CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1

Introduction

Project portfolio management (PPM) is a set of business practices and a process that

allows organizations to control projects and achieve organizational objectives as a

strategic portfolio and confirm the arrangement of programs and projects. This improved

the efficiency and performance of the project. PPM is a combination of project

management and project programme management. In projects, the use of PPM was very

helpful to make projects more progressive. Vinopal (2012) concluded that PPM made

projects more successful and gave a proper direction for achieving the desired goals.

Study analyzed the gap of project’s success with or without PPM. This made project’s

success easy to achieve by adopting specified direction. In PPM project efficiency and

performance were directly related with stakeholders who directly participate in the

project activities. How performance of projects in PPM can be improved by stakeholder

engagement? In PPM the success achieved by following the PPM traditions.

Project management is the application of knowledge, skills, and requirements to achieve

project success. According to the Project Management Institute (PMBOK, 2013), project

management processes were guided by five steps: initiation, planning, executing,

monitoring, controlling, and closing. Most of the literature focused on people to follow

the critical practices for project success. This also focused on quality of human

interaction, motivation and decision making practices for project success. There was a

performance gap of adoption of critical factors in different organizations (Davies,

2002).In project management, project manager’s interaction and decision making were

essential for project success. For good decision making, stakeholders were involved in

the projects which lead projects towards the success. Now the question was that why

stakeholders were important in decision making in projects and what were their role?

Decision making and negotiation was important for both single and portfolio projects.

More than two projects were managed in portfolio. This era required multiple projects to

obtain the benefit and success of project portfolio management.

2

The above literature described about the PPM working traditions, goal clarity and was

specific to work according to the requirements. It made projects more flourishing in

PPM. Young and Conboy (2013) concluded that current body of PPM knowledge

suffered from a number of conceptual problems and highlighted issues. These problems

were lack of cumulative traditions, clarity, parsimony and applicability. Further they

analyzed the performance gap between different organizations. Problems occurred in

PPM due to gap of work which was not fulfilled by proper processes. Goal clarity and

working style of project team matched with the project needs. This leads towards good

project performance and high success level.

Project portfolio management success was also related with the strategies which had been

used for the project’s successful completion. Strategies had direct impact on the project

portfolio management success. Amarl et al (2009) described that strategies improved the

progress of the project or organization which reduced the problems, minimize risk and

cost, reduce threats and improve performance. Study measured the gap between different

organizations performance level by using different strategies (Amarl, Antonio, Aroujo,

&Madalena, 2009). By applying good strategies in projects according to the project

requirements, it provided better results for PPM success. Selection of strategy was the

part of the planning. Project planning made many things clear like which strategy should

be used for the selected project.

Planning of project was the first and the most important phase in the project portfolio

management. Plan-do-check-action planning cycle explained in management to improve

the organization performance. Planning cycle defined the communication at each level of

the organization to made projects successful. All planning requirements which were

essential for single project also required for multiple projects in project portfolio. Study

also discussed the terms, project breakdown structure, organization breakdown structure

and information breakdown structure. Planning requirements are not only for single

projects but also for project portfolios (Platje, Seidel and Wadman, 1994). Planning phase

closely related with the decision making process. Planning and decision making played

the vital role in the project portfolio management.

3

Decision making was the central part of the project portfolio management. Good decision

making always helped to achieve the project success. In some critical situations, a

committee required accurate decisions by project stakeholders. Committee also made

decisions about the project portfolio selection and other necessary issues. Sometimes

decision makers did not agree on one decision, they had differences on their own basis,

and then decision support systems helped decision makers to reach on some consensus. In

the same situation project analysis and support system were also helpful for decision

makers to make decisions correctly. Study by Ghasemzadeh and Archer (2000)

mentioned some techniques which were helpful in decision making. Decision making

was helpful when all stakeholders agreed on one decision. Clashes in decision making

created many errors in the projects. Stakeholder’s engagement improved the efficiency of

the work in the project portfolio management. Processes in project portfolio management

were also essential in goal achievement. Goal and role clarity of stakeholders were

significant for gaining the good performance in PPM. Stakeholder’s involvement had a

great effect on the PPM. Internal and external stakeholders directly and indirectly

affected the PPM success positively.

In every project and portfolio processes, stakeholders had significant importance.

Stakeholders followed the specified processes to obtain the desired goal. Existence of

organization was associated with a higher rate of adoption of processes and tools that

come close to risk management. Study of Riaz and Micheal (2001) measured the gap

between highly adopted and low adopted processes and tools of risk management. Some

differences identified across various industrial sectors and different organizational

cultures. They also mentioned the results of the high and low level adoption of processes

(Raz & Micheal, 2001). Different organization cultures also had significant effect on the

project portfolio management success. Human skills were always helpful for the project

portfolio management success.

Human resource management had important part in the project success. Completion of

any project was impossible without human resource management. Human skills of

project manager had greatest influence on project management practices. Technical and

communication skills of stakeholders had much influence on PPM. The difference

4

measured between career path of project manager and operational manager (Sabaa,

2001). Study supported the above statement that human resource had great impact on the

project portfolio management success. Project managers were directly engaged with the

project success. Skills of project managers were influenced positively, which were useful

for project portfolio management success. Stakeholder’s engagement had much influence

on the project portfolio management success.

Stakeholders had great value in the project portfolio management success. There were

different kinds of stakeholders. According to this study managers were involved in the

important projects and procedures. Primary stakeholders of the firm treated with high

appreciation while secondary stakeholders were some time ignored due to some loss or

wrong decision. To increase the corporate social relations, all stakeholders like

employees, customers and shareholders should provide equal rights, so that all of these

can work better with high motivation (Clarkson, 1995). Stakeholder engagement was

vital but all types of stakeholders should give equal rights to get involved in the project

portfolio management success. It was necessary to give right of equality to all

stakeholders to achieve the good performance of project portfolio management.

The literature highlighted various factors affecting the project portfolio management

performance. One important element was involvement of internal and external

stakeholders. Involvement of stakeholders enhanced the performance of PPM. Beringer,

Jonas & Kock (2013) found positive results about the impact of some internal

stakeholders on the PPM success. The underlying study illustrates the impact of internal

and external stakeholders on project portfolio management success. In literature there

was a gap related to the impact of external stakeholders on the PPM success. In present

study results were based on both internal and external stakeholders in PPM and their

impact on PPM success. Therefore present study filled the gap that exists in the literature.

Background of the Problem

Literature explained the positive impact of internal stakeholder’s engagement on the

project portfolio management success (Beringer et al., 2013). Relationship value of

external stakeholders like customers showed positive result for PPM success (Voss &

5

Kock, 2013), but the impact of internal and external stakeholder’s engagement were not

still measured collectively. One major reason is that this study was not still verified in

Pakistan in this context.

Statement of the Problem

Beringer et al (2013) contributed the moderating effect of role clarity of internal

stakeholders on the success of PPM stating it positive. However, Voss and Kock (2013)

identified that the effect of role clarity for external stakeholders on PPM success is

required to be investigated.

An empirical research was thus required to be discovered and quantify the impact of both

types of stakeholders on project portfolio management success with distinct effect of their

role clarity.

For this study IT industry was selected because of the distinguishing portfolios were

managed in IT sector, following Beringer et al (2013) and Frey et al (2011).

In light of the above, this study examined the project portfolio management success in

managing diversified and complicated projects and impact of stakeholder’s engagement

on Project Portfolio Management success in IT Industry, Pakistan.

Research Questions

In context of Pakistan’s IT Industry, the following research questions have been

developed for the study:

1. What is the effect of internal stakeholder’s engagement on project

portfolio management success?

2. What is the effect of external stakeholder’s engagement on project

portfolio management success?

3. What is the effect of customer’s engagement on project portfolio

management success?

6

4. What is the effect of supplier’s engagement on project portfolio

management?

5. What is the effect of internal stakeholder's engagement with moderating

variable role clarity on project portfolio management success?

6. What is the effect of external stakeholder's engagement with moderating

variable role clarity on project portfolio management success?

7. What is the effect of customer’s engagement with moderating variable

role clarity on project portfolio management success?

8. What is the effect of supplier’s engagement with moderating variable role

clarity on project portfolio management success?

Rationale of the Study

Impact of internal stakeholder’s engagement on PPM success had been measured with the

moderating effect of role clarity (Beringer et al., 2013). Relationship value of customers

also found positive with PPM success (Voss & Kock, 2013). Find the impact of external

stakeholder’s engagement especially customers and suppliers on PPM success had been

recommended by Beringer et al (2013). Further based on the preliminary survey in the IT

industry of Lahore, Pakistan, this study learned that finding the impact of both the

internal and external stakeholders’ engagement on PPM success would be a value

addition in literature.

7

Objectives of the Study

Study sets the following objectives:

1. To determine the effect of internal stakeholder’s engagement on project portfolio

management success.

2. To determine the effect of external stakeholder’s engagement on project portfolio

management success.

3. To determine the effect of customer’s engagement on project portfolio

management success.

4. To determine the effect of supplier’s engagement on project portfolio

management success.

5. To determine the effect of internal stakeholder's engagement with moderating

variable role clarity on project portfolio management success.

6. To determine the effect of external stakeholder's engagement with moderating

variable role clarity on project portfolio management success.

7. To determine the effect of customer’s engagement with moderating variable role

clarity on project portfolio management success.

8. To determine the effect of supplier’s engagement with moderating variable role

clarity on project portfolio management success.

8

Overview of the Study

Chapter 1 conferred with introduction of the research objective and its importance in the

IT sector of Pakistan.

Chapter 2 deals with explaining past studies related to the variables of study. The

literature is surveying facilitated in understanding the associations among variables.

Chapter 3 discussed the research methodology adopted for analyzing the data gathered

for the study. This section comprises sampling techniques, statistical techniques and

details on the instrument adopted to gather data from respondents.

Chapter 4 explained the analysis and result portion of the study. This section deals with

descriptive statistics to analyze sample properties and inferential statistics to analyze the

association of variables under study.

Chapter 5 is the last section of the study and deals with findings of the study and

inferences made in the light of past studies. This section also highlights the major

limitations in the study and recommendations for future research in this area.

9

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

10

2.1 Project Management

According to PMBOK (2013) project management is the application of knowledge, skills

and techniques to execute projects effectively and efficiently. In project management,

projects were handled and preceded with the help of human resource. Human resource is

essential factor in project management. In fact for project success, skills, abilities and the

efforts of human resource were as important as the other important factors. HRM was one

of the imperative elements in project management success. HRM was the most

significant element in the organization success. Study analyzed the gap between project

and organization success due to HRM (Belout, & Gauvreau, 2004). Project Management

was an effective method for accomplishing the goals of a project. HRM and projects are

main part of the project management. There was an explanation about project and project

management. Projects are closely related to the project management. In fact project

management was incomplete without successful projects. There was a link between

project and project management.

Study of Munns and Bjeirmi (1996) explored the relationship between project and project

management activities. Project management included many things which made any

project successful or unsuccessful. Many internal and external involvements were

prejudiced the project management in a positive way. Project management had to face

many economic and financial aspects; it had complex areas which cannot be easily

handled. All these factors collectively moved towards project management success. Right

project can succeed without the success of project management, but for successful project

management there is always a need of successful projects (Munns & Bjeirmi, 1996). For

successful projects, there was a need of their own specifications. Project management

played important role in the success of projects, but project requirements were the main

point to be focused. Some other factors also affected the project success and project

needs; there was a need of all those things which were compulsory or related to the

project success. These elements are time, cost and scope.

Project success was depending on many factors which made project easier to achieve.

Four important factors were discussed in the following study of White & Fortune (2002),

which made projects successful. Project success and failure were two aspects of projects.

11

For Project's complete perfection, all the important factors should be added. Because of

these projects results as a success, but due to some imperfections projects always end up

as a failure. Four most important factors (realistic schedule, adequate resources, clear

objective and support from senior management) affected most of the project success.

Study measured the gap between performance of different projects which lead towards

the project success or failure (White & Fortune, 2002). This study adopted the four

important elements to assess the project performance. By following these four techniques

project was leading towards the good performance. By ignoring these elements projects

faced errors or imperfections in work. These factors also reduced the uncertainty

management in project management.

Chances of risk always present in project management. In fact in each business and large

or small projects, in every case risk was always there. Uncertainty was the situation when

something was going wrong in the project and some kind of error occurred at any time.

Uncertainty management was important element of the project management. Uncertainty

management was an approach of facilitated assimilation with project management earlier

in the Project Life Cycle (PLC) after that threat sloping Project Risk Management (PRM)

process affected the PPM. There were a gap measured between the project risk

management and uncertainty management. Further study was recommended on

uncertainty management (Ward, & Chapman, 2003). Study explained that uncertainty

management handled and controlled at the start of Project Management especially in

project life cycle. Project was moved towards the project risk management process and

then uncertainty management. There was a gap mentioned between project risk

management and project uncertainty management which reduced the level of

performance. Project risk can be avoided and reduced with the help of project

stakeholders. Whenever project associated persons or stakeholders did not achieve

projects objectives, projects had to face many challenges. Involvement of many valued

and essential stakeholders made projects successful. There was a need of stakeholder's

engagement to reduce the risk in the projects.

Project management was related to a lot of essential knowledge and management areas,

which made clear path for the achievement of desired goals. Main processes of

12

management and engagement of stakeholders made projects easier to achieve its success.

Adoption of different techniques was making clear understanding of the project

requirements and achievements. Project Management knowledge and skills made more

successful green construction projects. 10 challenges for Green Construction Project

(GCP) mitigating by important skills of management like, schedule, cost, HRM,

planning, communication and stakeholder. Study measured the gap between traditional

construction projects and green construction projects (Hwang, & Ng, 2013). Project

management knowledge areas provided knowledge on the different management

elements like communication management, stakeholder management, human resource

management and others. Above study mentioned 10 challenges for green construction

projects which were solved out by using management key areas. One of the important

knowledge areas of project management is stakeholder management, which directly

linked with the project management activities. Old and new projects had difference just

on the basis of management skills and techniques. In previous time there was no

availability of knowledge as in new time. By using management techniques and skills

with the help of stakeholders every kind of challenge can be faced in project and project

achievements. Knowledge management and stakeholder management also related to the

leadership which was helpful for good decision making.

Customer knowledge management is the part of stakeholder management and this made

clear directions for the project development and successful completion. Project

management techniques and stakeholder's skills also enhanced the decision making

process. Project management was also dealing with the leadership styles and decision

making approaches. Knowledge management was important area of project management

and was related to the customers to improve the performance of projects and reduced the

complications of the projects. Customer knowledge management was the idea of present

time which leads the projects in a very flourishing way. Study of Yang et al (2014)

analyzed that adoption of knowledge leadership was connected with the customer

knowledge management. The implementation of customer knowledge management

influenced organizational performance via project performance. Results mentioned that

positive relationship between customer knowledge management and project performance

depends on project complexity. Improvement in the customer knowledge management

13

enhanced the project performance which leads towards organizational performance

(Yang, Huang, & Hsu, 2014). Involvement of customers in the projects made project

outcomes effective in a positive manner. Customers are the part of the external

stakeholders. The effectiveness of the customer knowledge management in project

management was mentioned. Customer's engagement increased the project management

success. Complex projects had low level of relationship between customer knowledge

management and project success. There was a need of strong relationship between

customers and project management.

Project management have 10 project management knowledge areas like integration

management, scope management, communication management, time management, cost

management, quality management, human resource management, procurement

management and recently introduced the stakeholder management directly exaggerated

the progress of projects in the project management (PMBOK, 2013). By improving

human skills and management practices good performance can be achieved. Human

resource and management policies were needed in the project management. Stakeholders

directly and indirectly involved in projects. Human resource in projects like customers,

line managers and project manager, directly affect the project success. How stakeholder’s

engagement improved the PPM success? PPM was a huge field of project management.

More than two projects handled at the same time by same management, it was called

Project Portfolio Management.

2.2 Project Portfolio Management

Project portfolio management is a strategic prioritization methodology employed to

analyze and manage current or proposed projects within an organization (PMBOK,

2013). There were different definitions of the project portfolio management in the

research according to the need and perception of different authors. There were different

definitions of portfolio management. These definitions related the portfolio management

with different management areas to find the relation and impact of portfolio management.

Portfolio management was a different and single area so this should be dealt

independently; this provides better results for progress (Stretton, 2012). There were a lot

of benefits and positive aspects of the project portfolio management in every field where

14

projects were handled in portfolio management. According to this study adoption of

portfolio management gave better results for good performance and appropriate results.

Project portfolio management was also helpful in reducing errors and increasing the

productivity of the projects.

Project Portfolio Management reduced many issues in the projects by monitoring all the

projects collectively and another good thing was that it reduced the time of project

completion as well as reduced the cost of project. Results of the study of Catherine

&Robert (2010) explained that increase in adoption of PPM level had a positive impact

on the return on the projects in the portfolio and had a negative impact on the number of

project related problems. There was a gap between problem solving and success level in

different companies by adopting PPM (Calderini, Reyck, Cockayne, Lockett, Moura &

Sloper, 2005). According to this literature adoption of PPM increased the performance of

the projects. PPM reduced the problems and gave better results for the improvements of

projects. Project portfolio management was successful in the project management in

present research. PPM reduced many issues in the projects by monitoring all the projects

collectively. Another good outcome was that it reduced the time of project completion as

well as reduced the cost of project. Further researcher explained that project portfolio

management made it possible to achieve the strategic goals in a successful manner.

Project portfolio management was a field in which projects were monitored and

completed for improved performance in comparison with previous project performance.

Project performance was enhanced by introducing the project portfolio management in

the organization. Organizations gave value to project portfolio management in achieving

their strategic goals. It was better to start with improvement and development of portfolio

processes. There was need of good collaboration and interaction between portfolio

managers to discuss the project processes. Integration system was established to select

and screen the project proposals (Filippov, Mooi, &Weg, 2012). The project managers

had important role in the project portfolio management success. Interaction and

collaboration of project managers with other team members made projects successful.

Project managers are the main stakeholders in the project portfolio management. For

organization’s development and improvement, every organization tried to implement new

15

strategies in their own company to enhance the productivity. Stakeholder's engagement

required to increase the PPM success.

This was important for organizations to make new and innovative strategies because they

had to compete with other organizations in the market. Projects were also handled in

other sectors like service and manufacturing companies in the same way as in IT sector.

Project portfolio management was also used in the manufacturing and service industry.

Project portfolio management made projects successful by using different rules and

techniques. This depended on the nature and requirement of the projects. Study explained

the relationship between project portfolio management and competitive advantage in

service and manufacturing industries. Dynamic capability used in PPM and compare the

results of service industry and manufacturing companies. PPM enhanced the outcomes

with dynamic capability (Killen & Hunt, 2010). Dynamic capability was also used to

increase the performance of the projects in the service and manufacturing industry. Some

other abilities and capabilities also discussed in the studies to augment the impact of the

project portfolio management. Proper techniques, skills, procedures and abilities made

project portfolio management successful in any area of implementation.

Organizations made collaboration with project portfolio management, and improved

results for getting good performance in a successful way. Organizations demand good

results to achieve the organization’s desired goals. Killen et al (2008) indicated that the

project portfolio management and organizational capabilities improved the organization’s

success and enabled to get advantage from the other organizations in this competition.

Study explored that managers enhanced competitive advantage by using their abilities,

procedures and appropriate strategies. They also increased the investment to make PPM

stronger. Learning investment and organizational capabilities can be improved by skilled

managers and planned work (Killen, Hunt, &Kleinschmidt, 2008). According to the study

different kinds of strategies, processes and organizational capabilities had been used for

the successful project portfolio management. Involvement of project managers was

necessary for better project performance. Managers were included in the internal

stakeholders. Internal stakeholders were directly involved in the PPM success. Some

techniques mentioned for getting the good results of project portfolio management in

16

organizations. Techniques included learning investment and organizational capabilities.

By implementing these techniques and strategies with the help of the project

stakeholder’s importance of projects can be increased in the project portfolio

management.

Every single project has its own importance in the project portfolio management. They

should specify the resource, time and cost for each single project in PPM for getting the

favorable project portfolio management outcomes. Study mentioned the importance of

each project in a project portfolio management. Study explored that in project portfolio

management, projects were handled as a subject not as an entity (Blichfeldt & Eskerod,

2008). Some important projects got the maximum resources and time, while remaining

small projects always delayed and had to face shortage of resources. These reasons made

project failures in project portfolio management success. Study mentioned that there

should be some separate resources according to the need of each project. So that projects

were handled and preceded in a successful way. Overall success of project portfolio

management was possible due to the successful achievement of single projects which

were monitored separately. Business strategies were also helped to achieve the project

portfolio management success.

