pollack adler 2014

PA

PE

RS

Project Management Journal, Vol. 45, No. 6, 17–24

© 2014 by the Project Management Institute

Published online in Wiley Online Library

(wileyonlinelibrary.com). DOI: 10.1002/pmj.21459

December 2014/January 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj 17

ABSTRACT ■

A fundamental assumption of project man-

agement practice and research is that using

project management to achieve organiza-

tional objectives improves organizational

performance. However, there is little pub-

lished research that directly questions this

assumption. This paper tests the hypothesis

that using project management increases

the productivity of small to medium enter-

prises, using data from two longitudinal sur-

veys of Australian businesses with less than

200 staff members. These data were used to

create models of the relationship between

productivity and business skills using binary

logistic regression. The models demonstrate

that project management has a significant

impact on small to medium enterprise

productivity.

KEYWORDS: productivity; small to

medium enterprises; longitudinal study;

business skills; project management

INTRODUCTION ■

A fundamental assumption of project management practice and research is that using project management to achieve organizational objectives improves organizational performance. This assumption is so ingrained that it appears to be self-evident;

if it were otherwise, there would be little reason to justify the considerable expense that many organizations go to in developing and maintaining project management systems and certifying staff in external standards. There would also be little reason to justify the not inconsiderable intellectual effort applied by academics and researchers around the world to develop and refine project management theory and practice.

A wide variety of authors comment that project management has a posi-tive effect on aspects of an organization’s success. Whether this is broadly expressed in terms of the impact on overall productivity (Cleland, 1984; McHugh & Hogan, 2011), performance (Abbasi & Al-Mharmah, 2000), effi-ciency (Stimpson, 2008), or effectiveness (Shenhar, Dvir, Levy, & Maltz, 2001), the underlying assumption is that it is good business to use project manage-ment to achieve organizational objectives. However, this assumption typically remains unexamined.

With the exception of research by Thomas and Mullaly (2008) and Lappe and Sprang (2014), there is little research in the literature that directly ques-tions whether project management leads to increased organizational perfor-mance. Responding to Hällgren’s (2012) call for research, which challenges the fundamental assumptions on which project management research is based, the research presented in this paper questions whether the use of project management as a core business skill actually has an impact on an organization’s productivity.

In addition, and in contrast to some of the prevailing tendencies in project management research to focus on large scale projects (e.g., Flyvbjerg, 2014; Brady & Davies, 2014), this paper focuses on the use of project management in small to medium enterprises. Small to medium enterprises account for a large proportion of the projects that are undertaken, and it has also been identi-fied that project management is critical to the survival of small organizations (Sádaba, Pérez-Ezcurdia, Lazcano, & Villanueva, 2014); surprisingly, however, little research has focused on the ways in which project management is used in small to medium enterprises.

Literature ReviewThere is no shortage of research into ways in which project management can be improved (e.g., Hagen & Park, 2013; Kloppenborg, Tesch, & Manolis, 2014). Implicit in much of this research is the assumption that project management

Does Project Management Affect Business Productivity? Evidence From Australian Small to Medium EnterprisesJulien Pollack, University of Technology Sydney, AustraliaDaniel Adler, School of Built Environment, University of Technology Sydney, Australia

Evidence From Australian Small to Medium Enterprises

18 December 2014/January 2015 ■ Project Management Journal ■ DOI: 10.1002/pmj

PA

PE

RS

and one in five innovation active small to medium enterprises value project management as a core skill. Interest-ingly, project management was more valued than either engineering or scien-tific and research skills by respondents (ABS, 2013a).

Human capital is a key aspect influencing productivity, of which management skills are a core compo-nent (OECD, 2001). In a comprehen-sive review of the literature on the link between investment in human capital and productivity, the Australian Work-force and Productivity Commission found that investment in management and leadership skills are positively associated with better performing busi-nesses (AWPC, 2013).

