project has

finished.

26.4 The project includes activities for developing the relevant competences of all

stakeholders involved.

27. Diversity and Equal Opportunity: To what extent does the project apply policies or standards

for diversity and equal opportunity which reflect the society it operates in?

27.1 The project complies with applicable standards and regulations on equal

opportunity in terms of gender, race, religion, etc.

27.2 The project also requires its suppliers and partners to follow diversity practices

and provide equal opportunity in terms of gender, race, religion, etc.

27.3 The project’s deliverables and results are designed to improve diversity and

equal opportunity in the organisation which commissioned the project

27.4 The project’s deliverable and result are designed to improve diversity and equal

opportunity in the community in which the result is used or aimed at.

28. Human Rights: To what extent does the project apply policies or standards for respecting and

improving human rights like non-discrimination, freedom of association and no child labour?






contributes to.



29. Society and Customers: To what extent does the project follow a socially responsible approach

towards the society it operates in?

29.1 For the general acceptance of the project and its results, the project recognised

social responsibility towards the external stakeholders in the society it operates

in.

29.2 The project also requires its suppliers and partners to take on social

responsibility towards the external stakeholders in the society they operate in.

29.3 The project’s deliverable and result are designed in a way that translates its

social responsibility towards the external stakeholders in the society it operates

in.

29.4 The project’s deliverable and result are designed in a way that translates its

social responsibility towards the total society.

30. Bribery and Anti-Competitive Behaviour: To what extent does the project reject bribery and

anti-competitive behaviour?


30.1 The project rejects bribery and anti-competitive behaviour and holds

responsible team members accountable.

30.2 The project also requires its suppliers and partners to reject bribery and anti-

competitive behaviour.

30.3 The project actively (re) designs its project deliverable and results in a way that

bribery and anti-competitive behaviour is prevented in the organisation which

commissioned the project.

30.4 The project actively (re) designs its project deliverable results in a way that

bribery and anti-competitive behaviour is prevented in the community in which

the result is used or aimed at

31. Project Reporting: Does the project’s (progress) reports reflect indicators of social

sustainability?

31.1 The project (progress) reports what is required for compliance with laws and

(company) regulations.

31.2 The project (progress) reports reflect indicators or social sustainability with

respect to resources (physical) used.

31.3 The project (progress) reports reflect indicators of social sustainability with

respect to the project deliverables or results.

31.4 The project (progress) reports reflect indicators of social sustainability with

respect to the use and disposal of the project deliverables or results.

information technology project managers’ commitment …

Documents