Many factors influenced the project portfolio management success in a positive or

negative way. Most of the belongings affected the project portfolio management in a

positive way and enhance the productivity of the projects. While on the other side

weaknesses of the projects reduced the productivity. Business strategies positively

impacted the projects in PPM. The effect of business strategy explained on project

portfolio management and on its success. They introduced the relationship between

strategic orientation, project portfolio management and business success. Strategic

orientation was positively affected the project portfolio management success and then it

enlarged the business success (Meskendahl, 2010). All these things increased the

performance of projects in PPM. Including these factors, some other belongings were

also discussed here which created hurdles in the project portfolio management success.

So lack of managerial important activities created many problems to achieve the

organizations goals.

17

Previous research mentioned some problems which were building hurdles in internal

development of project portfolio management. Study gave main six problems as a result,

which were inadequate project level activities, lacking resources, competencies and

methods, lacking commitment, unclear roles and responsibilities, inadequate portfolio

level activities, inadequate information management and inadequate management of

project-oriented organization. They recommended further research on development of

managerial practices (Elonen & Artto, 2002). They also analyzed that some elements

raised the productivity of the project portfolio management success; on the other hand

some other factors declined the efficiency and productivity of the project portfolio

management success. Balance in all these factors was necessary and involvement of the

internal and external stakeholders was also compulsory who administered the work

according to the need. Some models and matrixes also helped to diminish these errors in

project portfolio management success.

In project portfolio management, strategies were getting much importance because by

implementing these strategies, project success could be achieved, which leads towards

project portfolio management success. By implementing the strategies of business and

adopting different kind of models projects were easier to achieve their goals and clarify

many project requirements. Study of Dickinson et al (2001) explained it cannot be said

that dependency matrix and optimization model condensed all problems and issues of

project portfolio processes. But it provided some additional tools and techniques to

confirm the achievement of PPM success by following these portfolio management

strategies. Three goals of project portfolio management were to maximize the value of

the portfolio, provide balance and the strategy of the business. Dependency matrix and

optimization model provided means to get maximum benefit from multiple projects in

information technology portfolio (Dickinson, Thornton, & Graves, 2001). By adopting

these techniques it was easier to achieve the project portfolio management success.

Further study discussed that project portfolio management was discussed in the IT

projects and previous research also supported that this IT sector was suitable for PPM

related study.

18

Project portfolio management projects were mostly handled in the IT sector and adoption

of project portfolio management made projects more successful. Study of Reyck et al

(2005) explored that most of the work of project portfolio management had been done in

the IT projects. Three stages of classification of the project portfolio management were

defined. There were a correspondence between the project portfolio processes and

improvement of the projects and portfolios. Study found a strong correlation between

increase in the adoption of project portfolio processes and decrease in the project related

problems. There were also a strong relationship between Project portfolio management

adoption and project performance (Reyck, Cockayne, Lockett, Calderini, Moura,

&Sloper, 2005). Their study analyzed that increase in adoption of PPM enhanced the

good performance of the projects. Adoption of PPM gave positive results and increased

the success level of projects. Project portfolio management success linked with many

essential elements which were discussed in the above studies. In PPM project’s success

can be improved by involvement of internal and external stakeholders in projects.

Engagement of stakeholders gave positive results in PPM success. Stakeholders critically

linked with the PPM. How stakeholder engagement gave positive results? Which factors

were involved with stakeholder’s engagement to achieve the PPM success? Selection of

appropriate strategies also increased the accomplishment of projects in PPM. In PPM,

selection and use of strategies according to the project were significant.

2.2.1 Strategies in Project Portfolio Management (PPM)

PPM was the extension of project management. Large number of projects monitored

under a single platform. Project’s mutual performance was enlarged by good decision

making and negotiation strategies. Bad performance of one project affected the

performance of all the projects in PPM and harmed the complete portfolio. Furthermore,

selection of strategies in PPM should be according to the project needs, which enhanced

the success. PPM was increasing in organizations with positive aspects in two ways;

which were PPM as negotiation and PPM as structure reconfiguration. Study mentioned

the gap of proactive strategies; project portfolios did not follow the PPM negotiation and

reconfiguration strategies for decision making (Martinsuo, 2013; Martinsuo & lehtonen,

2007). PPM used two types of strategies for decision making, which were negotiation and

19

reconfiguration. These strategies increased the performance of projects in PPM. Further

study also mentioned the importance of the strategies which was essential in project

portfolio management.

PPM was aligned with the projects as relating strategies of the organizations with the

projects. PPM improved the success rate of the projects as well as organization. Study

measured the gap of project’s progress in different years. Study of Heisting (2012)

mentioned that project portfolio management strategies increased the success level of the

projects and organizations. Project portfolio management strategies were changed after

some time period for improvement in performance (Heiskanen, 2012). Different kinds of

projects needed different types of strategies according to the requirements of the projects.

New strategies used for project success in PPM according to the need.

Project management and project portfolio management both used strategies according to

their requirements. Advancement in Project Portfolio Management was more appropriate

and successful in comparison with Project Management by applying three strategies.

Strategies were used according to their needs and to gain the competitive advantage in

market. The difference in enhancement of project management and project portfolio

management was measured (Killen, Jugdev, Drouin, & Petit, 2012). According to this

literature three strategies were used to improve the project performance. These three roles

or strategies were increased the efficiency of project portfolio management which

enhanced the performance. To made project portfolio management more advanced these

strategies were helpful according to this study. New and advanced strategies, processes or

techniques enhanced the project performance in project portfolio management. Strategies

were directly involved in the project portfolio management. This made projects

successful and lead towards the high level of attainment of project success.

Researchers further referred different sets of strategies and prepositions. This was

depended upon the nature of the projects which were working under the project portfolio

management. Some projects were specifically needed appropriate set of strategies which

were suggested by the previous studies, while some other projects did not think that these

prepositions were suitable for them. This was completely depending upon the nature of

the projects which were handled in the project portfolio management. Project portfolio

20

structuring and project success were analyzed and outlined by four prepositions. Strategic

orientation, Project Portfolio Management and project success had direct relationship

with the strategies. Study measured the gap between four prepositions to analyze the

project success (Meskendahl, 2010). This study was analyzed that four strategies were

introduced for the project success and project portfolio management success. By adding

these strategies in the projects, project structure can be improved and provide better

performance than the previous performance. In project portfolio management success

many other factors were also included rather than strategies like involvement of

stakeholders. Stakeholders were the management resource persons who made these

strategies useful for the project success. For successful project portfolio management

success, there was required direct relationship between the strategies and engagement of

stakeholders with their defined roles.

Strategies were directly linked with the stakeholders of PPM. Stakeholder’s engagement

directly affected the PPM performance. Strategies were implemented in the projects by

internal stakeholders. Stakeholder’s engagement in PPM was one reason of the projects

success. How stakeholders can implement better strategies in projects to achieve the PPM

success? Strategies were the segment of framework in PPM. Framework of project was

the guideline at which projects were managed according to planned schedule. Good

strategies and good decision making was very helpful and gave advantage to PPM. By

using appropriate strategies according to project type, it improved project portfolio

management performance and reduced its completion time and resources.

2.2.2 Decision Making in Project Portfolio Management (PPM)

Mostly decision making was considered important in the project portfolio management.

Decision making was the central part in which all major decisions had been taken to

make the projects successful in the future. In decision making, the project strategies,

procedures, processes, duration, resources, and also human resources were determined.

Complete project depended on the decision making of the project. Especially for the

Project Portfolio Management decision making, only literature support was not enough,

there required some practical approach for good decision making in project portfolio

management (Gutiérrez, & Magnusson, 2013). Different projects were demanding

21

different decision making approaches for the project success and for some innovation.

Decision making approach related with the stakeholders who were directly linked with

the project portfolio management success. Stakeholder’s engagement made possible

project portfolio management success by using different approaches of decision making.

Study of Gutiérrez & Magnusson (2013) indicated that some managers used decision

making approaches which were not suitable for the organization. So they had to make the

formal policies for organizing and selection of good decision making approaches.

In the decision making portion all important decisions were taken related to the project

outcomes. After that project managers handled the projects according to their

requirements. Projects success did not depend on the one element. In decision making

planning was also discussed because it was also a process. Stakeholders were always

involved in the decision making and planning processes. How stakeholder involvements

made decision making process more successful and applicable in the project portfolio

management success? Decision making was a process in which involvement of internal

and external stakeholders was essential.

2.2.3Planning in Project Portfolio Management (PPM)

Project planning was also imperative and critical step in project portfolio management.

Project portfolio management success was also depended on the planning of the projects.

All things which were decided in planning followed by the project stakeholders until

project have been executed. This provided simple calculations based on existing methods

and tools that can provide better foundation for better results to measure the project

planning. He measured the gap of project results by using different methods of planning

(Ross, 2007). He mentioned that to gain good results and success in projects, use

different project planning tools and techniques. Use of best tools and techniques which

were suitable for the project type improved the efficiency of projects in Project Portfolio

Management. This also made it possible to complete within the time limit. Planning had

different aspects like many important factors were discussed in planning process which

were very closely related to the project success. Different belongings of projects in PPM

were related with the planning.

22

Specific strategies and techniques in project portfolio management should be followed

according to the project needs. This made projects successful. Successful projects needed

important strategies and processes which were also closely related to the project portfolio

management success. Possible solutions of the problems in Project Portfolio Management

were better strategic and human resource planning, adequate organizational changes and

efficient risk management. Study measured the gap in strategy implementation in

different projects of Project Portfolio Management. Further research suggested on more

precise and efficient Project Portfolio Management implementations, solutions and

simplifications (Madic, Trujic & Mihajlovic, 2011). Success of one project was related

with many things. Only one measure or one element did not make any project successful

in project portfolio management. Some things were directly related with the projects

while some things related to the persons who were managing these projects. Project

portfolio management sometimes faced many problems which were related to the

different projects.

Project management and project portfolio management were connected with the project

managers and project portfolio managers. Problems and issues were also linked with the

project managers because they had to find the solutions of problems. Furthermore,

research discussed some problems which were faced by the project managers in the

project portfolio management and after that study also described the solutions for these

problems. Study of Cooper et al (2000) mentioned some problems like lack of resources,

go and kill decisions were made in absence of important information and many other

issues which caused failure in projects. Solutions for these problems were described.

Solutions were implemented a proper gating process, build in resource capacity analysis

and last was to develop a product innovation and technology strategy for your business.

By following these solutions, problems can be handled in a good manner and project

portfolio management work more effectively with positive results (Cooper, Edgett,

&Kleinschmidt, 2000). Many issues were discussed by this study and project managers

had to face these issues in the project portfolio management. Stakeholder's engagement

can enhance the PPM success and reduced these issues. Some solutions were provided by

this study as explained above. By implementing these strategies project problems could

be overcome according to this study.

23

Proper use of project portfolio management practices like planning of resource, schedule,

Human Resource Management, and proper framework increased the success of the

projects in project portfolio management. This also solved many problems and issues.

Project portfolio management closely correlated with the stakeholder engagement. Many

problems can be solved by stakeholder’s engagement. Internal and external both

stakeholders were important in project portfolio management success. How stakeholder’s

engagement solved problems in the project portfolio management? Selection of projects

was also associated with the stakeholder’s engagement.

2.2.4 Selection of Projects in Project Portfolio Management (PPM)

Selection of projects took place according to the current situation and see current

environment was suitable for the applicability of the projects. This also increased the

project performance. Decision making was used in the project selection. Study of

Carlsson et al (2007) mentioned a methodological approach for decision making in

project selection. Methodological techniques were used to increase the good decision

making approach in research and development project selection in portfolio management

(Carlsson, Fulle´r, Heikkila, &Majlender, 2007). Different approaches were introduced to

enhance the effectiveness of the projects in the project portfolio management. In project

portfolio management selection of projects was very important step. Success and failure

of the projects depended on the selection of projects. This also mentioned that which

approach was suitable for decision making. Different measures related to project

selection were discussed to made projects successful in PPM.

Some things were directly linked with the project portfolio management. These

belongings were mainly selection of projects and maximizing the outcomes. Different

techniques were discussed by the Levine (2006). He also described about practical guide

to selecting projects, managing portfolios and maximizing benefits. In short findings of

the study said that periodically, there was need to review each project to test assumptions,

update givens, monitor progress, and examine alternatives and remodeling the portfolio.

Study measured the gap between projects and operation sides of business (Levine, 2006).

Important factor in project portfolio management was project selection according to

project portfolio management requirement. Project selection and projects decision

24

making linked with each other. These two important processes need detailed discussions

and proper communication. By following these techniques projects were successful in

project portfolio management according to the current situation. Sometimes PPM had to

face risk in decision making related to project selection. Uncertainty level was always

high in tangible projects of project portfolio management.

In project portfolio management selection of projects were related with risk and

uncertainty management. In every phase projects had to face the risk. There was always

uncertainty level high in the projects which were handled in natural environment. So

there was margin of risk in the selection of projects. Both moments and uncertainty were

important in portfolio selection. Results showed that it was important to integrate higher

order moments in portfolio selection. Different methods were used to analyze the level of

uncertainty and errors (Harvey, Liechty, Liechty, & Müller, 2004). They mentioned the

high level projects which were monitored in the project portfolio. They were also trying

to explain that as discussed above in small projects risk and uncertainty level was always

high. In the same way in project portfolios risk level also very high where a large number

of projects were handled at the same time. High level and high budget projects were

included in the project portfolio management. High level models, analysis and techniques

were preferred in the project portfolio management to reduce the risk level. For good

decision making some standards were introduced to follow in project handling. By

following the mentioned techniques project decision making made project portfolio

management more successful.

New and tested approaches for decision making provided a new way towards the

successful PPM. In project portfolio management decision making was the essential

process. Study of Linton et al (2002) mentioned the approach of decision making in

selection of portfolio projects. Decision making approached in two ways accept or reject

the project proposal. Study highlighted a method Value Creation Model (VCM) for

selection of projects in portfolio. Date Envelopment Analysis (DEA) made project

acceptable in portfolio (Linton, Walsh, &Morabito, 2002). They analyzed that approaches

used for good decision making had visible impact on the project portfolio management

success. In project portfolio decision making was a very critical process on which overall

25

project success depended. This process should be handled very critically specially in case

of project portfolio management success. Decision making in the projects and selection

of projects were significant processes of the project portfolio management success.

Stakeholder’s engagement in decision making was also important. Projects were handled

by internal and external stakeholders in the project portfolio management success. By

involving stakeholders decision making can be improved for selection of projects in the

project portfolio management. Framework of projects was also good factor to improve

the project portfolio management success.

2.2.5 Framework in Project Portfolio Management (PPM)

Framework in project was the backbone of the project for the success and maturity of

PPM. Framework was the base of the projects which made it successful in the project

portfolio management where more than two projects were monitored at a time. Research

concluded that there should follow the proper framework in companies to gain maturity

and purposeful development in all three project, portfolio and programme management

were important. These three should be adopted by companies in a prosperous way to

attain success. There was a gap in level of maturity of organizations using project and

PPM (Naverauskas & ciutiene, 2011). Framework was not only important for the projects

but also in portfolio and programme management was considered important. To give a

shape to projects for its successful completion was a good sign of achieving the desired

goals. Service portfolio management was also introduced to increase the effectiveness of

the project portfolio management success.

New dimension of the portfolio management was introduced in the framework of project

portfolio management success. This dimension increased the strategy development for

the services in the project portfolio management. Service portfolio management was

needed to integrate the overall framework like service strategy management, service

quality management, etc. Different activities were associated with different tasks so there

was no need to be investigated. Service portfolio management was a tool to increase the

efficiency and reliability of the tasks in PPM (Kohlborn, Fielt, Korthaus, & Rosemann,

2009). Study analyzed that in the project portfolio management projects, service portfolio

management was essential to perform the individual as well as collective tasks perfectly.

26

By using service strategies, service quality can be enhanced. Tasks in the project

portfolio management were performed with more efficient way by using service

strategies. Decision making was also important in the framework of project portfolio

management success.

Selection of framework for specified project was as important as the selection of projects

in PPM. Each project success was depended upon its framework and other essential

factors. Different steps were involved in the selection of the framework. Accurate and

working framework helped to achieve the desired goals in the project portfolio

management. For project portfolio selection framework was suggested as an integrated

decision support system, and need to test it in real decision making situations. Study

measured the gap between different processes of decision making for project portfolio

selection (Archer & Ghasemzadeh, 1999). Selection of projects was also an important

step in project portfolio management as well selection of framework. Proper framework

should follow for projects and decision making in project portfolio management to

improve the PPM success. Further study mentioned the nine knowledge areas which were

key elements of the framework in the IT projects.

Human resource management introduced nine key knowledge areas for IT projects

framework. By using these areas project success can be enhanced. Projects were

successful when follow the 9 key knowledge areas of Human Resource Management

(HRM) properly. These key areas were already mentioned above with extension of 10th

key area. Study measured the gap of performance between project managers using

limited key knowledge areas and all knowledge areas of Human Resource Management.

Future research recommended finding the other key knowledge areas rather than Human

Resource Management for project management (Naqvi, 2009). One newly introduced

knowledge area which was related to this study is stakeholder management.

Stakeholder’s engagement was very important in the project portfolio management

success (PMBOK, 2013). Stakeholder management was essential key area of the project

management. Stakeholder’s engagement made framework stronger towards PPM goals.

According to this literature framework of each project was vital, it made project

dimensions clear towards goal and guide the project managers in a proper way to achieve

27

desired goals. Improvement in framework increased the project success. Programme

management and stakeholder management were related with each other. Stakeholders

were main components of the framework and they influenced the PPM success more

bitterly. Stakeholder’s participation enhanced the success level of projects in PPM.

Improvement in framework reduced the risk level. Risk management was also effective

in PPM. Risk management in advance was saved projects from big losses.

2.2.6 Risk Management in Project Portfolio Management (PPM)

Risk management was integrated with the project at each step. At any stage project

managers had to face the project risk related to any part of project in Project portfolio

management. So risk management was also an effective factor in PPM, which can

increase or decrease the level of success. Risk management was essential in the project

portfolio management. Involvement of stakeholders decreased the possibility of risk in

project portfolio management. Study of Mattsson (2010) discussed about the project

manager’s responsibilities and specially risk management responsibility portfolio. Project

managers engaged with project in direct and indirect way so they had to manage the all

activities related to projects. The risk management responsibility portfolio depended on

the project manager’s engagement within pre-project and other project phases (Mattsson,

2010). Project managers were directly involved in the project handling. So project

managers also had to face the risk at each phase of the project. Study also analyzed that

project manager’s skills and qualifications had to face the risk in the project portfolio.

There was integration between risk management and project portfolio management.

Risk management was always present in the project portfolio management. There were

many kinds of risks which created hurdles in the project success in the PPM. Involvement

of managers reduced the effect of risk in a positive way. Study of Sanchez (2008)

concluded about the integration of project portfolio and project risk management that

integration of both was so important to save the projects from environmental risks. Study

found the gap between the project portfolio management and project risk management.

Further research recommended on advantages of project risk management (Sanchez,

Robert & Pellerin, 2008). There was direct relationship between the project risk

management and project portfolio management. Project risk management increased the

28

effectiveness of projects in the project portfolio management. Risk management was

handled by observing the risks and weaknesses in the previous projects. Experiences of

the previous projects helped improving the effectiveness of projects in the project

portfolio management.

There were unlimited ways to handle the risk in the project portfolio management. Some

techniques were standardizes to observe those risks which were normally common in

many projects. Techniques were developed by monitoring the different kinds of errors in

the project portfolio management. To reduce these risks some standards were adopted.

Study explained that portfolio risk managed in two ways. First was that provided some

sources to the single projects to get experiences from the previous projects within the

portfolio. Second was common risks and issues were identified and avoid these risks for

the other projects so that project risks can be managed. By controlling the portfolio risk in

project portfolio management, project portfolio success can be achieved more perfectly

(Olsson, 2006). He focused on two ways by which project risk management can be

overcome. Get experience from the previous mistakes in the projects. Avoid these errors

in the coming projects, projects portfolio success can be enhanced by using these

techniques. Learn something from past mistakes and go for new achievements. Control

over project helped a lot to handle the projects successfully in the project portfolio

management and avoid projects from risks.

Main aspects in project management were controlling and monitoring. Controlling was

the central phase. In this phase most of the errors were automatically reduced by good

monitoring. Stakeholders were directly related with the project management processes.

Internal stakeholders like project managers were the source of risk reduction in the

project portfolio management and also play vital role in controlling and monitoring

processes of project. If Controlling and monitoring were perfectly managed then risk and

uncertainty were automatically decreased. Risk and control of project were improved by

implementing good project management strategies. There was a gap of strategies in

project management. If project processes and strategies were not well defined and not

implemented in a proper way in projects then uncertainty level was always high in PPM

(Atkinson, Crawford, & ward, 2006). They mentioned the strategies which helped to

29

control the risk and uncertainty in the project portfolio management success.