Most research into improving the performance of small to medium enterprises in relation to this, though, has tended to be focused on entre-preneurship and innovation with the management of project-related activi-ties submerged in general business discussions around sales and market-ing, accounts, human resource man-agement, and information technology (Hudson, Smart, & Bourne, 2001; Turner, Ledwith, & Kelly, 2009, 2010). None-theless, project management has been identified as a valuable skill for small to medium enterprises (Turner, Ledwith, and Kelly, 2012) who, for example, have identified network and resource analysis as beneficial to strategic change pro-grams (Lo & Humphreys, 2000).

Finally, project management as a competency, critical to business suc-cess, has been known for some time now with comprehensive frameworks for measuring this in individuals devel-oped and administered by professional associations worldwide (Kerzner, 2013; Turner, 1999). The measurement of the impact of this on productivity, how-ever, has been limited to evaluations of individual managers rather than the importance of project management on productivity at a business unit level (Crawford, 2005). This is where this research makes a unique contribution.

this paper. A large proportion of project management research focuses on large projects (e.g., Eweje, Turner, & Müller, 2012; Chang, Chih, Chew, & Pisarski, 2013; Winch, 2013) and this is under-standable. There is considerable glam-our associated with the large amount of money spent on such projects, and the spectacular successes and failures of these endeavors make for entertaining reading. However, a disproportionately large focus on megaprojects can lead to overestimation of both their impact on the economy and their prevalence. Megaprojects may be more dramatic, but they remain the minority of projects exe-cuted compared with those undertaken by much smaller organizations.

The importance of small to medium enterprises to the social and eco-nomic health of economies around the globe has been widely recognized and researched for some time ( Ayyagari, Beck, & Demirguc-Kunt, 2007; Beck, Demirguc-Kunt, & Levine, 2005; Schiffer & Weder, 2001). It was found recently that small to medium enterprises make up between 70% and 90% of all enter-prises in the OECD (The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel-opment) countries and are impor-tant drivers of innovation and growth, accounting for between 40% and 70% of value added by the business sector, as well as being critical providers of goods and services to larger organiza-tions (OECD, 2013a, 2013b).

Australia provides one example of the importance of small to medium enterprises in an OECD country, where at least one million small to medium enterprises were found to be actively operating in 2012. This comprised more than 90% of all active businesses and accounted for the majority of employed people, with the productivity of this sector critical to the welfare of the Aus-tralian economy (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2012a; 2012c). Recent surveys of Australian small to medium enter-prises by the Australian Bureau of Sta-tistics (ABS) have found that one in eight of all small to medium enterprises,

is good for business and that with improved project management come ancillary benefits to the greater orga-nization. Ng, Skitmore, Lam, and Poon (2004) provide one example, which focuses on factors that affect produc-tivity on projects, whereas Reyck et al. (2005) have examined the impact of a robust portfolio management system on project success. Research has also dem-onstrated that there is a link between the maturity of project management processes and project success (Mir & Pinnington, 2014), and that there are links between personality types and project success (Creasy & Anantatmula, 2013; Cohen, Ornoy, & Keren, 2013); however, these studies remain broadly at the project level, with any implication for impact at the organizational level left solely to implication.

Other authors have looked more broadly at the impact on the organiza-tion as a whole. For example, Ozcelik (2010) reported on the impact of one particular kind of project on overall business performance. Lappe and Sprang (2014) have also developed a model to determine whether invest-ment in project management provides a significant return. Their research was based on 251 projects from a German life insurance company, which showed a clear relationship between the costs associated with project management and the resultant benefits.

Research by Thomas and Mullaly (2008) also endeavored to understand the return on investment from project management. This study was hampered by few of their 65 participant organi-zations actively collecting data on the return from their investment in project management capability. Their research was, however, able to demonstrate that more than half of their case study orga-nizations derived tangible value from the implementation of project manage-ment.

Small to medium enterprises provide the context in which the question of the impact of project management on busi-ness productivity will be examined in


a significant correlation of (p < 0.01) was found between responses regarding businesses’ change in productivity and their use of project management.

The difference in response rates becomes clearer when graphed in Figure 1. In both of these cases, approx-imately 15% more of the sample busi-ness population who used project management reported an increase in productivity, compared with the sample of respondents who did not use proj-ect management. This was a promis-ing result, however it was not sufficient to suggest that project management leads to greater productivity. In order to understand whether project manage-ment does have an impact on produc-tivity, it was necessary to model the relationship between productivity and project management while controlling for other comparable variables.