Stakeholder’s involvement much helped to reduce the risk in the projects. Involvement of

internal stakeholders like project managers enhanced the effectiveness of the project in

the project portfolio management success. If project risk management was properly

managed in project portfolio management (PPM), it increased the efficiency of projects

and also enhanced the performance of projects in PPM. Work was already available in

the literature related to the risk management as explained above. Stakeholder

management is newly introduced area of project management and recent studies were

focusing on the stakeholder management. Stakeholder’s association in PPM reduced the

risk and increased the performance of projects. Internal stakeholders were involved in the

project practices; they better handle the risk in PPM. How stakeholder engagement

reduced the risk in PPM? Good practices were reduced the risk in PPM. Practices in

PPM increased the accomplishment of the projects. Adoption of good practices was

leading PPM toward achievements and high level of success.

2.2.7 Practices in Project Portfolio Management (PPM)

Good practices in projects were increased the effectiveness and efficiency of project

portfolio management. Good strategies and processes were implemented in PPM to

attain the best performance of projects. Best practice for PPM according to this study was

managerial excellent practices at each level of project. By following this technique

managers delivered best results to the organization. Study analyzed the gap between

organizational performance differences by following different techniques or procedures

(Hunt & Killen, 2008). According to the literature best techniques were used in PPM, to

get best performance of projects. In project success, practices and techniques played a

vital role. As in project portfolio management high level projects were monitored and a

large number of projects were handled at a time. PPM always needed high level and good

performing strategies. So project portfolio management success also depended on the

good practices which had been used in the projects. These strategies directly linked with

the stakeholders who directly and indirectly linked with the project processes.

Good strategies always follow the standardized patterns which were properly tested

before use. So standardized techniques used in the projects for good results. Furthermore,

30

internal stakeholders like managers used better practices in PPM according to the need.

Stakeholder’s commitment in PPM leads the projects toward achievements. How

stakeholders made practices more useful for the project portfolio management? Practices

were essential for single projects as well as for multiple projects. Performance of single

project also affected the whole PPM success. Single project was the base of PPM.

2.2.8 Role of Single Project in Project Portfolio Management (PPM)

Each small project in project portfolio management was as important as other large

projects. Every project was directly involved in the overall success of the project

portfolio management. For success of the large projects it was important to give

importance to the small parts of that project. Similarly for the success of project portfolio

management it was important to give the importance to each small project.

Accomplishment of small or single projects was building the triumph for project portfolio

management. Single project management was associated with portfolio management

efficiency directly in the form of information availability and project management

efficiency, and indirectly in the form of information availability, goal setting and decision

making. Study found the gap of efficiency between single projects and portfolio projects,

and the effect of the single projects on the portfolio projects efficiency and performance

(Martinsuo & lehtonen, 2007). According to the above literature single project was

directly and indirectly related to the project portfolio management success. Single

projects had much contribution in overall project portfolio management success.

Furthermore, project portfolio was successful due to the successful completion of these

single projects. Formalization of project portfolio management also showed positive

results for its goal achievement.

Project portfolio management was vast area in comparison with single projects. But

success of project portfolio was possible with the achievements of single projects

successfully. In project portfolio, complex and easy both types of projects were

monitored. Sometimes this situation became dangerous for the projects to handle. Study

mentioned that in formalization of project portfolio management and single project

management with mediating effect of project portfolio complexity, project portfolio

management gave more positive results as compared to single project management. Study

31

also analyzed that formalization of project portfolio management showed more positive

results when the projects were more complex. Project portfolio complexity enhanced the

effect of project portfolio quality as well as project portfolio success (Teller, Unger,

Kock, & Gemünden, 2012). Literature supported the complex projects. According to the

study more complex projects gave more achievements in the project portfolio

management. Internal and external both stakeholders’ engagements were significant in

projects. Especially in single projects, engagement of stakeholders made projects easier

to accomplish. Importance of stakeholder’s engagement was equal in single and PPM

projects. Stakeholder’s contribution in single and PPM projects was vital for project

achievement. Why stakeholder’s engagement was important in single and multiple

projects? In PPM project managers also had much contribution in PPM success. Skills of

project managers and project portfolio managers control the most of PPM processes.

2.2.9 Product Innovation in Project Portfolio Management (PPM)

Product and project innovation always increased the effectiveness of organization. Users

always demand new products for change. So product innovation itself was a source to

increase the effectiveness of the organization or projects in a positive way. Project

innovation included in the project portfolio management, its achievement was

compulsory for each project. Study of Killen (2013) discussed about the relationship

between product innovation, project success and good performance. Project portfolio

management (PPM) associated positively with the product innovation and new product

success. Use of strategic and portfolio mapping methods strongly increased the

performance of PPM. There was a gap between tangible products and service based

organizational performance. Future research recommended on the project portfolio

management services in an emerging area (Killen, Hunt &Kleinschmidst, 2013). Project

innovation increased the project portfolio success, it directly involved in the project

portfolio management progress and success. Some specified techniques which were

followed in a proper way, made project portfolio very successful with product and project

innovation. Some important practices which were essential to follow in each small and

large scale project in the project portfolio management. Time, cost and scope these three

things always important and should specified for each project in the start of the projects.

32

Above literature described about project portfolio management and new product

development. Results explained that company should put a methodology to choose the

right project and allocate both budget and resources for successful completion of the

portfolio projects. There was a gap measured of methods and processes for the project

portfolio completion (Miguel, 2008). For successful project completion allocation of

resources and budget was compulsory for a project. New things could be added in the

projects after implementation of these two important parts. Project innovation and new

product development lead projects towards the project success in PPM. There was

positive relationship between the organizational teamwork and innovation which go

towards goal achievement. Innovation was always related with the inter-organizational

activities. Improvements and new ideas made possible to innovate the projects with new

ideas and techniques. Authors analyzed positive relationship between inter-organizational

collaboration and innovative performance.

As above explained about the innovation, furthermore, the impact of innovative

performance differ depending on the nature of the partners involvement. Researcher

strongly suggested that the relevance of adoption of a portfolio move projects towards the

inter-organizational collaboration within the framework of innovation strategies (Faems,

Looy, & Debackere, 2005). By innovation of the projects, performance of project

portfolio management enhanced. Study of Faems et al (2005) also described the

importance of the stakeholders. By increasing the level of stakeholder engagement,

project innovative performance increased. There were different techniques which were

used for increasing the project performance in the project portfolio management.

Strategies and techniques were always helpful to increase the performance of the project

portfolio management. The product portfolio management focused on all techniques and

processes of PPM for good performance and good quality of work. Study of Cooper et al

(1999) measured the gap between four performance techniques. Further research

recommended towards product innovation (Cooper, Edgett & Kleinschmidst, 1999).

There were different elements which affected the project portfolio performance. Different

techniques used for the performance measurement. Research and development was also

33

important area to discuss in this context. This also pushed the innovation strategies to be

used and provide best results in a positive way.

Research and development was vast area to discuss. In project portfolio management R &

D need special attention for innovation of the projects. Overall performance of the project

portfolio management depended upon these essential and critical phases of the projects.

Portfolio management processes successfully developed to help executives to achieve

their desired objectives by R&D. For better results they had to make balance between

short term pressure and future, long term needs of organization and see R&D direction

was meeting with the objectives. A gap of performance between good performing and

poor performing organizations was measured (Cooper, Edgett & Kleinschmidst, 2001).

Project innovation directly measured the performance gap of project portfolio

management. Good and bad performance depended upon the R&D objectives and

innovation strategies. From this literature, present study analyzed that product innovation

was positively correlated with the progress of the project portfolio management. With the

innovation in products, processes and strategies there will be a positive change in the

project’s completion time in PPM. Many other factors also improved the project portfolio

management. Engagement of stakeholders enhanced the effect of innovation in the

Project portfolio management. How stakeholders helped to improve the products and

projects? Skills of stakeholders were always helpful towards the goals of the

organization.

2.2.10 Skills of Project Managers and Project Portfolio Managers in PPM

Abilities and qualified skills of project managers and project portfolio managers were

helpful for overall PPM success and good performance. Leadership was an important part

of the project handling. Leadership directly linked with that person who was managing

the project activities. Study of Ahmed et al (2013) explored the importance of project

leadership in handling the projects in diverse and demanding environment. Study

mentioned that there was a limited research on this topic while recommendations were

given many time. The roles and functions of project leadership had been highlighted and

it became important to understand the difference between leadership and management.

As discussion found difference between project leadership and project management to

34

determine the results on success and failure of projects. Future research recommended on

valuable project leadership (Ahmed, Azmi, Masood, Tahir, & Ahmad, 2013). Leadership

performed skillfully made project’s outcome possible to achieve. Further some leadership

styles were discussed which were adopted according to the project requirements.

Leadership controlled by project and project portfolio managers who were very close to

the project and had direct involvement. Leadership always worked at upper level.

Decision making occurred at the top management while other managers had to follow the

instructions. Study of Kissi et al (2013) mentioned that the project manager’s leadership

effect on the project success and performance. Transformational leadership of portfolio

managers increased the project performance at corporate level. Study analyzed the gap of

project performance due to transformational portfolio managers at corporate and middle

level managers (Kissi, Dainty &Tuuli, 2013). Study analyzed the gap in the performance

at two levels. Leadership work perfectly at top level, but study analyzed the leadership at

middle and top level. Top and middle manager’s engagement with each other improved

the project performance in PPM.

There were many leadership styles which were used according to the requirement.

Leadership worked on that place more perfectly where it was really needed. Study

mentioned that strong relationship of project managers with his/her team lead towards the

project success. Project manager’s leadership style would be according to the project

type. Project managers needed to used his skills according to the project requirements and

increased the project performance. By increasing the communication within the team, it

provided positive results towards the project success (Yang, Huang, & Wu, 2011).

According to this literature leadership style associated with the project requirements.

Strong relationship within the team members was also affecting the project results

positively. Study of Yang et al (2011) mentioned that project manager’s engagement with

other stakeholders gave desired outcomes.

Leadership styles of project portfolio managers affected the performance of PPM. For

successful project completion, project leaders had to change their behavior with their

team. Personnel working style should match at each stage of the project with the project

activities. Skills of project managers and project portfolio managers were considered as

35

internal stakeholder’s abilities in PPM. Stakeholder’s abilities directly affected the PPM

performance. How stakeholder’s skills effect the PPM success? In successful project

completion, involvement of stakeholders was also imperative. This increased the

competence of the projects and also enlarged the likelihood of success. Internal and

external both stakeholders’ engagements were essential in PPM success.

2.2.11 Role of Project managers, Stakeholders and Customers in PPM

Role of different stakeholders was important to describe and performed in a creative way.

Different instruments have been developed to measure the performance of stakeholders in

terms of their roles and responsibilities. Multi-criteria decision aiding methodology

constructivist MCDA-C instrument was used in this research to evaluate the performance

of the project portfolio. This was a good instrument and used in project portfolios in

decision making. Gap of performance measurement was measured in this study (Lacerda,

Ensslin & Ensslin, 2011). A tool was used to measure the performance of the project

portfolio management due to the stakeholder’s roles. Major responsibilities mentioned for

further studies were related to the project managers. Portfolio managers were directly

influence the project portfolio management success.

Stakeholder’s engagement had influence on the project portfolio management success. In

this context both internal and external stakeholders were important. Internal stakeholders

had direct impact on the project portfolio management success. Portfolio manager was

responsible to deliver project or end product with complete perfection and good quality

by using transaction cost economies (TCE). A gap was measured between different work

qualities of managers. Further research recommended on combination of qualitative and

quantitative portfolio management (Koh, 2011). Study mentioned that portfolio managers

who were include in the internal stakeholders had direct impact on the project portfolio

management success. Involvement of internal managers affected the most project

portfolio management success, because they had direct relationship with the project

activities.

Different management levels involved in the project portfolio activities. Involvement of

top management always present in the decision making and other important activities.

36

Roles and responsibilities defined in the project portfolio management. This provided

better results to the project portfolio. Top management team and middle managers

interface enhanced the work quality and also gave better results for project success. Study

suggested that top management team and middle managers should be aware of their role

with good understanding because their understanding enhanced the interface process. Top

management team more perfectly performed their duties and made good interface

processes (Raes, Heijltjes, Glunk, & Roe, 2011).They mentioned that involvement of

both top management and middle management were essential. In comparison with middle

management, top management involvement provided better results in PPM. Most

important factor which made successful of any project was project manager’s skills,

abilities, experience, leadership and decision making skills. Involvement of stakeholder

and customers were also helpful for the projects in PPM. How stakeholder engagement

enhanced the effect of role of internal stakeholders? Engagement of stakeholders directly

involved in the project portfolio management success.

2.3 Engagement of Stakeholders

Sometimes business requirements were changed for the stakeholders. In some

organizations only one person was the owner of the whole organization. In some cases

more than one person were counted as owners. Sometimes company sale shares too many

persons or parties. Study of Parise and Casher (2003) presented a portfolio approach in

which business partner relationship was focused for managing, analyzing and designing

the project within the organization. By mutual understanding of the partner’s alliance

network and benefits of the organization enhanced and decrease the errors. Relationship

value of the partners improved the effectiveness of the organization (Parise& Casher,

2003). Good relationship value of business partners enhanced the accomplishments of the

organization. Good communication between internal stakeholders effected positively.

Many issues occurred due to the misunderstanding of the internal stakeholders and due to

this cause, aim of the organization ignored.

Some important factors which were follow properly without any ignorance in the project

portfolio management. Stakeholder engagement directed with the business activities

especially internal stakeholders was useful for these activities. Stakeholder

37

communication was one of the important determinants of project success. Significance of

stakeholder communication was a primary determinant which defined scope, time, cost

and quality standards for its projects (Naqvi, Aziz, & Rehman, 2011). Stakeholder

communication resolved primary level problems in the project portfolio management

success. Primary determinants time, scope and cost were controlled in its best way by

stakeholder communication. Further study was recommended that integration between

stakeholders had positive impact on the project portfolio performance.

Engagement of internal and external stakeholders was essential for the project portfolio

management goal achievement. Relationship with all type of stakeholders enhanced work

activity in a positive manner. Involvement of managers at different designation also

benefitted the projects. Integration between different stakeholders group was very

important for project success and good performance. Good communication and

continuity between mentioned groups like senior management, project core team and

project recipient’s stakeholders groups made projects successful. The agreement for

perception of project success between these three groups was managed to gain the best

project performance (Davis, 2014). The engagement of internal and external stakeholders

made projects more successful. Good communication and continuous relationship

between all stakeholders made project achievements easier to achieve in project portfolio

management.

2.3.1 Engagement of Internal Stakeholders in Project Portfolio Management (PPM)

Internal stakeholder’s involvement in projects increased the performance and chances of

success in project portfolio management. Human resource was directly involved in the

project processes and introduced strategies to attain the project’s desired goals.

Involvement of internal stakeholders like top and line managers was very important in

project portfolio management success. Empowerment of top management, interventions

by top and line management, encouragement by top management were the three main

aspects by which project portfolio management success can be enhanced. Line and top

management involvement also increased the performance of project portfolio

management success (Jonas, 2010). The roles of the different internal stakeholders should

38

be according to their designations. Empowerment and encouragement performed at the

top level and it was also beneficial for the project portfolio management success. Other

studies also supported the senior management involvement and their effective

communication in project portfolio management.

Further study focused on the relationship of the senior management. Skills of senior

managers enhanced the project activities in effective manner. Study of Unger et al (2012)

promoted senior management involvement to perform as strategic managers by adopting

an effective project portfolio culture in which termination of projects gave positive results

in a successful way. Managers focused on effective communication, so that other

stakeholders of project portfolio also influenced positively on project portfolio

management success. Future research recommended to investigate the different types of

involvement differently and its impact on the project termination quality and project

portfolio management success (Unger, Kock, Gemünden, & Jonas 2012). Researchers

mentioned the relationship between stakeholders by good communications. This

enhanced the project portfolio management performance. Internal stakeholders had direct

impact on the project portfolio management success.

Following hypotheses were developed to test the relationship of the internal stakeholder’s

engagement with the PPM:

H1: The greater the Internal Stakeholder’s Engagement in PPM, the better

prospects for success of PPM.

Internal stakeholders directly affected the project portfolio management success. Internal

stakeholders included different kind of managers. Study researched about the internal

stakeholders and their impact on the project portfolio success. Study described that

Project managers, project portfolio managers, senior managers and line managers had

positive or significant effect on the portfolio project success. Study analyzed the gap of

the significance level of different internal stakeholders on the project success. Further

research recommended on external key stakeholders who directly involved in the project

portfolio management success (Beringer, Jonas & Kock, 2013). Study mentioned the

different managers who had direct impact on the project portfolio management success.

Some internal stakeholders had significant impact on the project portfolio management

39

success. Beringer et al (2013) used role clarity as a moderator for their study and role

clarity moderated the relationship some of the managers on PPM success. How internal

stakeholder’s engagement had positive impact on the project portfolio management

success? Engagement of external stakeholders also had significant effect on the project

portfolio success.

2.3.2 Engagement of External Stakeholders in Project Portfolio Management

Normally engagement of external stakeholders was not considered important in the

project portfolio management success. In external stakeholder’s customers, suppliers,

vendors, donors and many other stakeholders were included. Study of Rosell (2013)

explained that buyer – supplier collaboration in new product development had positive

impact on the project innovation. From knowledge perspective it was observed that

supplier knowledge was combined or related with the buyer knowledge. Different

supplier’s knowledge added different contributions in the new product development in

the form of new practices, new ideas and new ways of competition (Rosell, 2013). He

mentioned only two stakeholders which were suppliers and customers. He mentioned that

supplier and customer integration effected positively and enhanced the innovation.

Engagement of customers independently had much influence on the project portfolio

management success.

2.3.2.1 Engagement of Customers

In project portfolio management involvement of external stakeholders was as important

as internal stakeholders. Hence, customers, suppliers and other stakeholders also sway the

project portfolio management success. Customers was always first preference of any

project or product development. Study of Menon et al (2005) and Voss and Kock (2013)

discussed about the moderating variables and their impact on the project portfolio

management success. Results described that relationship value of customers in portfolio

projects had a positive effect on the project success. Customer relationship value

increased the significance of the projects. There was a gap of project success by

involvement of moderating variables (Voss & Kock, 2013). Hypothesis for customer’s

engagement had been described to empirically test the relationship.

H2: The greater the customer’s engagement in PPM, the better prospects for

40

success of PPM.

Engagement of customer had significant effect on the project portfolio management

success. Study explained that customer’s relationship value in the project portfolio

management success increased the performance of the overall project portfolio

management. Customers were beneficial stakeholders in project portfolio management.

Projects can be achieved according to the requirements of the customers. So involvement

of the customers was very important and it made the project achievements easier.

Engagement of suppliers also enhanced the project portfolio management success. Both

customers and suppliers had significantly impact on the project portfolio management

success.

2.3.2.2 Engagement of Suppliers

Suppliers were the important stakeholders especially for project portfolio management.

Suppliers play vital role in the achievement of goals in the project portfolio. Supplier’s

involvement mostly preferred in the project portfolio. Study analyzed that supplier’s

involvement has become popular in portfolio projects to increase the effectiveness of the

projects. Study developed a hypothesis for supplier’s engagement as:

H3: The more effectively supplier engagement during PPM, the better prospects

for success of PPM.

Supplier engagement enhanced the effectiveness of the project portfolio management

success. Study explored the main issue was that manufacturers were not sure about

involvement with suppliers, which type of engagement they should contain with the

suppliers. In this study four types of supplier involvement introduced for development of

projects in supplier involvement portfolio. Four types of supplier involvements were

explained as direction of information flow, the communication media used, amount of

communication and the topics discussed and functions involved in portfolio projects

(Wynstra, & Pierick, 2000).They introduced the supplier engagement in the project

portfolio and mentioned that supplier engagement preferred in the project portfolio

management. Four types of suppliers discussed in the study. Each kind of supplier

affected the portfolio success in its own way. Strategies of the project portfolio

management also related with the supplier engagement.

41

Framework was the development of the project planning in which strategies, processes

and other techniques were defined which were used for the project successful completion.

Suppliers were also the part of that framework in which strategies selected for projects.

Study analyzed the framework that identified the short and long term strategic processes

related to supplier involvement (Echtelt, Wynstra, Weele, & Duysters, 2004).They

mentioned that by planning and execution of strategic processes and techniques can be

used to achieve the short term objectives and long term objectives can also be gained by

adding the supplier involvement. Authors further analyze that how companies achieve

desired goals by adding the supplier involvement? Supplier engagement showed results

in a positive way for project success.

Study mentioned that supplier involvement was beneficial for the project goal

achievement. Study of Echtelt et al (2006) analyzed that strategies used to achieve the

short and long term objectives by adding processes and involvement of the suppliers. By

adding the supplier involvement these things work with more perfection. Above studies

mentioned that now supplier engagement added in projects by decision making

approaches. New product development was a process in which companies go forward for

competition in the market. Suppliers played an important role in this era. For new product

development engagement of external stakeholders enhanced the compatibility of the

product. Companies need to set a decision making strategic processes to create a good

supplier involvement. Supplier engagement was essential for short term as well as long

term policies for new project development. There was a need to identify right partners

and perfect supplier involvement from suppliers. Companies also need to get guidelines

and directions from decision making processes for supplier engagement in projects

(Echtelt, Wynstra, Weele, &Duysters, 2006). Researchers mentioned that decision

making strategies were developed to enhance the supplier engagement in the projects.

Echtelt et al (2006) also mentioned there was need of right decision making and new

strategies for the supplier engagement. Supplier engagement improved the new product

development strategies.

Many things were related with the suppliers. Some errors made it favorable for the

projects and on the other hand some factors made it unfavorable for the projects. Previous

42

study analyzed the supplier involvement benefitted the project portfolio success in a

positive way. The possible negative and positive effects of supplier engagement on the

new product development in an organization were focused. Negative effects of supplier

engagement in new product development were communication barriers, skills and

knowledge barriers and commitment barriers. Positive effects of supplier involvement

were effectiveness and efficiency of short term product increased when suppliers were

involved. Supplier involvement also increased the product value and quality (Witlox,

2010). He mentioned some positive and negative sides of the supplier involvement.

Supplier engagement provided a lot of signs of achievements in positive direction.

External stakeholder’s engagement made goals clear and enhanced the project portfolio

management achievements. How external stakeholders had positive impact with

moderating effect of role clarity on the project portfolio management success? There was

a need to identify the involvement of internal stakeholders as well as external

stakeholders both had significant effect on project portfolio management success. Internal

stakeholders and external stakeholders helped to improve project outcomes and success.

In project portfolio management stakeholders had much influence on the projects in a

positive way to achieve project’s desired goal. Both internal and external stakeholders

were significant to achieve the overall project accomplishment in project portfolio

management. Role clarity was affecting the variables as a moderator; it increased the

efficiency of the internal and external stakeholders and had encouraging impact on the

project portfolio management success. How internal and external stakeholders had

positive impact on the project portfolio management with moderating effect of role

clarity?

2.4 Moderating Effect of Role Clarity

Study had different findings about the role clarity. Studies which have used role clarity as

a moderator mentioned here. Role clarity moderated the relationship between role

ambiguity and athlete satisfaction (Bray, Beauchamp, Eys & Carron, 2005). Bliese &

Castro (2000) also used role clarity as moderator for their study. Another study said that

need for role clarity did not moderate the relationship between the degree of role clarity

and job satisfaction (Miles & Petty, 1975). Role clarity used as moderator in both studies

but in one it was working as moderator and in another study it was not working as

43

moderator. So, role clarity moderated the independent variables depend upon the nature

of variables. Following hypotheses were developed to test the effect of role clarity as a

moderator:

H4: Role clarity moderates the relationship between internal stakeholders’

engagement and project portfolio management success.

H5: Role clarity moderates the relationship between customer's engagement and

project portfolio management success.

H6: Role clarity moderates the relationship between supplier's engagement and

project portfolio management success.

Internal stakeholders like top managers, and project managers had significant effect on

the project portfolio management success with moderation effect of role clarity. External

stakeholders like customers and suppliers engagement also show significant effect on the

project portfolio management success with moderation effect of role clarity. Beringer et

al (2013) described that role clarity had moderating effect on the project portfolio

management success. Role clarity enhanced the significance level of some internal

stakeholders and increased the success of PPM. Some internal stakeholder’s engagement

had direct relationship with the role clarity. It made clear to the managers to perform their

role in PPM. Role clarity also made clear directions to external stakeholders for their role

in PPM. It increased the impact of external stakeholders on PPM. How role clarity made

directions clear to internal and external stakeholders?

Above literature explained about different factors which directly or indirectly affected the

performance of the PPM. Factors which had positive effect on the PPM performance and

success were involvement of internal stakeholder and managers. In this literature

involvement of external stakeholders was not yet explored, and also effect of both

internal and external stakeholders on the PPM performance accomplishment was not yet

studied. This study intends to find the impact of internal and external stakeholders on the

Project Portfolio Management success.

44

2.5 Hypothesized Model

Figure: 2.0 Independent Variables Moderator Dependent Variable

Kissi et al (2013), Voss & Kock (2013) and Beringer et al (2013) focused on the impact

of the internal stakeholders on project portfolio success and Voss and Kock (2013)

explored that relationship value of external stakeholders e.g. customers with moderating

effect of portfolio characteristics and external turbulence increased the performance in

PPM. The current study determined the impact of both internal and external stakeholders

on PPM success.

Beringer et al 2013 related this research with the stakeholder theory in project portfolio

management perspective. Freeman (1984) defined a stakeholder as “any group or

individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization's

objectives. Based on this definition Beringer et al 2013 defined project portfolio

stakeholders as any group or individual in an association with a project portfolio, such

that the cluster or individual can affect or is affected by the attainment of the portfolio's

objectives with moderating role of role clarity. So this theory also supported the present

study because study perceived that stakeholder’s engagement have significant effect on

the project portfolio management success with moderating effect of role clarity.

45

The present study understand from the literature that involvement of internal stakeholders

had positive effect on the PPM success but involvement of external stakeholders in PPM

was not yet explored. So this intends to find the impact of internal as well as external

stakeholders on the project portfolio management success. Above literature was the

source to identify the variables used in this study. Figure 2.1 depict intensity of senior

manager’s engagement, intensity of line manager’s engagement, intensity of project

portfolio manager’s engagement and intensity of project manager’s engagement as

independent variables of internal stakeholders, while intensity of customer’s engagement

and intensity of supplier’s engagement are also independent variables but part of external

stakeholders. Project portfolio management success is a dependent variable. Present study

measured the project portfolio management success by strategic fit and average project

success. Role clarity is the moderating variable. The demographic variables to be used in

the current research are ‘Software House Title’, ‘Total Work Experience’ , ‘Total work

Experience of managing portfolios’ , ‘Team Strength’ , ‘ Annual Revenue’ , ‘ Duration of

Existence of Software House’ , ‘Specialty of Software House’ , ‘Span of Software house’

, ‘CMMI Ranking’ , ‘Software House Certifications’ , ‘Software House Clients’ , ‘

Number of Portfolios’ , ‘ Number of Projects in one Portfolio’ , ‘Number of Projects

Lead Successfully’ , ‘Number of Project Portfolio Managers’ , ‘Number of Project

Managers’ , ‘Project Worth’ , ‘Information is Given About’ and Designation of the

Respondents.

46

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

47

This chapter covered the research design and methodology used in identifying and

evaluating the relationship among independent and dependent variables under this study.

Independent, dependent and moderating variables were mentioned in the model (Figure

2.1). The history of constructs had been explained in the model and further quantitative

analysis had been used to identify the outcome. It was aimed to identify the impact of

stakeholder’s engagement on project portfolio management success, in IT sector Lahore,

Pakistan.

3.1 Elements of Research Design

The research examined the relationship of internal and external stakeholders by

moderating effect of the role clarity on project portfolio management success. Internal

stakeholder’s engagement had four dimensions same used by the Beringer et al (2013)

and external stakeholder’s engagement had two further dimensions. PPM had measured

by the Average Project Success (APS) and Strategic Fit (SF) already incorporated by

Beringer et al (2013) in the same context. The elements of research design with complete

details were listed below:

3.1.1 Type of study

For the purpose of this study, Correlational design had been used (Non- Contrived), that

already has been validated by the Beringer et al (2013) in the same context. It has

targeted to study the relationship between stakeholder’s engagement and PPM success

with moderating effect of role clarity. Software houses had been selected from the city of

Lahore, Pakistan.

3.1.2 Extent of researcher interference

As it is non contrived study researcher’s interference remained minimum to get balanced

and consistent data. However, during data collection for mitigating the probability of

poor data, researcher’s interference remained compulsory in following cases:

1. To fill the questionnaire (provided under Appendix: III) used for this study with

titles ‘Software House Title’, ‘Total Work Experience’ , ‘Total work Experience

of managing portfolios’ , ‘Team Strength’ , ‘ Annual Revenue’ , ‘ Duration of

48

Existence of Software House’ , ‘Specialty of Software House’ , ‘Span of Software

house’ , ‘CMMI Ranking’ , ‘Software House Certifications’ , ‘Software House

Clients’ , ‘ Number of Portfolios’ , ‘ Number of Projects in one Portfolio’ ,

‘Number of Projects Lead Successfully’ , ‘Number of Project Portfolio Managers’

, ‘Number of Project Managers’ , ‘Project Worth’ , ‘Information is Given About’

and Designation of the Respondents who has filled the questionnaire about given

dependent and independent and moderating variables. This was significant, as IT

professionals in the highlighted IT industry remained hasty in filling the fields of

the questionnaire during the preliminary survey. For this reason researcher had to

request the concerned IT experts of the software house to provide the data about

the above mentioned fields for each and every selected IT project portfolio. For

getting the desired sample of respondents set of questionnaire hand over to the

panel of members of that IT project portfolio.

2. For getting the questionnaire refilled by the team members who filled

questionnaire either inaccurately or made mistakes, like who filled the items two

times or not filled the items at all in the questionnaire.

3.1.3 Study Setting

This is a Correlational study conducted in the field. It targeted studying the impact of

stakeholder’s engagement on project portfolio management success by measuring the

level of engagement of project manager’s and CEO’s in IT project portfolios from

selected software houses which were registered in P@SHA list is given in (Table 1,

Appendix I) managing different kind of IT project portfolios within the city of Lahore

Pakistan, from September 2012 to June 2014.

3.1.4 Time schedule

The time awarded for this study was from September 2012 to June 2014, the researcher

had started visiting the software houses since November 2013. The researcher collected

the facts and figures as external member of the IT industry until March 2014. Data had

been collected from the IT industry during this time period. Data collection had been

completed till March 2014. It was conducted as a cross-sectional study (Sekaran &

49

Bougie, 2013). Since March 2014 onward the researcher concentrated on compiling the

thesis.

3.1.5 Population

The study set its population to be the groups who were managing projects in portfolios,

undertaking considerable IT projects of different types and scopes within the selected

software houses within the city of Lahore, Pakistan. The study identified and selected its

population based on some important factors described next. As the data was collected in

between November 2013 to March 2014, the study selected the software houses who are

managing their projects in a portfolio. Information was gathered about those software

houses that were managing project in portfolios, during the June 2013 to March 2014, the

recent project portfolios can be identified in selected software houses. This was done to

make sure that the data is valid and reliable about IT project portfolios. It was necessary

to find the accurate and realistic data about the project portfolios which is being handled

in the present time. IT professionals remembered their recent project portfolios so that

they can provide us better information related to recent work rather than past project

portfolios.

Focal persons identified were CEO’s of software houses and project managers and other

managers who are involved in project management. We had taken the population

primarily from Arfa Kareem Software Technology Park (STP) and then other large

software houses in Lahore by following the pasha list. Primarily in pilot survey about 30

software houses were identified and number of software houses where projects in

portfolios are managed, in Arfa Kareem Software Technology Park are 28, list is given in

table 3 in Appendix 1. According to pilot survey number of C.E.O’s, project managers

and other managers in Arfa Kareem 30 software houses is approximately 90.

Respondents will be C.E.O’s and their nominated project managers and other managers

who are managing projects in portfolio in software houses. List of respondents is given in

table 3 in Appendix 1. In complete research survey 87 software houses according to

Pasha registered list were identified and about 65 software houses were managing their

projects in portfolio. Their details are provided in the Appendix 1. Lists of the respondent

detail in table 3, pasha registered software houses list in table 1 and Arfa Kareem

50

software houses detail is given in the table 2 in Appendix 1. Respondents identified on

the following conditions:

1. Software houses were selected where IT projects were managed in project

portfolio management.

2. Prefer those software houses where project managers were involved in the

portfolio management.

3. Organizations / software houses who were willing to provide the information

about IT project managers, portfolio managers, and projects in portfolio and about

software houses.

4. Software houses who were managing the high budget and high level IT projects in

portfolio.

3.1.6 Unit of Analysis

Respondents were C.E.O’s of software houses and their project and portfolio managers

who were managing IT projects in portfolio same has been reinforced by the Beringer et

al(2013) and Frey et al (2011) in the same context. Study tried to analyze the

involvement or level of engagement of the project managers and portfolio managers in

the project portfolio management as Beringer et al (2013) has been used for their study.

3.1.7 Sampling Design

The study adopted the Multi Stage Sampling as explained by Sekaran & Bougie (2013).

1st Stage: Selection of city, 2nd Stage: Selection of software houses, 3rd Stage: selection of

CEO’s and all type of managers who are dealing projects in portfolios (Beringer et al,

2013). From 87 software houses 65 software houses were managing their projects in

portfolio. For this study size of the identified and selected population was 195, for

achieving the 99% confidence with minimum error in results, a sample of 160

respondents was selected by ensuring that all respondents will be from those software

houses that were managing projects in portfolio confirmed by Sekaran & Bougie (2013).

Questionnaires were adopted from different studies. Survey technique was used during

data collection. 160 questionnaires were distributed out of which 100 questionnaires were

51

returned, yielding a response rate of 62.5%.The questionnaires were circulated to the

C.E.O’s and project managers of the software houses in IT industry Lahore Pakistan

already has been validated by the Beringer et al (2013) in the Germany.

3.1.8 Data Measuring Instruments

The study adopted valid scales from the previous studies, where reliability of the

instrument was available. The instrument consisted of 60 items and collected responses

on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

1. The first section of the questionnaire covered demographic details of each

respondent and software house including ‘Software House Title’, ‘Total Work

Experience’ , ‘Total work Experience of managing portfolios’ , ‘Team Strength’ ,

‘ Annual Revenue’ , ‘ Duration of Existence of Software House’ , ‘Specialty of

Software House’ , ‘Span of Software house’ , ‘CMMI Ranking’ , ‘Software

House Certifications’ , ‘Software House Clients’ , ‘ Number of Portfolios’ , ‘

Number of Projects in one Portfolio’ , ‘Number of Projects Lead Successfully’ ,

‘Number of Project Portfolio Managers’ , ‘Number of Project Managers’ ,

‘Project Worth’ , ‘Information is Given About’ and Designation of the

Respondent.

2. Section 2 of the questionnaire consisted of questions related to the Role Clarity

Moderating Variable RC, Dependent variables like Strategic Fit and Average

Project Success. This instrument was adopted from the study of the Beringer et al

(2013). The instrument originally (Beringer et al., 2013) had 10 items. Validity of

this construct has been assessed by confirmatory factor analysis and significance

of variables was between 0.7 and 0.83. Reliability assessed by Cronbach’s alphas,

Cronbach’s coefficients was between 0.7 and 0.8.The five point scale ranging

from 1(strongly disagree) to 5(strongly agree) had been used.

3. Section 3 of the questionnaire consisted of questions related to the Independent

Variables for External Stakeholders; Relationship value of customers contains

two further dimensions like relationship value for customers and relationship

value from customers. This instrument adopted from the study of Voss &Kock,

(2013). The instrument contained 10 items originally. This instrument was

52

customized according to the need of study and also used the same scale for the

relationship value of suppliers. So 21 items added to this section. Reliability was

assessed by Cronbach’s alphas; coefficients for these items for relationship value

for the customers and from the customers were accordingly 0.85 and 0.74.

Validity was assessed by test retest. The five point scale ranging from 1(strongly

disagree) to 5(strongly agree) had been used.

4. Section 4 of the questionnaire consisted of questions related to the Independent

Variables for Internal Stakeholders; About Managers and Senior Management

Involvement two variables was added in this section from different studies. First

variable which was about managers adopted from the study of (Kissi et al., 2013).

This instrument contained 22 items and as it was used this instrument in this

study. Second variable was senior management involvement (SMI). This

instrument adopted from the study of Unger et al (2012). This instrument

contained 7 items and all these items had been used in this study. Validity of this

scale has assessed by confirmatory factor analysis and significance of variables

was 0.96. Reliability assessed by Cronbach’s alphas, Cronbach’s coefficients was

between 0.89.The five point scale ranging from 1(strongly disagree) to 5(strongly

agree) had been used.

5. Formal Permission on email has been obtained on each variable by respective

Researchers.

1.1.9 Data Analysis

1. The statistical analysis had been carried out with the help of the SPSS 20.

2. Demographic analysis had been analyzed with the help of frequency tables

and pie charts.

3. Reliability Analysis had been employed by using Cronbach’s Alpha.

Reliability analysis had been performed to find out the consistency among

the items.

4. For analysis of the sample characteristics, Descriptive statistics of means,

frequencies, standard deviations, variance, maximum, minimum and

percentages was running.

53

5. Pearson’s Correlation had been used where applicable to determine the

relationship between Independent and Dependent variables.

6. Pair wise Hierarchical Regression had been employed to find the

relationship of variables.

7. Pair wise Hierarchal Regression Analysis had been used for Hypothesis

testing.

8. To examine the moderating effect of Role Clarity, Pair wise Hierarchical

Regression had been used.

The details and results of these tests were provided under chapter: 4.

3.1.10 Coding of Data

The variables under study were selected scores on a 5 point interval Scale. Table 3.1

showed the coding of data used for analysis and explanation.

Table: 3.1 Coding of Data

Strongly Disagree 1

Disagree 2Neutral 3Agree 4

Strongly Agree 5

54

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

55

This chapter discussed the descriptive and inferential statistics drawn from the

relationship of the independent, dependent and moderating variables under study. The

descriptive portion of statistics roofed the characteristics of the variables, whereas the

inferential statistics helped to generate the results by analyzing the relationship among

variables under this study.

4.1 Introducing Variables in Research

Demographic analysis was reported to give an overview about the characteristics and

experiences of the project managers in Software Houses. The Reliability analyses were

used to test the reliability of the constructs, correlation and regression to test the

relationship between the variables and step wise hierarchal regression analyses was used

to check the effect of moderation on dependent variable. Frequency distributions

calculated for all Demographic Variables with the help of SPSS version 20. Sample data

of 100 was collected from the Software Houses in IT industry.

ISE – Represents independent variable Internal Stakeholders’ Engagement

RVC – Represents independent variable Relationship Value of Customers

RVS – Represents independent variable Relationship Value of Suppliers

RC - Represents moderating variable Role Clarity

PPS– Represents dependent variable Project Portfolio Management Success

Table: 4.1- Research Variables

ISE RVC RVS RC PPS

NValid 100 100 100 100 100

Missing 0 0 0 0 0

56

4.2 Demographic Analysis

A total of 160 questionnaires were distributed to achieve the sample size of 100 for data

analysis. Demographic characteristics are explained below:

4.2.1 Designation of the Respondent

The designations of the respondents were divided into four main brackets like

C.E.O/Director, Project Manager, IT Manager and others. The Table 4.2 and figure 4.1

showed that out of 100 respondents 25(25%) were C.E.O’s, 51(51%) were project

managers, 8(8%) were IT managers and 16(16%) were other managers who filled the

questionnaire. This implies that most of the respondents are project managers in the

software houses.

Table 4.2 Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Designation of Respondent

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

C.E.O/ Director 25 25.0 25.0 25.0

Project Manager 51 51.0 51.0 76.0

IT Manager 8 8.0 8.0 84.0

Others 16 16.0 16.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

25%

8%16%

51%

Designation - Frequency

ceo it managerothers project manager

Figure 4.1 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Designation of Respondent

57

4.2.2 Gender

Nominal scale was used to collect the responses about gender of the respondents. The

Table 4.3 and figure 4.2 showed that out of 100 respondents 92(92%) were Males and

8(8%) females. This implies that most of the employees in the software houses are males.

Table 4.3 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Gender

Frequency Percent Valid

Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Valid

male 92 92.0 92.0 92.0

female 8 8.0 8.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

8%

92%

Gender -Frequency

female male

Figure 4.2 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Gender

58

4.2.3 Experience of Respondent

The experience of the respondents of managing projects in the software houses was

divided into four main categories like up to 2 years, 2 to 6 years, 6 to 10 years and above

10 years. The Table 4.4 and figure 4.3 showed that out of 100 respondents 9(9%) had

experience of up to 2 years, 24(24%) had experience of 2 to 6 years, 20(20%) had

experience of 6 to 10 years and 47(47%) had experience of above 10 years. This showed

that most of the respondents have experience of above 10 years of managing the projects.