Modeling the DatasetsModels of the relationship between small business productivity and a range of core business skills, including proj-ect management, were created using binary logistic regression, using back-wards elimination to eliminate non-significant independent variables. The models describe the respondents’ ten-dency to identify that the productivity of their business increased, as opposed to staying the same.

The following hypotheses (Table 1) were created to determine the useful-ness of this model and to understand the correlation between project man-agement and the other business skills surveyed. Equivalent null and alterna-tive hypotheses were created for each of the other business skills.

The final model for Panel 1 was:

Logit(increase) = (0.237 * PM) + (0.267 * SCI) + (0.427 * ITP) + (0.155 * TRA) + (0.243 * MAR) + (0.299 * FIN) − 1.108

The significance of the final Panel 1 model was 0.000 using the Omni-bus Tests of Model Coefficients. The final model accounts for 68.9% of the

worked with the classification of a small to medium enterprise as a trading busi-ness with fewer than 200 employees. Previous research by other authors has also been based on the data from the ABS BLD (ABS, 2014), focusing on top-ics such as innovation (Gronum, Ver-reynne, & Kastelle, 2012; Huang & Rice, 2009; Bhattacharya & Bloch, 2004), fam-ily business (Dharmadasa, 2009), out-sourcing (Bakhtiari, 2013), performance (Steffens, Davidsson, & Fitzsimmons, 2009), industrial relations (Farmakis-Gamboni & Prentice, 2011), and entre-preneurship (Fitzsimmons & Douglas, 2006).

Data AnalysisThis analysis focuses on two groups of questions from each of the two data-bases referred to in this paper, both of which were minor variations on the following:

• Compared with the previous year, did productivity decrease, stay the same, or increase?

• During the previous year, were any of the following types of skills used by the business in undertaking its core business activities: engineering (ENG); scientific and research (SCI); IT profes-sionals (ITP); IT support technicians (ITS); trades (TRA); transport; plant and machinery operation (MAC); mar-keting (MAR); project management (PM); business management (BUS); financial (FIN).

Responses to the questions on busi-ness skills were independent and could be treated as individual and separate questions for each business skill in both databases.

Is There a Relationship Between Project Management and Productivity?Analysis was conducted to understand whether there was any correlation between responses regarding a change in productivity and respondents’ use of project management. In both databases,

MethodThe data for this research were sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statis-tics Business Longitudinal Database (BLD). One of the focuses of the BLD is on increasing the understanding of characteristics and factors that affect business performance, which is why it was chosen. Each year, starting in the 2004–2005 Australian financial year, a panel of businesses was selected from the Australian small to medium-sized business population sectors. Panel members are requested to respond to a survey for five consecutive years, with no new panel members added after the survey has been initiated. The size of each panel has been determined based on the anticipated drop-off rate of sur-vey respondents to ensure that there are a sufficient number of respondents remaining in each industry and busi-ness size classification at the end of the five-year period. At the time of writ-ing this paper, three panels of the BLD had been released to the public, two of which are referred to in this paper. The survey covering the years 2004–2005 through 2009–2010 (panel 1) and 2006–2007 through 2010–2011 (panel 2) both included questions relating to project management as a core business skill (ABS, 2012b, 2012c), and are the focus of this research.

The BLD exclusively focuses on actively trading companies with fewer than 200 employees, and includes only those businesses with a simple struc-ture and a single Australian Business Number. Other exclusion criteria also apply (ABS, 2013b); and the categories used in the survey have been based on the Oslo Manual survey guidelines (OECD/Eurostat, 2005) for measuring innovation in business. As the survey questions have changed between and within surveys, it is not possible to directly compare results between pan-els, although many significant questions have maintained a similar focus.

Due to the constraints of this exter-nal dataset, this research has broadly



PA

PE

RS

on small to medium-sized enterprise productivity. The contrast between the impact of business management and project management is particularly interesting. The evidence suggests that organizations wanting to improve their productivity should place less emphasis on hiring staff with MBA degrees than those with equivalent degrees in project management.