Since most of the respondents were experienced therefore the study perceived that the

data was credible.

Table 4.4 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Experience of Respondent

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Up to 2 9 9.0 9.0 9.0

2 - 6 24 24.0 24.0 33.0

6 - 10 20 20.0 20.0 53.0

Above 10 47 47.0 47.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

24%

20%46%

9%

Experience - Frequesncy

2 TO 6 6 TO 10 ABOVE 10 UP TO 2

Figure 4.3 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Experience of Respondent

59

4.2.4Experience of Project Portfolio Management

The experience of respondents of managing projects in portfolio in the software houses

was divided into four main groups like up to 2 years, 2 to 6 years, 6 to 10 years and above

10 years. The Table 4.5 and figure 4.4 showed that out of 100 respondents 34(34%) had

experience of up to 2 years, 22(22%) had experience of 2 to 6 years, 16(16%) had

experience of 6 to 10 years and 28(28%) had experience of above 10 years. These

percentages mention that most of the respondents have experience up to 2 years of

managing the projects in portfolios. Most of the managers have recently initiated to

manage the projects in the portfolio.

Table 4.5 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Experience of PPM

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Up to 2 34 34.0 34.0 34.0

2 - 6 22 22.0 22.0 56.0

6 - 10 16 16.0 16.0 72.0

Above 10 28 28.0 28.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

22%

16%

28%

33%

Experience of PPM - Frequency

2 TO 6 6 TO 10 ABOVE 10 UP TO 2

Figure 4.4 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Experience of PPM

60

4.2.5 Number of Employees

The number of employees of the software houses was divided into four main categories

like less than 50, 50 to 100,100 to 200 and above 200. The Table 4.6 and figure 4.5 show

that 69(69%) respondents were from those software houses who had less than 50

employees, 19(19%) respondents were from those software houses who had 50 to 100

employees, 3(3%) respondents were from those software houses who had 100 to 200

employees and 9(9%) respondents were from those software houses who had above 200

employees. This study implies that most of the software houses have employees less than

50.

Table 4.6 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Employees

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Less than 50 69 69.0 69.0 69.0

50 - 100 19 19.0 19.0 88.0

100 - 200 3 3.0 3.0 91.0

Above 200 9 9.0 9.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

3%

19%

9%

69%

Employees - Frequency

100 to 200 50 to 100 ABOVE 200 less than 50

Figure 4.5 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Employees

61

4.2.6Annual Revenue of Software House

The annual revenue of the software houses was divided into three main brackets like up

to 1$ million, between1 to 2$ million and above 2$ million. The Table 4.7 and Figure 4.6

showed that 63(63%) respondents were from those software houses who earn up to 1$

million revenue annually, 11(11%) respondents were from those software houses who

earn up to 1-2$ million revenue annually and 26(26%) %) respondents were from those

software houses who earn up to above 2$ million revenue annually. This study showed

that most of the software houses were highly budgeted and reputed.

Table 4.7 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Revenue

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Up to 1$ million 63 63.0 63.0 63.0

Between 1 - 2$ million 11 11.0 11.0 74.0

Above 2$ million 26 26.0 26.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

26%

11%63%

Revenue - Frequency

Above 2$ million between 1 to 2$ million up to 1$ million

Figure 4.6 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Revenue

62

4.2.7Existence of Software House

The existence of the software houses was divided into four main groups like less than 2

years, 2 to 4 years, 4 to 6 years and above 6 years. The Table 4.8 and figure 4.7 showed

that 6(6%) respondents were from those software houses who had less than 2 years to

exist, 10(10%) respondents were from those software houses who had 2 to 4 years to

exist, 7(7%) respondents were from those software houses who had 4 to 6 years to exist

and 77(77%) respondents were from those software houses who had 2 to 4 years to exist.

This implies that most of the software houses have existence of above 6 years, it means

software houses were more competent and providing high quality work in project

portfolios.

Table 4.8 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Existence of S.H

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Less than 2 6 6.0 6.0 6.0

2 - 4 10 10.0 10.0 16.0

4 - 6 7 7.0 7.0 23.0

Above 6 77 77.0 77.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

10%7%

77%

6%

Existence - Frequency

2 to 4 4 to 6 Above 6 Up to 2

63

Figure 4.7 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Existence of S.H

4.2.8 Specialty of Software House

The specialty of the software houses was divided into four main categories like databases,

mobile apps, websites, and multiple technologies. The Table 4.9 and figure 4.8 showed

that 2(2%) respondents were from those software houses who deal in databases, 4(4%)

respondents were from who deal in mobile apps, 8(8%)respondents were from those who

deal in websites, 86(86%) respondents were from those who deal in multiple

technologies. This showed that most of the software houses were dealing in all

technologies. This supported the diversity of the operations of software houses.

Table 4.9 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Specialty

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Databases 2 .8 2.0 2.0

Mobile apps 4 1.5 4.0 6.0

Websites 8 3.1 8.0 14.0

Multiple Technologies 86 86.0 86.0 100.0

Total 100 38.6 100.0

2% 4%

86%

8%

Specialty - Frequency

DATABASES MOBILE APPSMULTIPLE TECHNOLOGIES WEBSITES

Figure 4.8 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Specialty

64

4.2.9 Span of Software House

The span of the software houses were divided into four main categories like within

Pakistan, within subcontinent, within Asia and across the world wide. The Table 4.10 and

figure 4.9 showed that 18(18%) respondents were from those software houses who deal

within Pakistan, 8(8%) deal within subcontinent, 14(14%) deal within Asia and 60(60%)

deal across the world wide. These percentages mentioned that most of the software

houses were operating internationally.

Table 4.10 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Span of Software House

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Within Pakistan 18 18.0 18.0 18.0

Within Subcontinent 8 8.0 8.0 26.0

Within Asia 14 14.0 14.0 40.0

Across the World Wide 60 60.0 60.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

60%

8%

18%

14%

Span - Frequency

across the world wide within asiawithin pakistan within subcontinent

Figure 4.9 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Span of Software House

65

4.2.10 CMMI Ranking of Software House

The CMMI ranking of the software houses was divided into four main levels explained as

level 1, level 2, level 3 and level 4. The Table 4.11and figure 4.10 showed that 28(28%)

respondents were from those software houses who had level 1, 22(22%) have level 2,

47(47%) had level 3 and 3(3%) had level 4. These percentages mentioned that most of

the software houses have level 3 of CMMI ranking; it means these software houses have

high certification due to high quality of work and good reputation.

Table 4.11 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: CMMI Ranking

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Level 1 28 28.0 28.0 28.0

Level 2 22 22.0 22.0 50.0

Level 3 47 47.0 47.0 97.0

Level 4 3 3.0 3.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

28%

22%

46%

3%

CMMI Ranking - Frequency

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Figure 4.10 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: CMMI Ranking

66

4.2.11 Certifications of Software House

The certifications of the software houses were divided into four main certifications like

ISO certified, IEEE certified, both a and b and others. The Table 4.12 and figure 4.11

showed that 46(46%) respondents were from those software houses who was ISO

certified, 19(19%) had IEEE certified, 24(24%) had both ISO and IEEE certified and

11(11%) had other certifications. This implies that most of the software houses in Lahore

were ISO certified.

Table 4.12 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Certifications

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

ISO certified 46 46.0 46.0 46.0

IEEE certified 19 19.0 19.0 65.0

Both a and b 24 24.0 24.0 89.0

Others 11 11.0 11.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

24%

19%45%

11%

Certification - Frequency

Both A & B IEEE Certified ISO Certified Others

Figure 4.11 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Certifications

67

4.2.12 Clients of Software House

The clients of the software houses were divided into four main groups like international,

national, local and both a and b. The Table 4.13 and figure 4.12 showed that 69(69%)

respondents were from those software houses who had International clients, 19(19%) had

national clients, 2(2%) had local clients and 10(10%) had both international and national

clients. These percentages mentioned that due to high quality not only national clients but

also international clients relied on the services provided by software houses in Lahore.

Table 4.13 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Clients

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

International 69 69.0 69.0 69.0

National 19 19.0 19.0 88.0

Local 2 2.0 2.0 90.0

Both a and b 10 10.0 10.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

10%

69%

2%

19%

Clients - Frequency

Both A & B International Local National

68

Figure 4.12 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Clients

4.2.13 Number of Portfolios in Software House

The number of portfolios in the software houses was divided into four main brackets like

less than 2, 2 to 4, 4 to 6 and above 6. The Table 4.14 and figure 4.13 showed that

40(40%) respondents were from those software houses who had dealing with less than 2

portfolios, 18(18%) had dealing with 2 to 4 portfolios, 14(14%) had dealing with 4 to 6

portfolios and 28(28%) had dealing with above 6 portfolios. These percentages showed

that mostly software houses were managing less than two portfolios at a time, but in one

portfolio large number of projects were monitored.

Table 4.14 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: No of Portfolios

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Less than 2 40 40.0 40.0 40.0

2 - 4 18 18.0 18.0 58.0

4 - 6 14 14.0 14.0 71.0

Above 6 28 28.0 28.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

18%

14%

28%

39%

No. of Portofolios - Frequency

2 to 4 4 to 6 Above 6 Less than 2

Figure 4.13 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: No of Portfolios

69

4.2.14 Number of Projects in Software House

The number of projects in the software houses was divided into four main categories like

Less than 2, 2 to 4, 4 to 6 and above 6. The Table 4.15 and figure 4.14 showed that

10(10%) respondents were from those software houses who had dealing with less than 2

portfolios, 14(14%) had dealing with 2 to 4 portfolios, 14(14%) had dealing with 4 to 6

portfolios and 62(62%) had dealing with above 6 portfolios. The study perceived that

mostly software houses were dealing diversified and large number of projects.

Table 4.15 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: No of Projects

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

2 - 4 10 10.0 10.0 10.0

4 - 6 14 14.0 14.0 24.0

6 - 8 14 14.0 14.0 38.0

Above 8 62 62.0 62.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

10%

14%

14%62%

No. of Projects - Frequency

2 to 4 4 to 6 6 to 8 Above 8

Figure 4.14 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: No of Projects

70

4.2.15 Number of Projects successful in Software House

The number of projects successful in the software houses was divided into four main

groups like 2 to 4, 4 to 6, 6 to 8 and above 8. The Table 4.16 and figure 4.15 showed that

9(9%) respondents were from those software houses who had dealing with 2 to 4 projects

successful, 11(11%) had dealing with 4 to 6 projects successful, 20(20%) had dealing

with 6 to 8 projects successful and 60(60%) had dealing with above 8 projects

successful. These results showed that most of the projects were successfully managed by

software houses in Lahore.

Table 4.16 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Projects Successful

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

2 - 4 9 9.0 9.0 9.0

4 - 6 11 11.0 11.0 20.0

6 - 8 20 20.0 20.0 41.0

Above 8 60 60.0 60.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

9%

11%

20%60%

Successful Projects - Frequency

2 to 4 4 to 6 6 to 8 Above 8

Figure 4.15 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Projects Successful

71

4.2.16 Number of Project Portfolio Managers in Software House

The number of project portfolio managers in the software houses was divided into four

main brackets like Less than 2, 3 to 4 and 5 to 6 and above 6. The Table 4.17 and figure

4.16 showed that 77(77%) respondents were from those software houses who had Less

than 2 project portfolio managers, 7(7%) had 3 to 5 project portfolio managers, 15(15%)

had 5 to 6 project portfolio managers and 1(1%) had less than 6 project portfolio

managers. From this the study perceived that most of the software houses in Lahore

employed less than 2 project portfolio managers.

Table 4.17 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Project Portfolio Managers

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Less than 2 77 77.0 77.0 77.0

3 - 4 7 7.0 7.0 84.0

5 – 6

Above 6

15

1

15.0

1.0

15.0

1.0

99.0

100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

7%

15%

77%

1%

No. of PPMs - Frequency

3 to 4 5 to 6 Above 6 Less than 2

72

Figure 4.16 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Project Portfolio Managers

4.2.17 Number of Project Managers in Software House

The number of project managers in the software houses was divided into four main

brackets like Less than 2, 2 to 4, 4 to 6 and above 6. The Table 4.18 and figure 4.17

showed that 4(4%) respondents were from those software houses who had less than 2

project managers, 18(18%) had 2 to 4 project managers, 18(18%) had 4 to 6 project

managers and 60(60%) had above 6 project managers. The study explained that most of

the software houses in Lahore employed more than six project managers with good skills

and experience.

Table 4.18 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Project Managers

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Less than 2 4 4.0 4.0 4.0

2 - 4 18 18.0 18.0 22.0

4 - 6 18 18.0 18.0 40.0

Above 6 60 60.0 60.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

18%

18%

60%

4%

No. of PMs - Frequency

3 to 4 5 to 6 Above 6 Less than 2

73

Figure 4.17 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Project Managers

4.2.18 Project Worth of Software House

The project worth of software houses was divided into three main categories like less

than 1 million, between 1 & 2 million and more than 2 million. The Table 4.19 and figure

4.18 showed that 29(29%) respondents were from those software houses had project

worth of less than 1 million, 37(37%) had project worth of between 1 & 2 million and

34(34%) had project worth of more than 2 million. The study implies that software

houses in Lahore were highly reputed and high budgeted, and also managing high

budgeted projects.

Table 4.19 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Project Worth

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Less than 1 million 29 29.0 29.0 29.0

Between 1 & 2 million 38 38.0 38.0 67.0

More than 2 million 33 33.0 33.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

33%

37%

29%

Project Worth - Frequency

Above 2 million between 1 to 2 million up to 1 million

Figure 4.18 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Project Worth

74

4.2.19 Information About

The information about managers was divided into five main brackets like top managers,

line managers, project portfolio managers, project managers and both a and d. The Table

4.20 and figure 4.19 showed that 30(30%) information was provided by top managers,

6(6%) information was provided about line managers, 8(8%) information was about

project portfolio managers, 34(34%) information was about project managers and

22(22%) information was about both top and project managers. As the data showed that

most of the respondents were project managers this implies that information gathered was

more reliable and accurate.

Table 4.20 - Frequency distribution for demographic variable: Information About

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid

Top Manager 30 30.0 30.0 30.0

Line Manager 6 6.0 6.0 36.0

Project Portfolio Manager 8 8.0 8.0 44.0

Project Manager 34 34.0 34.0 78.0

Both a and d 22 22.0 22.0 100.0

Total 100 100.0 100.0

22%

6%

33%8%

30%

Information Given About - Frequency

both a and d line managersproject managers project portfolio managertop managers

75

Figure 4.19 Pie Chart for Frequency distribution of demographic variable: Information About

4.3 Descriptive Analysis

The Descriptive analysis is a procedure allowing the researcher to sketch and give

explanation of many crucial parts of data with a small number of indexes. The measures

of central tendency and measures of variability i.e. mean, maximum, minimum, standard

deviation and variance are explained in Table 4.21.

Table 4.21 – Descriptive Analysis

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation Variance

ISE 100 3.00 5.00 4.0597 .41875 .175

RVC 100 3.00 5.00 4.0764 .41221 .170

RVS 100 3.00 5.00 4.0560 .47254 .223

RC 100 3.00 5.00 4.1400 .38815 .151

PPMS 100 1.00 5.00 3.8700 .93701 .878

Valid N (list wise) 100

Table 4.21 shows that Variance of Internal Stakeholders’ Engagement (ISE) which is an

independent variable (0.175) is lesser than its standard deviation (0.41875), which

mention that most of the respondents remained higher than the mean value for this

variable. The mean value is 4.0597. Results indicate that software houses have

involvement of internal stakeholders. Mean value more than 3.5 and standard deviation

less than 1 show positive response (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). This study explains that

internal stakeholders have much involvement in the project portfolio management

success. Internal stakeholders like top managers, line managers, project portfolio

managers and project managers have much involvement in the project portfolio

management success.

Variance of Relationship Value of Customers (RVC) which is independent variable is

(0.170) which is lesser than its Standard Deviation (0.41221), which shows that most of

the respondents remained higher than the mean value for this variable. The mean value is

76

4.0764. Result shows that involvement of external stakeholders like relationship value of

customers is high. In software houses mostly customized projects are managed that’s why

customer involvement is high in this study. This study mentions that external

stakeholders like relationship value of customers also show high involvement in the

project portfolio management success.

Variance of Relationship Value of Suppliers (RVS) which is independent variable is

(0.223) which is lower than its standard deviation (0.47254), which shows that most of

the respondents remain much higher than the mean value for this variable. The mean

value for this variable is 4.0560. Results mention that involvement of external

stakeholders like relationship value of suppliers is also high. This study shows that

involvement of external stakeholders as relationship value of suppliers is also high in

project portfolio management success.

Variance of moderator Role Clarity (RC) is (0.151) smaller than its standard deviation

which is (0.38815), which describe that most of the values go higher than the mean value

for this variable. The mean value is 4.1400 for this variable. Mean value is much high of

this variable. Mean value above than 3.5 shows that variable is performing higher than its

average value which is good or in favor of the study (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013).

Descriptive results for this study mention that moderator have much involvement in

increasing the project portfolio success. Role clarity enhances the level of success for

project portfolio management in this study. Role clarity has positive results in the favor

of this study.

Variance of the project portfolio management (PPMS) success which is a dependent

variable is (0.878) is lower than its standard deviation (0.93701), which explain that most

of the values remain higher than the average value. The mean value is 3.870 for this

dependent variable. All independent variables have mean values greater than 3.5. This

shows that all the independent variables and moderating variable has positive impact on

the dependent variable project portfolio management success.

77

Correlations were calculated to test the planned relationship and involvement among the

dependent and independent variables. Pearson’s coefficient of correlation have been used

by using SPSS 20.0

4.4.1 Pearson’s Correlation

Pearson’s correlation was used because the study planned a linear relationship between

variables with one another. All independent and dependent variables show significance at

0.05. Table 4.22 describes the Pearson’s coefficient of correlation among different

variables.

Table – 4.22 Pearson’s Coefficient of Correlations

ISE RVC RVS RC PPMS

ISE

Pearson Correlation 1 .605** .522** .479** .244*

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .014

N 100 100 100 100 100

RVC

Pearson Correlation .605** 1 .806** .674** .427**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000

N 100 100 100 100 100

RVS

Pearson Correlation .522** .806** 1 .609** .380**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .000

N 100 100 100 100 100

RC

Pearson Correlation .479** .674** .609** 1 .310**

Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .002

N 100 100 100 100 100

PPM

S

Pearson Correlation .244* .427** .380** .310** 1

Sig. (2-tailed) .014 .000 .000 .002

N 100 100 100 100 100

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

78

According to the Table 4.22

1. The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation (r) for RVC and ISE is (0.605). Generally

variables with a Pearson’s coefficient of correlation between 0.4 to 0.7 and

significance at p-value are less than 0.05 are assumed to be correlated as weak to

strong (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). So relationship between RVC and ISE is

positively correlated because (r = 0.605, p < 0.05). RVC and ISE show strong

positive correlation between these two variables.

2. The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation (r) for RVS and ISE is (0.522). Normally

variables with a Pearson’s coefficient of correlation more than 0.4 and

significance at p-value are less than 0.05 are assumed to be correlated (Sekaran &

Bougie, 2013). So relationship between RVS and ISE is correlated because (r =

0.522, p < 0.05). RVS and IS show positive correlation between these two

variables.

3. The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation (r) for RVS and RVC is (0.806).

Generally variables with a Pearson’s coefficient of correlation more than 0.7 and

significance at p-value are less than 0.05 are assumed to be highly correlated

(Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). So relationship between RVS and RVC is highly

correlated because (r = 0.806, p < 0.05). RVS and RVC show highly strong

positive correlation between these two variables.

4. The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation (r) for RC and ISE is (0.479). Normally

variables with a Pearson’s coefficient of correlation between .40 to 0.70 and

significance at p-value are less than 0.05 are assumed to be correlated week to

strong (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). So relationship strength between RC and ISE is

moderately correlated because (r = 0.479, p < 0.05). RC and ISE show positive

correlation between these two variables.

5. The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation (r) for RC and RVC is (0.674). Normally

variables with a Pearson’s coefficient of correlation between .40 to 0.70 and

significance at p-value are less than 0.05 are assumed to be correlated week to

strong (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). So relationship strength between RC and RVC

strongly correlated because (r = 0.674, p < 0.05). RC and RVC show strongly

positive correlation between these two variables.

79

6. The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation (r) for RC and RVS is (0.609). Normally

variables with a Pearson’s coefficient of correlation between .40 to 0.70 and

significance at p-value are less than 0.05 are assumed to be correlated week to

strong (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). So relationship strength between RC and RVS

is also strongly correlated because (r = 0.609, p < 0.05). RC and RVS show

strongly positive correlation between these two variables.