Along with project management, IT professional skills, marketing skills, sci-entific and research skills, and financial skills were found to have a significant impact on the tendency to report an increase in productivity, as opposed to productivity staying the same (Table 2). Of these, it is of note that marketing budgets average at approximately 10.9% of organizational budgets, and that firms with smaller revenues tend to spend a greater percentage of their revenue on marketing (World Market Watch, 2014), which the authors suspect is higher

this basis, Null hypothesis 1 can be rejected, the alternative hypothesis can be accepted, and the model can be con-sidered to be useful for Panel 2.

Null hypotheses regarding the sig-nificance of engineering skills, scientific and research skills, IT support tech-nicians, trades, transport, plant and machinery operation skills, and busi-ness management skills, were accepted for Panel 1. Null hypotheses regarding the significance of engineering skills, IT support technicians, trades, and busi-ness management skills, were accepted for Panel 2.

The evidence with respect to the impact of trade skills, transport, and plant and machinery operation skills on small to medium enterprise productiv-ity was inconclusive when the Panels are contrasted. In both panels, however, engineering skills, IT support skills, and business management skills were not found to have a significant impact

variation in the dependent variable. Using the Hosmer and Lemeshow Test, the model has a significance of 0.634 and a Chi-square score of 3.433, sug-gesting an acceptable goodness of fit. On this basis, null hypothesis 1 can be rejected, the alternative hypothesis can be accepted, and the model can be considered to be useful for Panel 1.

The final model for Panel 2 was:

Logit(increase) = (0.313 * PM) + (0.278 * SCI) + (0.428 * ITP) + (0.408 * MAC) + (0.287 * MAR) + (0.403 * FIN) – 1.276

The significance of the final Panel 2 model was 0.000 using the Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients. The final model accounts for 69.4% of the varia-tion in the dependent variable. Using the Hosmer and Lemeshow Test, the model has a significance of 0.624 and a Chi-square score of 3.493, suggest-ing an acceptable goodness of fit. On

100%23.2%(974)

22.3%(1083)

53.7%(2603)

24.0%(1163)

18.0%(102)

44.2%(251)

37.9%(215)

54.0%(2270)

22.9%(961) 15.2%

(82)

45.9%(253)

37.8%(204)

Panel 1 Panel 2

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%Didn’t use project

management

Decrease Stay the same Increase

Used projectmanagement

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%Didn’t use project

managementUsed projectmanagement

Figure 1: Frequencies for use of project management and productivity change.

Null hypothesis 1 None of the coefficients in the model is significantly different from zero

Alternative hypothesis 1 At least one of the coefficients in the model is significantly different from zero and the model is useful

Null hypothesis 2 Project management skills have no significant effect on whether an organization reported an increase in productivity

Alternative hypothesis 2 Project management skills have a significant effect on whether an organization reported an increase in productivity

Table 1: Sample list of tested hypotheses.


activities has a significant impact on businesses’ productivity within two substantial datasets. In each dataset, approximately 15% more of the survey respondents who used project manage-ment reported an increase in productiv-ity, compared with those who did not use project management.

In Panel 1 (the 2004–2005 through 2009–2010 dataset), the use of project management to undertake core business activities was found to increase the odds of respondents reporting an increase in their productivity compared with the previous year by 26.7%, as opposed to their productivity staying the same. In Panel 2 (the 2006–2007 through 2010–2011 dataset), the use of project man-agement to undertake core business activities was found to increase the odds of respondents reporting an increase in their productivity compared with the previous year by 36.8%, as opposed to their productivity staying the same. As reflected in both Panels, IT profes-sionals, marketing skills, scientific and research skills, and financial skills were also found to have significant impacts on the tendency to report an increase in productivity as opposed to produc-tivity staying the same. Project man-agement was found to have a greater impact on productivity than scientific

planned surveys of business practice in other countries should be encouraged to include similar questions, so that the findings presented in this paper can be examined in the light of comparable data.

It should also be noted that responses to the dependent variable were dependent on respondents’ ability to accurately assess a change in produc-tivity. Some variation is also likely in how respondents interpreted what it is to “use project management,” because this phrase was not accompanied by a definition in the survey instrument. However, given the size of the sur-vey population it is anticipated that responses will have converged on some common interpretation. Future research may wish to more closely explore factors that influence a perceived change in productivity; the accuracy of perceived changes in productivity; what owners of small businesses mean when they say they are using project management; and whether this qualitatively differs from the use of project management in larger organizations.

ConclusionThis research has tested and confirmed the hypothesis that the use of project management to undertake core business

than many organizations spend on proj-ect management. In addition, the two models presented above demonstrate that project management has a higher impact on productivity than marketing skills. This evidence suggests that some balancing of organizational budgets between marketing and project man-agement may also be a viable option for those organizations interested in improving their productivity.

Limitations and Future ResearchThis research has been limited to small to medium-sized enterprises with less than 200 staff members. Research that focuses on small to medium-sized enterprises makes a valuable contribu-tion to an otherwise under-researched area of project management; however, future research should be undertaken to determine whether these findings can be extended to larger organiza-tions. In addition, both datasets focus exclusively on businesses in Australia. Although the business context in Aus-tralia is comparable with that in other developed countries, future research may be useful in examining whether the results of this paper are valid for another context, a global population, or a different time period. Existing or

Skill Sig.Increase in the odds of respondents reporting an increase in productivity compared to last year as opposed to their productivity staying the same

Panel 1

Project management 0.035 26.7%

IT professionals 0.000 53.2%

Marketing skills 0.007 27.5%

Financial skills 0.007 34.8%

Panel 2

Project management 0.004 36.8%

Scientific and research skills 0.028 32.1%

IT professionals 0.000 53.4%

Transport, plant and machinery operation skills 0.000 27.5%

Marketing skills 0.000 33.3%

Financial skills 0.000 49.7%

Table 2: Significance of core skills in increasing small to medium enterprise productivity.



PA

PE

RS

Brady, T., & Davies, A. (2014). Managing structural and dynamic complexity: A tale of two projects. Project Management Journal, 45(4), 21–38.

Chang, A., Chih, Y., Chew, E., & Pisarski, A. (2013). Reconceptualising mega project success in Australian defence: Recognising the importance of value co-creation. International Journal of Project Management, 31(8), 1139–1153.

Cleland, D. (1984). Pyramiding proj-ect management productivity. Project Management Journal, 84–95.

Cohen, Y., Ornoy, H., & Keren, B. (2013). MBTI personality types of project manag-ers and their success: A field survey. Project Management Journal, 44(3), 78–87.

Crawford, L. (2005). Senior management perceptions of project management com-petence. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 7–16.

Creasy, T., & Anantatmula, V. (2013). From every direction: How personality traits and dimensions of project manag-ers can conceptually affect project suc-cess. Project Management Journal, 44(6), 36–51.

Dharmadasa, P. (2009). Organisational learning, innovation and performance in family-controlled manufacturing small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in Australia (Ph.D. Thesis). Bond University, Queensland.

Eweje, J., Turner, R., & Müller, R. (2012). Maximising strategic value from mega-projects: The influence of information-feed on decision-making by the project manager. International Journal of Project Management, 30(6), 639–651.

Farmakis-Gamboni, S., & Prentice, D. (2011). When does reducing union bargaining power increase productivity? Evidence from the Workplace Relations Act. Economic Record, 87, 603–616.

Fitzsimmons, J., & Douglas, E. (2006). Entrepreneurs and funding decisions: Evidence from Australian SMEs. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business, 3, 76–91.

Flyvbjerg, B. (2014). What you should know about megaprojects and why:

ABS. (2012c). Australian Bureau of Statistics, 8168.0.55.001—Microdata: Business Longitudinal Database, Australia, 2006–07 to 2010–11. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/8168.0.55.001

ABS. (2013a). Australian Bureau of Statistics, 8167.0—Selected Characteristics of Australian Business, 2011–12. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/8167.0

ABS. (2013b). About the Business Longitudinal Database, Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Latestproducts/8168.0.55.001Main%20Features42006–07%20to%202010–11?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=8168.0.55.001&issue=2006–07%20to%202010–11&num=&view=

ABS. (2014). Australian Bureau of Statistics, Published Research—Business Longitudinal. Retrieved from http://abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/4a256353001af3ed4b2562bb00121564/56be6f3fa156877cca25728a000c18fc!OpenDocument

AWPC. (2013). Australian Workforce and Productivity Agency: Human Capital and Productivity Literature Review. Retrieved from http://www.awpa.gov.au/our-work/better-use-of-skills/Pages/Human-capital-and-productivity-literature-review.aspx

Ayyagari, M., Beck, T., & Demirguc-Kunt, A. (2007). Small and medium enterprises across the globe, Small Business Economics, 29, 415–434.