7. The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation (r) for PPMS and ISE is (0.244).

Normally variables with a Pearson’s coefficient of correlation less than .40 and

significance at p-value are less than 0.05 are assumed to be weakly correlated

(Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). So relationship strength between PPS and ISE is

strongly correlated because (r = 0.244, p < 0.05). PPMS and ISE show weak

positive correlation between these two variables.

8. The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation (r) for PPMS and RVC is (0.427).

Normally variables with a Pearson’s coefficient of correlation more than 0.40 and

significance at p-value are less than 0.05 are assumed to be correlated (Sekaran &

Bougie, 2013). So relationship strength between PPMS and RVC is correlated

because (r = 0.427, p < 0.05). PPMS and RVC show positive correlation between

these two variables.

9. The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation (r) for PPMS and RVS is (0.380).

Normally variables with a Pearson’s coefficient of correlation near to 0.40 or

exact 0.40 and significance at p-value is less than 0.05 are assumed to be

correlated (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). So relationship strength between PPMS and

RVS is correlated because (r = 0.380, p < 0.05). PPMS and RVS show positive

correlation between these two variables.

10. The Pearson’s coefficient of correlation (r) for PPMS and RC is (0.310).

Normally variables with a Pearson’s coefficient of correlation near to 0.40 or

exact 0.40 and significance at p-value is less than 0.05 are assumed to be

correlated (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). So relationship strength between PPMS and

RC is slightly correlated because (r = 0.310, p < 0.05). PPMS and RC show

positive correlation between these two variables.

80

4.4.2Collinearity Diagnostic Test

Some independent variables show high correlation with each other. To check the

Multicollinearity among independent variables Collinearity diagnostic test have been

employed on the data with the help of SPSS 20.0.

Table - 4.23CollinearityStatistics

Model Tolerance VIF

(Constant)ISE .622 1.606

RVC .270 3.707RVS .342 2.925RC .526 1.900

Variance inflation factor (VIF) <10= no Multicollinearity

Table 4.23 mentions the scores of the variance inflation factor of independent variables.

Table also mentions the values of tolerance for each independent variable. The value of

tolerance > 0.20 will be favorable and score of variance inflation factor < 10 will be

acceptable (Freund et al., 2010). The scores of variance inflation factor of all independent

variables are less than 10 and values of tolerance for each independent variable is more

than 0.20, so there is no Multicollinearity among the independent variable

81

4.5 Model Evaluation

Model evaluation analyzed by the employing the reliability and secondly the significance

of hypothesized model.

4.5.1 Measuring Reliability

Reliability had been measured by Cronbach’s alpha. Values of alpha were explained by the table 4.24.

Table – 4.24 Reliability

Cronbach’s Alpha No. of ItemsInternal Stakeholders’

Engagement (ISE)0.967 29

Relationship Value of Customers (RVC)

0.905 11

Relationship Value of Suppliers (RVS)

0.929 10

Role Clarity 0.790 4Project Portfolio

Management Success (PPMS)

0.908 6

Overall 0.973 60

Table 4.24 showed the values of Cronbach’s alpha and number of items by each variable.

The study used Cronbach’s alpha for finding the reliability of items. Cronbach’s alpha

measured if items in chosen instrument are significantly correlated. Reliability values

above 0.60 were good and significant (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013). The overall model

reliability is 0.973which is highly reliable and individual variables reliability is also with

high values as explained in the table 4.24.

82

4.6 Verification of independent variables by Pair wise Hierarchal Regression

Verification of model analyzed independently for each independent variable. For regression analysis Zcrores has been used during moderation testing in analysis. Unger et al. (2012) had also been used the Zscores for moderation testing. We would be testing our hypotheses by employing pair wise hierarchal regression as it reduced the chances of committing Type I and Type II errors (Mazzocchi, 2008). This method is considered best for theory testing as pair wise regression techniques are influenced by random variation in the data (Field, 2009).Within hierarchal regression, we entered our predictors based on the approach proposed by (Zhou, et al., 2005). Recently (Alvi, 2013) also used pair wise hierarchal regression in his analysis.

4.6.1 Verification of Internal Stakeholder’s Engagement

Verification of internal stakeholder’s engagement has been explained by the following tables.

Table – 4.25 Model Summary for ISE

Model R R Square Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

1 .244a .060 .050 .97460826

2 .329b .108 .090 .95418768

3 .381c .145 .118 .93905352

a. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(ISE)

b. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(ISE), Zscore(RC)

c. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(ISE), Zscore(RC), (ISE*RC)

Table 4.25 highlight the value of R square is 0.145 for the internal stakeholder’s

engagement which is an independent variable. According to the (Sekaran & Bougie,

2013) R square > 0.25 is significant and show strong relationship between independent

and dependent variable. For independent variables R square less than 0.25 is also

acceptable. And standard error < 1.0 also show strong relationship among independent

and dependent variables. Table 4.25 mention (R square = 0.145, standard error =

0.93905). These results show positive relationship between internal stakeholder’s

engagement, role clarity and project portfolio success. According to the results show in

table 4.25 internal stakeholder’s engagement have positive relationship with the project

portfolio management success.

83

Table – 4.26 ANOVA for ISE

Model Sum of

Squares

df Mean Square F Sig.

1

Regression 5.914 1 5.914 6.226 .014b

Residual 93.086 98 .950

Total 99.000 99

2

Regression 10.684 2 5.342 5.867 .004c

Residual 88.316 97 .910

Total 99.000 99

3

Regression 14.345 3 4.782 5.423 .002d

Residual 84.655 96 .882

Total 99.000 99

a. Dependent Variable: Zscore(PPMS)

b. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(ISE)

c. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(ISE), Zscore(RC)

d. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(ISE), Zscore(RC), (ISE*RC)

Table – 4.27 Coefficients for ISE

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized

Coefficients

T Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1(Constant) -3.349E-015 .097 .000 1.000

Zscore(ISE) .244 .098 .244 2.495 .014

2

(Constant) -1.015E-015 .095 .000 1.000

Zscore(ISE) .125 .109 .125 1.141 .257

Zscore(RC) .250 .109 .250 2.289 .024

3

(Constant) -.057 .098 -.586 .559

Zscore(ISE) .101 .108 .101 .936 .351

Zscore(RC) .234 .108 .234 2.172 .032

Interaction1

(ISE*RC).121 .059 .195 2.038 .044

a. Dependent Variable: Zscores(PPMS)

Table 4.26 mentions the results of ANOVA. Model show values (F = 5.423, p = 0.002).

Sekaran & Bougie (2013) explained p < 0.05 considered significant. So model for

84

internal stakeholder’s engagement is highly significant according to these results. Overall

model shows positive significant results.

Table 4.27 shows the results of beta coefficients and significance level for the internal

stakeholder’s engagement. Model mention the values for internal stakeholders (β = 0.101,

p = 0.351) it means internal stakeholder’s engagement have positive relationship with the

project portfolio management success but not significant change occur in the project

portfolio management success due to internal stakeholder’s engagement. Role clarity

independently show results (β = 0.234, p = 0.032). (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013) explained p

< 0.05 considered significant. This shows that role clarity independently have positive

significant effect on the project portfolio management success. Results of the interaction

of internal stakeholders engagement and role clarity shows that (β = 0.195, p = 0.044).

According to these results role clarity as a moderator is working. Internal stakeholder’s

engagement with moderating effect has significant positive effect on the project portfolio

management success. Internal stakeholder’s engagement impact on project portfolio

management success is insignificant, but with moderating effect of the role clarity

internal stakeholder’s engagement have positive and significant effect on the project

portfolio management success.

4.6.2 Verification of Customer’s Engagement

Verification of customer’s engagement had been explained by the following tables.

Table – 4.28 Model Summary for RVC

Model R R Square Adjusted R

Square

Std. Error of

the Estimate

1 .427a .182 .174 .90906264

2 .478b .229 .213 .88729329

a. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(RVC)

b. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(RVC), (RVC*RC)

Table 4.28 highlight the value of R square is 0.229 for the customer’s engagement which

is an independent variable. According to the (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013) R square > 0.25 is

85

significant and show strong relationship between independent and dependent variable.

For independent variables R square less than 0.25 is also acceptable. And standard error

<1.0 also show strong relationship among independent and dependent variables. Table

4.28 mention (R square = 0.229, standard error = 0.88729). These results show positive

relationship between customer engagement and project portfolio success. According to

the results show in table 4.28 customer engagement has positive relationship with the

project portfolio management success.

Table – 4.29 ANOVA for RVC

Model Sum of

Squares

df Mean Square F Sig.

1

Regression 18.013 1 18.013 21.797 .000b

Residual 80.987 98 .826

Total 99.000 99

2

Regression 22.633 2 11.316 14.374 .000c

Residual 76.367 97 .787

Total 99.000 99

a. Dependent Variable: Zscore(PPMS)

b. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(RVC)

c. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(RVC), (RVC*RC)

Table 4.29 mentions the results of ANOVA. Model show values (F = 14.374, p = 0.000).

Sekaran & Bougie, (2013) explained p < 0.05 considered significant. So model for

customer’s engagement is highly significant according to these results. Overall model for

this independent variable shows positive and significant results.

86

Table – 4.30 Coefficients for RVC

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1(Constant) -3.595E-015 .091 .000 1.000

Zscore(RVC) .427 .091 .427 4.669 .000

2

(Constant) -.084 .095 -.879 .382

Zscore(RVC) .391 .090 .391 4.333 .000

Interaction2

(RVC*RC).125 .052 .219 2.422 .017

a. Dependent Variable: Zscore(PPMS)

Table 4.30 show the results of beta coefficients and significance level for the customer’s

engagement. Model mention the values for customer engagement (β = 0.391, p = 0.000)

it means customer’s engagement have positive and highly significant relationship with

the project portfolio management success Sekaran & Bougie, 2013 explained p < 0.05

considered significant. This Results of the interaction of customer’s engagement and role

clarity shows that (β = 0.219, p = 0.017). According to these results role clarity as a

moderator is working. Customer engagement is also significant with the moderating

effect of the role clarity. Customer’s engagement has significant effect on the project

portfolio management success. Customer’s engagement with moderator also enhanced

the effect on the project portfolio management success.

4.6.3 Verification of Supplier’s Engagement

Verification of supplier’s engagement had been explained by the following tables.

Table – 4.31 Model Summary for RVS

Model R R

Square

Adjusted-R

Square

S.E. of the

Estimate

1 .380a .145 .136 .92949893

2 .430b .185 .168 .91217905

a. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(RVS)

b. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(RVS), (RVS*RC)

87

Table 4.31 highlight the value of R square is 0.185 for the supplier’s engagement which

is an independent variable. According to the (Sekaran & Bougie, 2013) R square > 0.25 is

significant and show strong relationship between independent and dependent variable.

For independent variables R square less than 0.25 is also acceptable. And standard error <

1.0 also show strong relationship among independent and dependent variables. Table 4.31

mention (R square = 0.185, standard error = 0.91217). These results show positive

relationship between supplier engagement and project portfolio success. According to the

result supplier engagement has positive relationship with the project portfolio

management success.

Table – 4.32 ANOVA for RVS

Model Sum of

Squares

df Mean Square F Sig.

1

Regression 14.331 1 14.331 16.588 .000b

Residual 84.669 98 .864

Total 99.000 99

2

Regression 18.289 2 9.145 10.990 .000c

Residual 80.711 97 .832

Total 99.000 99

a. Dependent Variable: Zscore(PPMS)

b. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(RVS)

c. Predictors: (Constant), Zscore(RVS), (RVS*RC)

Table 4.32 mentions the results of ANOVA. Model show values (F = 10.990, p = 0.000).

Sekaran & Bougie (2013) explained p < 0.05 considered significant. So model for

supplier’s engagement is highly significant according to these results. Overall model for

this independent variable shows positive and significant results

88

Table – 4.33 Coefficients for RVS

Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized

Coefficients

t Sig.

B Std. Error Beta

1(Constant) -2.952E-015 .093 .000 1.000

Zscore(RVS) .380 .093 .380 4.073 .000

2

(Constant) -.077 .098 -.786 .434

Zscore(RVS) .330 .095 .330 3.488 .001

Interaction3

(RVS*RC).127 .058 .206 2.181 .032

a. Dependent Variable: Zscore(PPMS)

Table 4.33 show the results of beta coefficients and significance level for the supplier’s

engagement. Model mention the values for supplier engagement (β = 0.330, p = 0.001) it

means supplier’s engagement have positive and highly significant relationship with the

project portfolio management success Sekaran & Bougie (2013) explained p < 0.05

considered significant. This Results of the interaction of supplier’s engagement and role

clarity shows that (β = 0.206, p = 0.032). According to these results role clarity as a

moderator is working. Supplier’s engagement is also significant with the moderating

effect of the role clarity. Supplier’s engagement has significant effect on the project

portfolio management success. Supplier’s engagement with moderator also enhances the

effect on the project portfolio management success.

89

4.7 Hypothesis Testing

The study used pair wise hierarchal regression model for each independent variable for

examining the hypotheses:

Table 4.34 Hypothesis Results

Hypothesis Beta Significance

H1 0.101 0.351

H2 0.391 0.000***

H3 0.330 0.001***

H4 0.195 0.044***

H5 0.219 0.017***

H6 0.206 0.032***

*** Significant at 0.05 significance level (two-tailed)

Hypothesis for Internal Stakeholders’ Engagement

H1: The greater the internal stakeholders’ engagement in PPM, the better prospects

for success of PPM.

First hypothesis of the study described the positive relationship between internal

stakeholders and project portfolio management success. Internal stakeholders are top

managers, line managers, project portfolio managers and project managers. According to

the study presumptions the analysis does not show a significant relationship between ISE

and PPMS (β = 0.101, p =0.351). This hypothesis related to the internal stakeholder’s

engagement did not have significant effect on the project portfolio management success.

This hypothesis is rejected. The relationship between ISE and PPMS has been proven

significant in literature. Some internal stakeholders have significant effect on the project

portfolio management success (Beringer et al., 2013)

Hypotheses for External Stakeholders

Hypotheses for external stakeholders are given as:

H2:The greater the customer’s engagement in PPM, the better prospects for success of

PPM.

90

This hypothesis deduced positive relationship between customer’s engagement and

project portfolio management success. According to the study presumptions analysis also

show significant and positive relationship between customer’s engagement and project

portfolio management success (β = 0.391, p = 0.000). Hypothesis for customer

engagement is accepted.

H3: The more effectively supplier’s engagement during PPM, the better prospects for

Success of PPM.

This hypothesis explained positive relationship between supplier’s engagement and

project portfolio management success. According to the study presumption analysis also

show significant and positive relationship between supplier’s engagement and project

portfolio management success (β = 0.330, p = 0.001). Hypothesis for supplier’s

engagement is substantiated.

Hypotheses for Moderation

The study tends to explore the impact of internal stakeholder’s engagement (top

managers, line managers, project portfolio managers and project managers) and external

stakeholder’s engagement (customers and suppliers) with moderating effect of role clarity

on the project portfolio management success. The study tends to examine mediation

effects through three hypotheses. Which are explained as given:

H4: Role clarity moderates the relationship between internal stakeholders’

engagement and project portfolio management success.

H5: Role clarity moderates the relationship between customer's engagement and

project portfolio management success.

H6: Role clarity moderates the relationship between supplier's engagement and

project portfolio management success.

Table 4.34 mentions the results of the hypotheses. Hypothesis for internal stakeholder’s

engagement is 4. In the model assumed that internal stakeholder’s engagement have

positive relationship with moderating effect on the project portfolio management success.

According to the study presumptions analysis also show that internal stakeholder’s

engagement have significant and positive effect with moderation on the project portfolio

management success (β = 0.195, p = 0.044). Hypothesis related to the internal

91

stakeholder’s engagement (ISE) with moderation (RC) have significant and positive on

the project portfolio management success (PPMS) is substantiated.

Table 4.34 also mentions the results of the hypotheses for external stakeholder’s

engagement. Hypothesis 5 mentions the positive effect of customer’s engagement with

moderating effect on the project portfolio management success. Analysis also favors the

study presumptions. Analysis show that role clarity moderates the relationship between

customer’s engagement and project portfolio management success (β = 0.219, p = 0.017).

Hypothesis for customer’s engagement (RVC) with moderation (RC) have positive and

significant effect on the project portfolio management success (PPMS) is substantiated.

Table 4.34 also mentions the results of the hypotheses for external stakeholder’s

engagement. Hypothesis 6 mentioned the positive effect of supplier’s engagement with

moderating effect of role clarity on the project portfolio management success. Analysis

also favors the study presumptions. Analysis show that role clarity moderates the

relationship between supplier’s engagement and project portfolio management success (β

= 0.206, p = 0.032). Hypothesis for supplier’s engagement (RVS) with moderation (RC)

have positive and significant effect on the project portfolio management success (PPMS)

is substantiated.

4.8 Findings

The study explains that most of the respondents had designation of project managers in

the software houses (i.e.51%). Majority of the respondents were males in the software

houses (i.e. 92%). Most of the respondents had overall experience above 10 years in the

software houses (i.e. 47%). Mostly respondents had experience of project portfolio

management up to 2 years in the software houses (i.e. 34%). Most of the software houses

had employees less than 50 (i.e. 69%). Mostly software houses had annual revenue up to

1$ million (i.e. 63%). Mostly software houses existed from 2 to 4 years (i.e. 77%). Most

of the software houses were deal in multiple technologies (i.e. 86%). Most of the

software houses had span across the world wide (i.e. 60%). Mostly software houses had

CMMI ranking at level 3 (i.e. 47%). Mostly software houses had certifications of ISO

(i.e. 46%). Most of the clients of the software houses were international (i.e. 69%).

Mostly the number of portfolios in the software houses was less than 2 (i.e. 40%). Mostly

92

the number of projects in the software houses was above 8 (i.e. 62%). Mostly the number

of projects in the software houses successful was above 8 (i.e. 60%). Mostly number of

project portfolio managers in the software houses was from 3 to 4 (i.e. 77%). Most of the

software houses had number of project managers above 6 (i.e. 60%). Most of the

software houses deal with the projects of worth 1 to 2 million (i.e. 38%). In this

instrument mostly information was provided about the top managers (i.e. 34%).

1. The study perceived the positive and significant relationship between the internal

stakeholder’s engagement (ISE) and project portfolio management success

(PPMS), literature also explained that internal stakeholder’s engagement have

significant effect on the project success (Beringer, et al. 2013), but results show

that internal stakeholder’s engagement (ISE) does not have significant effect on

the project portfolio management success (PPMS) (β = 0.101, p = 0.351). Study

perceived the positive and significant relationship between the internal

stakeholder’s engagement (ISE) and project portfolio management success

(PPMS) with moderating effect of the role clarity (RC). Results also favor the

study and show positive significant effect of the internal stakeholder’s

engagement on the project portfolio management success with moderating effect

of the role clarity (RC) (β = 0.195, p = 0.044).

2. Study perceived the positive and significant effect of customer’s engagement

(RVC) on the project portfolio management success (PPMS), results also prove

the perception of the study and show that customer’s engagement (RVC) has

positive and significant effect on the project portfolio management success

(PPMS) (β = 0.391, p = 0.000). Study also perceived that customer’s engagement

(RVC) has also significant and positive effect on the project portfolio

management success (PPMS) with moderating effect of the role clarity (RC).

Results also mention that customer’s engagement (RVC) has significant effect on

the project portfolio management success (PPMS) with moderation of role clarity

(RC) (β = 0.219, p = 0.017).

3. Study perceived the positive and significant effect of supplier’s engagement

(RVS) on the project portfolio management success (PPMS), results also prove

the perception of the study and show that supplier’s engagement (RVS) has

93

positive and significant effect on the project portfolio management success

(PPMS) (β = 0.330, p = 0.001). Study perceived that supplier’s engagement

(RVS) has also significant and positive effect on the project portfolio

management success (PPMS) with moderating effect of the role clarity (RC).

Results also favor that supplier’s engagement (RVS) has significant effect on the

project portfolio management success (PPMS) with moderation of role clarity

(RC) (β = 0.206, p = 0.032).

Table – 4.35 Hypotheses Status

# Hypotheses StatusH1 The greater the internal stakeholders’ engagement in PPM,

the better prospects for success of PPM.Rejected

H2 The greater the customer’s engagement in PPM, the better prospects for success of PPM.

Accepted

H3 The more effectively supplier engagement during PPM, the better prospects for success of PPM.

Accepted

H4 Role clarity moderates the relationship between internal stakeholders’ engagement and project portfolio management success.

Accepted

H5 Role clarity moderates the relationship between customer's engagement and project portfolio management success.

Accepted

H6 Role clarity moderates the relationship between supplier's engagement and project portfolio management success.

Accepted

94

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

95

This Chapter explains the conclusion of the study. This section also mentions the

limitations and recommendations for future research.

Conclusion

Based on the finding in chapter 4 internal stakeholder’s engagement (ISE) have

insignificant effect on the project portfolio management success (PPMS) while study

predicted the positive and significant effect of internal stakeholder’s engagement on the

project portfolio management success. In IT industry Lahore, Pakistan internal

stakeholders which consisted on the top managers, line managers, project portfolio

managers and project managers. Internal stakeholders are not engaged with the project

portfolios significantly that’s why results show insignificance in their relationship.

Further involvement of role clarity which is working as a moderator shows significant

relationship between internal stakeholder’s engagement and project portfolio

management success. It means role clarity (RC) enhance the effect of internal

stakeholder’s engagement (ISE) on the project portfolio management success (PPMS).

By defining the role to each stakeholder within the organization, it gives positive results

to the project portfolio management success. In this case role clarity shows full

moderation for the internal stakeholder’s engagement. Internal stakeholder’s engagement

is 14.5% explained in this model. Internal stakeholder’s engagement show positive

relationship between the project portfolio management success. External stakeholder’s

engagement has significant effect on the project portfolio management success. In IT

sector software houses mostly deal with the customize projects. Based on finding 2 in

chapter 4 customers’ engagement is necessary in this perspective. Finding 2 explain that

customer’s engagement has significant effect on the project portfolio management

success. So results show high level of significance for the customer’s engagement. Role

clarity also moderates the relationship of the customer’s engagement and project portfolio

management success. But these findings show partial moderation because customer’s

engagement is already highly significant and with moderation it also shows good

significance. Customer’s engagement is 22.9% explained by the model. Finding 3 in

chapter 4 for supplier’s engagement also mention significant relationship between the

supplier engagement and project portfolio management. In IT sector some services and

raw material are used from the outside of the organization. The suppliers are also directly

96

engage with the project requirements. Suppliers also enhance the success of the project

portfolio management success. Finding 3 in chapter mentioned that supplier’s

engagement have significant effect on the project portfolio management success. Results

with the moderating effect of role clarity show also good significance. But before

moderation significance level is high. It means moderation also enhanced the effect of the

supplier’s engagement but partially. Supplier’s engagement is 18.5% explained by the

model. All these independent variables are tested independently. All independent

variables show significant effect separately. So final results explained that internal and

external stakeholder’s engagement has significant impact with moderating role of role

clarity on the project portfolio management success.

Contribution of the Study

This particular model did not test before with both internal and external stakeholder’s

engagement impact on the project portfolio management success. Beringer, et al. 2013

tested the model with internal stakeholder’s engagement, but in this study both internal

and external stakeholder’s engagement has been tested. So this is a contribution to test

this model with the external stakeholder’s engagement with moderating effect of role

clarity. The present study applied individual testing for the independent variables. This

model has been tested in the IT sector, Lahore Pakistan which has not been tested before.

This is a first time study in the IT sector, Lahore, Pakistan.

Recommendations

1. Internal stakeholder’s engagement has insignificant impact on the project

portfolio management success without moderation. Role clarity necessary for the

internal stakeholders. Role clarity explained and direct internal stakeholders

towards their roles and responsibilities. Maximum results had been achieved from

the project portfolio management with engagement of internal stakeholders.

2. External stakeholder’s engagement like customer’s engagement has high level of

significance. Customer’s engagement has significant impact on the project

portfolio management success without moderation. It means there is partial

moderation of rile clarity for the customers. Customer’s engagement is also show

97

significant results with the moderation but level of significance is high before

moderation. So moderation is working partially with customer’s engagement.

3. Supplier’s engagement is also part of the external stakeholders. Supplier’s

engagement also has significant relationship with the project portfolio

management success. With moderation supplier’s engagement also shows

significance but no more than before. So there is also partial moderation.

4. Role clarity is important and moderates the relationship between stakeholder’s

engagement within the organization and enhances the project portfolio

management success. For outside the organization role clarity works partially and

show significance for external stakeholders. In case of internal stakeholder’s

engagement role clarity fully moderate the relationship, it means role clarity

works more perfectly within the organization in comparison with external

organization.

Discussion

Purpose of this study was to find the relationship between stakeholder’s engagement and

project portfolio management success. In project portfolio management success

stakeholders were involved significantly or insignificantly while in study of Beringer et

al (2013) showed that internal stakeholder’s like top managers and project managers had

significant effect on the project portfolio management while line managers and project

portfolio managers had insignificant effect on the project portfolio management.

(Beringer et al., 2013) also explained that growing task of role clarity did not have

noteworthy effect of all internal stakeholders on the project portfolio management

success. Role clarity moderate the relationship of line managers and projects mangers,

while in case of project portfolio managers and top manager’s role clarity was not

effecting. Studies which have used role clarity as a moderator explained here. Role clarity

was used to moderate the relationship between role ambiguity and athlete satisfaction.

Role clarity moderated the relationship of both of these (Bray, Beauchamp, Eys, Carron,

2005). Another study explained that need for role clarity did not moderate the

relationship between the degree of role clarity and job satisfaction (Miles, Petty, 1975).

Role clarity used as moderator in both studies but in one it was moderating the

98

relationship and in another study it was not working as moderator. In this study role

clarity moderated the relationship strongly between the internal stakeholders and project

portfolio management success. In case of external stakeholders role clarity partially

moderated the relationship between external stakeholders and project portfolio

management success. Voss and Kock (2013) also found positive relationship values of

customers. They found significant effect of customer’s relationship value on the project

portfolio management success. Customer knowledge management had direct impact on

the project performance (Yang et al., 2014). The present study finds significant effect of

internal stakeholders on the project portfolio management success with distinct effect of

their role clarity. Internal stakeholder’s engagement like senior managers, line managers,

project managers and project portfolio managers all have significant and strong

relationship with the project portfolio management success with moderating effect of role

clarity. While external stakeholder’s engagement like customers and suppliers has

significant and vital relationship with the project portfolio management success and with

moderation it partially moderated the project portfolio management Success. Long term

objectives gained by adding the supplier involvement (Echtelt et al., 2004). Supplier

involvement increased the product value and quality (Witlox, 2010). He found positive

effect of supplier’s engagement in the project and product development. This study found

positive and significant effect of the supplier’s engagement on the project portfolio

management success. In an organization there was need of the role clarity to find positive

and significant outcomes because within the organization role clarity defined and clarify

the roles of the managers. In case of external environment role clarity did not perform

well. The reason of this is that in external environment we cannot hold the things and

cannot define the role as within the organization. In external environment there was

things are continuously changing and these changes also affect the customers and

suppliers who are directly and indirectly attached with the organization's performance.

That's why role clarity partially moderated the relationship between the external

stakeholders and project portfolio management success. Results of this study mentioned

that external stakeholders have significant effect on the project portfolio management

success.

99

Limitations and Future Research

1. The current research model can be applied in other sectors e.g. construction, and

textile projects.

2. Further research can be done by adding more variables related to external

stakeholders in the current research model.

3. This study has been conducted in the IT sector in Lahore Pakistan, in other major

cities like Karachi and Islamabad might have different and better results.

100

Bibliography:

Ahmed, R., Azmi, N., Masood, T. M., Tahir, M., & Ahmad, S. M. (2013). What Does Project Leadership Really Do? International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, 4, 1-8.

Alvi, H., T. (2013). Impact of Moral Identity, Love of Money, Religiosity, and Spirituality on Ethical Intention in Marketing-Moderating Effect of Ethical Work Climate. Comsats Institute of Information Technology, Lahore, Pakistan.

A Guide to the project management body of knowledge (2013), (5th ed.), Pennsylvania, Project Management Institute, Inc.

Amarl, Antonio, Aroujo, & Madalena. (2009). Project portfolio management phases: A technique for strategy alignment. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, 58, 560-568.

Archer, NP. & Ghasemzadeh, F. (1999). An integrated framework for project portfolio selection. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 207-216.

Atkinson, R., Crawford, L., & ward, S. (2006). Fundamental uncertainties in projects and the scope of project management. International Journal of Project Management, 1, 190-220.

Beringer, C., Jonas, D., & Kock, A. (2013). Behavior of internal stakeholders in project portfolio management and its impact on success. International Journal of Project Management, 31, 830 - 846.

Blichfeldt, S., B., & Eskerod, P. (2008). Project portfolio management – There’s more to it than what management enacts. International Journal of Project Management,

26, 357-365.

Bray, R. S., Beauchamp, R. M., Eys, A. M., & Carron, V. A. (2005). Does the Need for Role Clarity Moderate the Relationship between Role Ambiguity and Athlete Satisfaction? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 17, 306-318.

Belout, A., & Gauvreau, C. (2004). Factors influencing project success: the impact of human resource management. International Journal of Project Management, 22(1), 1-11.

101

Bliese, D.P., & Castro, A.C. (2000). Role clarity, work overload and organizational support multilevel evidence of the importance of support. Work & Stress, 14, 65- 73.

Catherine, P. K., & Robert, A. H. (2010). Dynamic capability through project portfolio management in service and manufacturing industries. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(1), 157–169.

Carlsson, C., Fuller, R., Heikkila, M., & Majlender, P. (2007). A fuzzy approach to R&D Project portfolio selection. International Journal of Approximate Reasoning, 44, 93–105.

Calderini, R. S., Reyck, D. B., Cockayne, G. Y., Lockett, M., Moura, M., & Sloper, A. (2005). The impact of project portfolio management on information technology projects. Ashridge business school u.k.

Cooper, R. G., Edgett, J. S., & Kleinschmidst, J. (2001). Portfolio management for new product development. Product Development Institute INC, 31(4), 1-39.

Cooper, R. G., Edgett, J. S., & Kleinschmidt, J. (2000). New Problems, New Solutions: Making Portfolio Management More Effective. Research Technology Management, 43(2), 18-33.

Cooper, R. G., Edgett, J. S., & Kleinschmidst, J. (1999). New product portfolio management: practices and performance. International Journal of Project Management, 16, 333-351.

Clarkson, E. B. M. (1995). A Stakeholder Framework for Analyzing and Evaluating Corporate Social Performance. The Academy of Management Review, 20, 92- 117.

Davis, K. (2014). Different stakeholder groups and their perceptions of project success. International Journal of Project Management. 32, 189-201.

Davies, C, T. (2002). The ‘’ real’’ success factors on projects. International Journal of Project Management, 20, 185-190.

Dickinson, W. M., Thornton, C. A., & Graves, S. (2001). Technology Portfolio Management: Optimizing Interdependent Projects Over Multiple Time Periods.

102

IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 48(4), 1-10.

Elonen, S., & Artto, A. K. (2002). Problems in managing internal development projects in multi-project environments. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 1-9.

Echtelt, A.E.F., Wynstra, F.Y.J., Weele, J.A., & Duysters, M.G. (2004). Critical processes for managing supplier involvement in new product development: an in- depth multiple-case study. Eindhoven Centre for Innovation Studies, Netherlands.

Echtelt, A. E. F., Wynstra, F.Y.J., Weele, J.A., & Duysters, M.G. (2006). Managing Supplier Involvement in New Product Development: A Multiple-Case Study. Erasmus Research Institute o f Management, the Netherlands.

Filippov, S., Mooi, H., & Weg, d. v. R. (2012). Strategic Project Portfolio Management: an Empirical Investigation.RISUS,3, 9-23.

Frey, Thorsten, Buxmann, & Peter. (2011). The importance of Governance structures in

IT project portfolio management. European Conference on Information System,

3(4), 199-210.

Freund, J. R., Wilson, J. W., & Mohr, L. D. (2010). Statistical Methods (3rd ed.). Haryana, India: Elsevier publishers.

Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS: Sage Publications Limited.

Faems, D., Looy, V. B., & Debackere, K. (2005). Inter-organizational Collaboration and

Innovation: Toward a Portfolio Approach. The Journal of Product Innovation

Management, 22, 238–250.

Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman Series in Business and Public Policy Pitman, Boston.

Gutiérrez, E., & Magnusson, M. (2013). Dealing with legitimacy: A key challenge for Project Portfolio Management decision makers. International Journal of Project Management, 32(1), 30-39.

Ghasemzadeh, F., & Archer, P. N. (2000). Project portfolio selection through decision support. Decision Support Systems, 29, 73-88.

103

Hwang, G, B. & Ng, J, W. (2013). Project Management knowledge and skills for green construction: overcoming challenges. International Journals of Project Management, 31, 272-284.

Heisting, H. (2012). The integration of ideation and project portfolio management - A key factor for sustainable success. International Journal of Project Management, 30, 582-595.

Heiskanen, A. (2012). Project portfolio management. ISACA Journals, 3, 1-6.

Hunt, A. R., & Killen, P. C. (2008). Best practice project portfolio management. International Journal of Quality and Reliability Management, 25, 1-5.

Harvey, R. C., Liechty, C. J., Liechty, W. M., & Müller, P. (2004). Portfolio Selection with Higher Moments. Applied Financial Economics, 1, 589-618.

Jonas, D. (2010). Empowering project portfolio managers: How management Involvement impacts project portfolio management performance. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 818-831.

Kissi, J., Dainty, A., &Tuuli, M. (2013). Examining the role of transformational leadership of portfolio managers in project performance. International Journal of Project Management,31, 485-497.

Killen, P, C., & Hunt, A, R., (2013). Robust project portfolio management: capability Evolution and maturity. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 6,131-151.

Killen, P, C. Jugdev, K. Drouin, N. & Petit, Y. (2012). Advancing project and portfolio management research: Applying strategic management theories. International Journal of Project Management, 30(5), 525-538.

Koh, A. (2011). Portfolio management: roles, responsibilities, and practices – A Qualitative study. Institute of Sustainable Development and Architecture, 8(2), 1- 12.

Killen, P. C., & Hunt, A.R. (2010). Dynamic capability through project portfolio management in service and manufacturing industries. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 3(1), 157–169.

104

Kohlborn, T., Fielt, E., Korthaus, A., & Rosemann, M. (2009). Towards a Service Portfolio Management Framework. 20th Australasian Conference on Information Systems, 861-870.

Killen, P. C., Hunt, A. R., &Kleinschmidt, J.E. (2008). Learning investments and Organizational capabilities: Case studies on the development of project portfolio management capabilities. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(3), 334 – 351.

Lacerda, O, D, T, R. Ensslin, E. & Ensslin, R, S. (2011). A performance measurement framework in portfolio management. Management Decisions, 49(4), 648-668.

Levine, A, H. (2006). Project portfolio management: A practical guide to selecting projects, managing portfolios and maximizing benefits. BC, 8, 1-7.

Linton, D. J., Walsh, T. S., & Morabito, J. (2002). Analysis, ranking and selection of R&D project in a portfolio. Research and Development Management, 32(2), 1- 10.

Martinsuo, M. (2013). Project portfolio management in practice and in context. International Journal of Project Management, 31, 794 - 803.

Madic, B., Trujic, V., & Mihajlovic, I. (2011). Project portfolio management implementation review. African Journal of Business Management, 5(2), 240- 248.

Meskendahl, S. (2010). The influence of business strategy on project portfolio management and its success — A conceptual framework. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 807-817.

Mattsson, K., M. (2010). Demarcating Risk Management Responsibilities of a Project Manager. 2010 Seventh International Conference on Information Technology, 1227 – 1232. .Miguel, C, A, P. (2008). Portfolio management and new product development implementation. International journal of quality and reliability management, 25(1), 10-23.Menon, A., Homburg, C., & Beutin, N. (2005). Understanding customer value in business-to-business relationships. Journal of Business-to-Business Marketing ,12, 1–38.

105

Mazzocchi, M. (2008). Statistics for marketing and consumer research: SAGE Publications Limited.

Martinsuo, M., &lehtonen, P. (2007). Role of single project management in achieving portfolio management efficiency. International Journal of Project Management, 25, 56-65.

Munns, K. A., & Bjeirmi, F.B. (1996). The Role of Project Management in achieving Project Success. International Journal of Project Management, 14(2), 81-87.

Miles, H. R., & Petty, M. M. (1975). Relationships between role clarity, need for role clarity, and job tension and satisfaction for supervisory and nonsupervisory roles. 18(4), 1-8.

Naverauskas, B., & Ciutiene, R. (2011). The theoretical approach to project portfolio Maturity management. Economics and management, 16, 1-7.

Naqvi, H. I., Aziz, S., & Rehman, U. K. (2011). The impact of stakeholder communication on project outcome. African Journal of Business Management, 5(14), 5824-5832.

Naqvi, H, I. (2009). Framework of IT project management: Human Resource Management. U.S.A: LAP (Lambert academic publishing).

Olsson, R. (2006). Risk management in a multi-project Environment: An approach to Manage portfolio risks. International Journal of Quality and Risk Management, 25, 1-12.

Platje, A., Seidel, H., & Wadman, S. (1994). Project and portfolio planning cycle: Project-based management for the Multi-project challenge. International Journal of Project Management, 12(2), 100-106.

Parise, S., & Casher, A. (2003). Alliance portfolios: Designing and managing your network of Business-partner relationships. Academy of Management Executive, 17(4), 1-17.

Rosell, T. D. (2013). Knowledge Integration and Innovation in Buyer-Supplier Collaborations. Linköping University, Sweden.

Raes, L.M.A., Heijltjes, G.M., Glunk, U., & Roe, A.R. (2011). The Interface of Top

106

Management Team and Middle Managers: A Process Model. Academy of Management Review, 36, 102-126.

Ross, M. (2007). Project portfolio management planning: A method for prioritizing projects. LLC, 31, 1-8.

Reyck, D. B., Cockayne, G.Y., Lockett, M., Calderini, R. S., Moura, M., & Sloper, A., (2005). The impact of project portfolio management on information technology projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 524–537.

Raz, T. & Micheal, E. (2001). Use and benefits of tools for project risk management. International Journal of Project Management, 19(1), 9-17.

Sekaran, U. & Bougie, R. (2013). Research Methods for Business: A Skill Building Approach, 6th edition. Wiley Publishers, India.

Stretton, A. (2012). Portfolios’ and the project management literature. PM World Journal, 1(3), 1-8.

Sanchez, H., Robert, B., & Pellerin, R. (2008). A project portfolio risk opportunity Identification framework. Project Management Journal, 39(3), 97-109.

Sabaa, E. S. (2001). The skills and career path of an effective project manager. International Journal of Project Management, 19(1), 1-70.

Teller, J., Unger, N. B., Kock, A., & Gemunden, G. H. (2012). Formalization of project Portfolio management: The moderating role of project portfolio complexity. International Journal of Project Management, 30, 596-607.

Unger, B.N., Kock, A., Gemünden, H.G., & Jonas, D., 2012. Enforcing strategic fit of Project portfolios by project termination: an empirical study on senior management involvement. International Journal of Project Management 30(6), 675–685.

Voss, M., & Kock A. (2013). Impact of relationship value on project portfolio success: investigating the moderating effects of portfolio characteristics and external turbulence. International journal of project management, 31, 847 - 861.

Vinopal, J. (2012). Project portfolio management for academic libraries: a gentle introduction. College and Research Libraries, 73(4), 379-389.

107

Witlox, G. (2010). Supplier involvement in New Product Development. Tilburg University, Tilburg.

Ward, S. & Chapman, S. (2003). Transforming project risk management into project uncertainty management. International Journal of Project Management, 21, 97- 105.

White, D & Fortune, J. (2002). Current practice in project management: an empirical study. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 1-11.

Wynstra, F., & Pierick, T. E. (2000). Managing supplier involvement in new product development: a portfolio approach. European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management, 6, 49-57.

Yang, R. L., Huang, F. C., & Hsu, J. T. (2014). Knowledge leadership to improve project And organizational performance. International Journal of Project management, 32, 40-53.

Young, M., & Conboy, K. (2013). Contemporary project portfolio management: reflections on the development of an Australian competency standard for project portfolio management. International Journal of Project Management, 23 (7), 524-537.

Yang, R. L., Huang, F.C., &Wu, S. K. (2011). The association among project manager's leadership style, teamwork and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 29, 258-267.

Zhou, K. Z., Kin, C., &Tse, D. K. (2005). The effects of strategic orientations on technology-and market-based breakthrough innovations. Journal of Marketing, 69(2), 42-60.