Bakhtiari, S., & Breunig, R. (2013). Outsourcing and innovation: An empirical exploration of the dynamic relationship. B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy. April, 1–24.

Beck, T., Demirguc-Kunt, A., & Levine, R. (2005). SMEs, growth, and poverty: Cross-country evidence. Journal of Economic Growth, 10, 199–229.

Bhattacharya, M., & Bloch, H. (2004). Determinants of innovation. Small Business Economics, 22, 155–162.

and research skills, trades skills, engi-neering skills, and IT support skills. It was also consistently found that project management had a greater impact on productivity than marketing skills or business management skills, suggesting that organizations interested in increas-ing their productivity should increase their investment in project manage-ment skills over these other disciplines.

AcknowledgmentsThe authors wish to acknowledge the contribution of Ms. Cecilia Eriksson to the statistical analysis and her assistance in this research. This paper is based on a paper submitted to the PMI® Research and Education Conference, held in Port-land, Oregon, USA, in 2014. The authors also wish to acknowledge the contribu-tion of the conference audience com-mentary in improving this paper.

ReferencesAbbasi, G., & Al-Mharmah, H. (2000). Project management practice by the public sector in a developing coun-try. International Journal of Project Management, 18, 105–109.

ABS. (2012a). Australian Bureau of Statistics, 8165.0—Counts of Australian Businesses, including Entries and Exits, June 2008 to June 2012. Retrieved from ht tp://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/Latestproducts/8165.0Main Features3Jun 2008 to Jun 2012?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=8165.0&issue=Jun 2008 to Jun 2012&num=&view=%3E

ABS. (2012b). Australian Bureau of Statistics, 8168.0.55.001—Microdata: Business Longitudinal Database, Australia, 2004–05 to 2009–10. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/second+level+view?ReadForm&prodno=8168.0.55.001&viewtitle=Microdata: Business Longitudinal Database, Australia~2004–05 to 2009–10~Previous~05/12/2012&&tabname=Past Future Issues&prodno=8168.0.55.001&issue=2004–05 to 2009–10&num=&view=&%3E


Worldwide survey results, International Finance Corporation Discussion paper 43, World Bank, Washington, DC. Retrieved from www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/IW3P/IB/2001/12/01/000094946_01111704003345/additional/585559324_200409289103425.pdf

Shenhar, A., Dvir, D., Levy, O., & Maltz, A. (2001). Project success: A multidi-mensional strategic concept. Long Range Planning, 34, 699–725.

Steffens, P., Davidsson, P., & Fitzsimmons, J. (2009). Performance configurations over time: Implications for growth- and profit-orientated strate-gies. Entrepreneurship Theory & Practice, 33, 125–148.

Stimpson, J. (2008). Project manage-ment: A means to efficiency. Practical Accountant, June, 41(6) 17–21.

Thomas, J., & Mullaly, M. (2008). Researching the value of project man-agement. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

Turner, J.R. (1999). The handbook of project-based management. London, England: McGraw-Hill.

Turner, J.R., Ledwith, A., & Kelly, J. (2009). Project management in small to medium-sized enterprises: A compari-son between firms by size and indus-try. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2, 282–296.

Turner, R., Ledwith, A., & Kelly, J. (2010). Project management in small to medium-sized enterprises: Matching processes to the nature of the firm. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 744–755.

Turner, R., Ledwith, A., & Kelly, J. (2012). Project management in small to medium-sized enterprises: Tailoring the practices to the size of com-pany. Management Decision, 50, 942–957.