APPENDIX I

108

Table – 1 PASHA List

Sr No #

Company Name CEO Name CEO Email address No. of employ

ees

1 7vals Syed Ali Ayed.ali@7vals.com 202 AbacusConsulting Asad Ali Khan Asad.khan@abacus-global.com 20003 ABM Info

Tech(private) limited

Azam Sultan azamsultan@abmgroup.com 62

4 AGCN Pakistan (pvt) Ltd

Muhammad Faisal Ahad Rao

Faisal.rao@agnc-pakistan.com 60

5 APEX consulting Pakistan

Syed Sardar Ali Sardar.ali@apexconsulting.biz 52

6 Application Management outsourcing

services (AMOS) Global Pvt Ltd

Azhar H. Shore a.shore@amos-global.com 35

7 ARBISOFT PRIVATE LTD

Yasser Bashir Yasser.bashir@arbisoft.com 100

8 Arwen Tech (pvt.) Limited

Abdul QadirSubhani

Qadir.subhani@arwentech.com 150

9 Autosoft Dynamics (pvt.) Limited

Mr. Lutfullah Khan

ceo@autosoftdynamics.com 120

10

Avanceon

11

AZM Computer Services (pvt.) Ltd

Ghulam Mustafa Kamboh

gmk@azm.com.pk 30

12

B Solutions FazalAshfaq fazal@bsolutions.pk 5

13

Bahria Enterprise Systems and Technologies

(BEST)

Muhammad Azam

ceo@best-bf.com 35

14

Bramerz Private Limited

ZeeshanSaleem Zeeshan@bramerz.pk 55

15

CIKLUM PAKISTAN (pvt.)

Ltd

Khushal Khan

16

Comstar –Information

Systems Associates Ltd.

Sami Bajwa sbajwa@comstar.com.pk 125

109

17

Confiz Solutions Muhammad Raza Saeed

Raza.saeed@confiz.com 150-200

18

Corvit Networks Kashif-ul-Haq

19

CTO 24/7 Private Limited

Amin Ansari aansari@cto247pk.com 90

20

CureMD Healthcare

Bilal Hashmat Bilal.hashmat@curemd.com 375

21

DGHarbour Muhammad Rahimtoola

m.rahimtoola@dgharbour.com 25

22

DGS Private Limited

Faizan Ali Siddiqi

Faizan.siddiqi@dgsworld.com 480

23

Ebryx SMC Pvt. Ltd

M. Ahrar Naqvi Ahrar@ebryx.com 60

24

Edusys Pakistan Nouman Ali syed Nouman.ali.syed@gmail.com

25

Expert Systems (pvt) Ltd

Khalid Ahmed Khan

Khalid@expertsystems.net

26

Efro Tech Services Nadir Khan Feroz

nadir@efrotech.com 45

27

Five Rivers Technologies(pvt)

Ltd

Hasan A. Rizvi Hasan.rizvi@fiveriverstech.com

28

FOURGEN Information

Systems(pvt) Ltd

Ather Sultan chawla

Ather.sultan@fourgensys.com 60

29

Future Now Technologies (pvt)

Ltd

Muhammad HanifMian

drhanif@tfntech.com 150

30

GAMEVIEW PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LIMITED

IRFAN GAZANFER

VIRK

IRFAN@GAMEVSTUDIOS.COM

300

31

GCS (PVT) LTD Mr. ShahidMuneer

Shahid@gcspvt.com 130

32

GenITeam KhurramSamad Khurram@geniteam.com 42

33

Goldtime (pvt) Ltd Naveed Ahmed naveed@goldteam.co.uk 18

34

i2c Amir wain awain@i2cinc.com 330

35

IBM Humayun Bashir humayun@pk.ibm.pk 500

36

Inbox Business Technologies Pvt.

Ltd

Ghias Khan Ghias.khan@inboxbiz.com

110

37

INFOGISTIC Private Limited

Sajjad Kirmani Sajjad.kirmani@infogistic.com 20

38

InfoTech Private Limited

Naseer Ahmad Akhtar

Naseer.akhtar@infotechgroup.com

250

39

Innovative Integration Pvt Ltd

Syed Ahmer Ghazi

Ahmer.ghazi@innovativeintegration.net

20

40

Intagleo Systems Pvt. Ltd

Amar Ali amarali@intagleo.co.uk 35

41

IT Minds Limited Syed Asif Shah asif.shah@itminds.biz 22

42

Kabot International (PVT)Ltd.

ArifToor arif.toor@kabotintl.com 70

43

LMK Resources Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd

AtifRais Khan akhan@lmkr.com 600+

44

LumenSoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.

Abdul Aziz aziz@lumensoft.biz 28

45

Maison Consulting and Solutions

Sultan Hamdani shamdani@maison-global.com 135

46

Mantaq Systems HashimZulfiqar Ali

hashim.ali@mantaq.com 15

47

Marriala Consultants

Muhammad Arfaeen Iqbal

Arfaeen@marriala.net 10

48

Mindstorm Studios

Babar Ahmed babar@mindstormstudios.com 20

49

Monet Pvt Ltd Ali Abbas Sikander

abbas.sikander@monet-online.com

11

50

Naseeb Networks Monis Rahman monis@naseebnetworks.com 42

51

National Consulting for Business and Management Solutions (Private) Limited

Ahsan Saleem ahssaleem@ncbms.com.pk 115

52

NetSol Salim Ghauri salim.ghouri@netsoltech.com 1000

53

Off-Road Studios Muhammad Waqas

Waqas@offroadstudios.com 38

54

OPEN-SILICON PAKISTAN (PVT)LTD

ANJUM FAROOQ CHOHAN

anjum.chohan@open-silicon.com

60

5 Ora-Tech Systems Aspy N. Fatakia aspy.fataki@ora-tech.com

111

5 (Pvt )Ltd56

Ovex Technologies Pakistan (Pvt) Limited

Faisal S Khan fkhan@ovextech.com 210

57

Ovex Technologies Pvt Limited

Syed Amir Hussain

amirhussain@enpointe.com 550

58

Ozitechnology Muhammad Usman Sheikh

ceo@ozitechnology.com 35

69

Palmchip Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited

Jauher Zaidi jauher@palmchip.com

60

Pring Muqtaza Shah Muqtaza.shah@panasiangroup.com

40

61

Sabri Technologies MoinSabri Moin.sabri@sabritech.com 50

62

Sakonent Akif Rahman Akif.rahman@sakonent.com 125

63

SensysPvt Ltd SohailQadir Sohail.qadir@sensys.com 78

64

SidatHyderMorshed Associates (Pvt.) Ltd.

AroojAlam Khan

65

SitaraInfotechPvt Ltd

Javed Iqbal iqbalsitara@gmail.com 13

66

SofizarPvt Ltd Zafar Khan zkhan@sofizar.com 64

67

Soft Solutions Ghulam Ali ali@softsolutions.com.pk 10

68

Softech Systems (Pvt.) Limited

Salman Iqbal salman@softech.com.pk 85

69

Solo Tech Corp Farhan Masood fm@solotechcorp.co.uk 16

70

Strategic Systems International

RabiyaJunaid Aziz

sashraf@ssidecisions.com 150

71

Synergy Computers Pvt Limited

Iqbal Ahmed Iqbal@synergy.net.pk 160

72

Systems Limited Mr. Ashraf Kapadia

Ashraf.kapadia@systemsltd.com

1200

73

Techaccess Pakistan Private Limited

Syed Iqtidar Zaidi

izaidi@techaccesspak.com 150

74

The Resource Group

NadeemElahi Naeem.elahi@trdworld.com 1500

75

TkXel UmairJaved umair@tkxel.com 109

7 TMR Consulting Mian mianramzan@tmrc.com.pk 30

112

6 (Private) Limited Muhammad Ramzan

77

Tricast Media Private Limited

ARSLAN KHAN KHAKWANI

Arsalan.khakwani@tricastservices.com

51

78

Viper Technologies Pvt Ltd.

KhushnoodAftab k.aftab@viper.pk 200

79

Visionary Computer Solutions PVT Ltd

Zahid Raza zahid@vcs.com.pk 46

80

VopiumAktieselskabPvt Ltd.

QaisarJaved Qaiser.javed@vopium.com

81

Wavetec Private Limited

Ahmed Fraz Ahmed.fraz@wavetec.com 150

82

Zahdan Technologies Pvt Limited

Mr. ShehzadShabbirDahar

shehzad@zahdangroup.com 30

83

Dzine Media Usman Shajoor Usman.shakoor@dzine-media.com

13

Table – 2 ARFA KAREEM Software Houses Detailed List

No. of

113

Sr#

Software House

Adress In Portfolio

No. of Projects

Project Manage

rs

Success

Ratio

CEO Name

CEO Email Address

1 Ebryx Office # 1, floor # 4, Arfa software technology park, 346-B Ferozpur Road, Lahore – Pakistan.

Yes 2 3-4 100% Ahrar Naqvi

ahrar@ebryx.com

2 ADDVANTUM

Office # 17, Floor # 10, Arfa STP.

Yes 10-15 10-15 90% Shahzad Hamid

3 Frag Games

Office # 7, floor # 4, Arfa STP.

yes 2 1 60-70%

RehmanRafique

rehman@frag-games.com

4 Microsoft Innoation Centre

Office # 1,Floor # 5, Arfa STP.

yes 4 2 100% Ziad Bashir

5 Inbox Office # 3,Floor # 5,Arfa STP.

yes Local level 2, international level 1.

15-20 100% Ghias Khan

6 Interactive Groups

Office # 2,Floor # 5, Arfa STP.

yes 10-15 10 100% Shahid Mahmud

7 Logica Floor # yes 2-3 1 70- Usman

114

Solutions 7, Arfa STP.

80% Ahmad

8 Nespak Floor # 7,Arfa STP.

yes 2-3 2 90% Amjad A. Khan

9 Tower Technologies

Office # 4,5 floor # 7, Arfa STP.

yes 5-6 4 100% Ajmal Hussain

ajmal@thetowertech.com

10

National Engineers (NETS Internatioal)

Office # 2, floor # 8, Arfa STP.

yes 30 3 80% Jahangir Ahmad

Jahangir.ahmad@nets-international.com

11

Loxvo Technologies

Floor # 8, Arfa STP.

yes 3 1 60%

12

Zero Billion

Office # 12, floor # 8, Arfa STP.

yes Upto 15 for small projects, 2 for large projects.

3 70-80%

WaqqasAlvi

Waqqas.alvi@zerobillion.com

13

Fork Tech

Floor # 8, Arfa STP.

no 1 1 50% Noor Khawaja

nkhawaja@forkparticle.com

14

Total Softwares Services

Office # 19, floor # 8, Arfa STP.

yes 3-4 2 80% Haseeb Ali Gill

Haseeb.gill@totalsoftwareservices.com

15

Zitech Floor # 8, Arfa STP.

Yes 4-5 3 75% MesbahRehan

16

Future Technologies

Floor # 8, Arfa STP.

yes 2-3 1 60%

17

ITD Pakistan

Floor # 8, Arfa STP.

yes 3 2 70%

18

Rent VM Office # 14, floor # 8, Arfa

yes 2 2 60-70%

115

STP.19

Mobius Networks

Floor # 8, Arfa STP.

yes 2 2 80%

20

Incubators

Office # 7, floor # 8, Arfa STP.

yes 10-15 1 90% Hammad Tariq

Hammad.tariq@incubator.pk

21

Viper Office # 8, floor # 8, Arfa STP.

yes 150-200 1 80%

22

Bayt.com Office # 20, floor # 10, Arfa STP.

yes 5 5 Above 75%

RabeaAtaya

23

Seven Centric

Office # 17, floor # 10, Arfa STP.

yes 5-6 1 50% Saad Mubarak

saad@7centric.com

24

SoftRove Office # 18, floor # 10, Arfa STP.

yes 2-3 2-3 100% Omer Mukhtar

Omer.mukhtar@softrove.com

25

ILMA Soft

Office # 15, floor # 10, Arfa STP.

yes 5-6 1 100% Syed Iftikhar Hussain Shah

26

Comcast Office # 13, floor # 10, Arfa STP.

no 1 1 100% Cyrus Saood Jan

cyrusjan@comcast.net

27

Fast Services

Office # 10, floor # 10, ArfaSTP.

yes 10 2-3 70-80%

Rana Farooq

2 Dell Office # yes 4-5 5 100%

116

8 8, floor # 10, Arfa STP.

29

GCS Pvt Ltd

Office # 7, floor # 10, Arfa STP.

yes 14-15 3 Above 90%

ShahidMuneed

30

TeraData Floor # 15, Arfa STP

yes Above 10

10 100% KhurramRahat

Khuram.rahat@teradata.com

Table – 3 Respondents Detail List

117

Subjects/Respondents

Name Company Name

Email Address

HarisShahid Inbox Haris.shahid@inboxbiz.com1 Farhan Shah Inbox Farhan.shah@inboxbiz.com2 Zaigham Butt Microsoft

innovation centre

v-zaikra@microsoft.com

Mirza Asif Baig

Interactive Group

Asif.baig@iacgrp.com

3 Majid Imtiaz Logica IT Solutions

Majid.imtiaz@logicait.pk

Waqas Ashraf Logica IT Solutions

Salma N. Waseem

Logica IT Solutions

4 Muneeb Nespak moneeb@nespak.coSyed

FaheemAtharTower

Technologiesfaheemathar@thetowertech.com

5 Imran Naqvi Tower Technologies

6 Jawad Tower Technologies

Jahangir Ahmad

Nets International

Jahangir.ahmad@nets-international.com

Shahbaz Ashraf

National Engineers

Shahbaz.ashraf@ne.co.pk

7 Fuad Khalid Nets International

fuad.khalid@nets-international.com

8 Masood Abbas Nets International

Masood.abbas@nets-international.com

9 Hasnain Naqvi Nets International

Hasnain.naqvi@nets-international.com

10 Hafiz Zafarullah

Nets International

Hafiz.zafrullah@nets-international.com

11 Sadaan Saeed Loxvo Technologies

Sadaan.saeed@loxvo.com

12 WaqqasAlvi Zero Billion Waqqas.alvi@@zerobillion.comNoor Khawaja Fork Tech nkhawaja@forkparticle.com

13 Haseeb Ali Gill

Total Software Haseeb.gill@totalsoftwareservices.com

JawadAmjad Zitech Jawad.amjad@ozitechnology.com14 M.Tahir Future

Technologiestahir@future.com.pk

15 Tallat ITD Pakistan tallat@itdpak.comHaider Ali Rent VM Haider.turab@rentvm.com

118

TurabSajjad Mobius

Networkssajjad@mobius.pk

16 Hammad Incubators Hammad.tariq@incubator.pk17 Tariq Aziz Viper Tariq.aziz@viper.pk

M.Farhan Ali Ebryx Farhan.ali@ebryx.com

Rabia Tariq ADDVANTUM

Rabia.tariq@addvantum.com

18 RehmanRafique

Frag Games rehman@frag-games.com

Ammad Aziz Bayt.com Ammad-aziz@bayt.net19 Saad Mubarak Seven Centric saad@7centric.com20 Omar Mukhtar SoftRove Omar.mukhtar@softrove.com21 Usman ILMA Soft usman@ilmasoft.com22 M.Irfan Fast Services sales@fastservices.pk23 Choudhary

Bashir Hameed

Dell Basher_hemeed@dellteam.com

24 Sohail Saeed GCS Pvt Ltd Sohail.saeed@gcspvt.com25 KhurramRahat TeraData Khuram.rahat@teradata.com

119

Table – 4 Questionnaire Coding Details

Sr No # Scales Name Items1 Role Clarity 1,2,3,42 Project Portfolio

Management Success2(a) Average Project Success 5,6,72(b) Strategic Fit 8,9,103 Customer Relationship

Value3(a) Relationship Value for the

customers 11, 12, 13, 14

3(b) Relationship Value from the customers

15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21

4 Supplier Relationship Value4(a) Relationship Value for the

suppliers 22, 23, 24, 25

4(b) Relationship Value from the suppliers

26, 27, 28, 29, 30,

5 About Managers 32 to 536 Senior Management

Involvement54 to 60

120

APPENDIX II

Preliminary Survey Questions

How many projects software house managing at a time?

How many Project managers working in software house at this time?

How many portfolios in software House?

How many projects manage in one portfolio?

How many portfolio managers in software house?

What is the specialty of software house?

121

APPENDIX III

INSTRUMENTS (Questionnaire for data collection)

122

COMSATS INSTITUTE OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY,

LAHORE

Dear Respondent,

I am student of MS (Project Management) in COMSATS Institute of Information and

Technology. I want to conduct research on impact of Stakeholder's engagement on

Project Portfolio Management Success, in IT sector Lahore, Pakistan. It would be highly

appreciated, if you spare some time from your busy schedule to answer few questions

mentioned below. Your response will be kept confidential. I will be very thankful to you

for your cooperation.

123

Software House Name / Title: ..................................

Designation of the Respondent: ......................................

Gender:       a) Male           b) Female  

 Total Work Experience: (in years)  

a) Up to 2      b) 2 - 6   c) 6 - 10   d) above 10

Work Experience of managing project portfolios: (in years)

 a) Up to 2    b) 2 - 6   c) 6 -10    d) above 10

Team Strength: (Members)

a) Less than 50 b) 50-100 c) 100-200 d)Above 200

 Annual Revenue: (optional)

a) Up to 1$ million b) Between 1-2$ million c) Above 2$ million

Duration of existence of Software House: (in years)

a) Less than 2 b) 2 – 4 c) 4 – 6 d) Above 6

Specialty of Software House:

a) Databases b) Mobile apps c) Websites d) Multiple Technologies

e) Others……………………………

Span of Software House:

a) Within Pakistan b) Within Subcontinent c) Within Asia d) Across the World Wide

CMMI Ranking: (To be applied)

a) Level 1 b) Level 2 c) Level 3 d) Level 4 e) Level 5

Software House Certifications:

a) ISO certified b) IEEE certified c) Others ……………………………….

Software House Clients:

a) International b) National c) Local d) Others …………………………

124

Number of Portfolios: a) Less than 2 b) 2-4 c) 4-6 d) above 6

Number of projects in one portfolio: a) 2-4 b) 4-6 c) 6-8 d) above 8

Number of projects lead successfully: a) 2-4 b) 4-6 c) 6-8 d) above 8

Number of Project Portfolio Managers: a) Less than 2 b) 2-4 c) 4-6 d) Above 6

Number of Project Managers: a) Less than 2 b) 2-4 c) 4-6 d) Above 6

 Project Worth: (optional)

a) Less than 1 million b) Between 1 & 2 million c) More than 2 million

Information is given about:

a) Top Manager b) Line Manager c) Project Portfolio Manager d) Project Manager

Is always seeking new opportunities

for the unit/departmen

t/organization

125

Sr. No. Items

Strongly Disagree Disagree

Neither Agree nor Disagree

AgreeStrongly

Agree

1. The task of PPM actors is clearly

defined.2 The task of PPM

actors is clearly differentiated.

3 Every task within PPM is performed

only by the persons

responsible for this task.

4 PPM tasks are performed by

redundantly by several parties.

5 On average, our projects have high

schedule adherence.

6 On average, our projects have high budget adherence.

7 On average, our projects have high quality adherence.

8 Our project portfolio is consistently

oriented toward the firm’s future.

9 The corporate strategy is

implemented in the optimal way.

10 The allocation of resources to

projects reflects our strategic

behavior.11 We fulfill needs of

our customers.12 Our customers are

very satisfied with our output.

13 Problems encountered by our

customers are quickly solved.

14 We do anything to be a trustful

partner for our customers.

15 Most of our

3233 Paints an

interesting picture of the future for our

group.

34 Has a clear understanding of where we are going.

35 Inspires others with his/her plans for the

future.

36 Is able to get others

committed to his/her dreams

of thefuture.

37 Leads by “doing” rather than simply by

“telling.”38 Provides a

good model to follow.

39 Leads by example.

40 Fosters collaboration among work

groups.41 Encourages

employees to be “team players.”

42 Gets the group to work

together for the same goal.

126

43 Develops a team attitude

and spirit among his/her

employees44 Shows us that

he/she expects a lot from us.

45 Insists on only the best

performance.46 Will not settle

for second best.

47 Acts without considering my

feelings.48 Shows respect

for my personal feelings.

49 Behaves in a manner that is thoughtful of my personal

needs.

50 Treats me without

considering my personal feelings.

51 Has provided me with new

ways of looking at things which

used to be a puzzle for me.

52 Has ideas that have forced me to think some

of my own

127

ideas I have never

questioned before.

53 Has stimulated me to think about old

problems in new

ways.

54 Our senior management has expert knowledge in multi-project and project portfolio management.

55 Our senior management invests a lot of time in steering the project portfolio.

56 Our senior management makes sufficient human and financialresources available for the steering of the project portfolio

57 Our senior management adheres to the official processand to its own rules during project portfolio management.

128

58 Our senior management delivers decisions timely when problem situations arise or escalation is required.

59 Our senior management feels responsible for the success of the project portfolio management.

60 On the whole, our senior management supports theproject portfolio management

129