Winch, G. (2013). Escalation in major projects: Lessons from the channel fixed link. International Journal of Project Management, 31(5), 724–734.

World Market Watch. (2014). The CMO Survey: Who has the biggest marketing

An overview. Project Management Journal, 45(2), 6–19.

Hagen, M., & Park, S. (2013). Ambiguity acceptance as a function of project man-agement: A new critical success factor. Project Management Journal, 44(2), 52–66.

Hällgren, M. (2012). The construction of research questions in project manage-ment. International Journal of Project Management, 30, 804–816.

Huang, F., & Rice, J. (2009). The role of absorptive capacity in facilitating ‘open innovation’ outcomes: A study of Australian SMEs in the manufac-turing sector. International Journal of Innovation Management, 13, 201–220.

Hudson, M., Smart, A., & Bourne, M. (2001). Theory and practice in SME performance measurement systems. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21, 1096–1115.

Gronum, S., Verreynne, M., & Kastelle, T. (2012). The role of networks in small and medium-sized enterprise innovation and firm performance. Journal of Small Business Management, 50, 257–282.

Kerzner, H. (2013). Project management: A systems approach to planning, schedul-ing, and controlling. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Kloppenborg, T., Tesch, D., & Manolis, C. (2014). Project success and executive sponsor behaviors: Empirical life cycle stage investigations. Project Management Journal, 45(1), 9–20.

Lappe, M., & Sprang, K. (2014). Investments in project management are profitable: A case study-based analysis of the relationship between the costs and benefits of project manage-ment. International Journal of Project Management, 32, 603–612.

Lo, V., & Humphreys, P. (2000). Project management benchmarks for SMEs implementing ISO 9000. Benchmarking: An International Journal, 7, 247–260.

Mir, F., & Pinnington, A. (2014). Exploring the value of project man-agement: Linking project manage-ment performance and project success. International Journal of Project Management, 32, 202–217.

McHugh, O., & Hogan, M. (2011). Investigating the rationale for adopt-ing an internationally-recognised project management methodology in Ireland: The view of the project man-ager. International Journal of Project Management, 29, 637–646.

Ng, A., Skitmore, R., Lam, K., & Poon, A. (2004). Demotivating factors influenc-ing the productivity of civil engineering projects. International Journal of Project Management, 22, 139–146.

OECD. (2001). “The well-being of nations: The role of human and social capital,” The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France.

OECD. (2013a). “Enterprises by size class,” in Entrepreneurship at a Glance 2013, The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Publishing, Paris, France.

OECD. (2013b). “Value added by size class,” in Entrepreneurship at a Glance 2013, The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Publishing, Paris, France.

OECD/Eurostat. (2005). Oslo Manual: Guidelines for Collecting and Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd Edition, The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities, The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Publishing, Paris, France.

Ozcelik, Y. (2010). Do business process reengineering projects payoff? Evidence from the United States. International Journal of Project Management, 28, 7–13.

Reyck, B., Gurushka-Cockayne, Y., Lockett, M., Calderini, R., Moura, M., & Sloper, A. (2005). The impact of project portfolio management on informa-tion technology projects. International Journal of Project Management, 23, 524–537.

Sádaba, S., Pérez-Ezcurdia, A., Lazcano, A., & Villanueva, P. (2014). Project risk management methodology for small firms. International Journal of Project Management, 32, 327–340.

Schiffer, M., & Weder, B. (2001). Firm size and the business environment:



PA

PE

RS

Technology Sydney, Australia. His research

specializes in applying activity theory and

social network analysis to explore the dis-

cipline of project management. He is also

a Post-Graduate of the Master’s of Project

Management degree at the University

of Technology Sydney, and a graduate of

Applied Science in Sport Management

from the University of Western Sydney.

He can be contacted at the University of

Technology Sydney by email at daniel.

[email protected]

ment practice, resulting in one book on this topic, Tools for Complex Projects, co-authored with Kaye Remington. More recently, he has focused on ways in which change management may inform the delivery of organizational change projects. He can be contacted at [email protected]

Daniel Adler is a Research Assistant and Doctoral Candidate in the School of Built Environment at the University of

budgets? Retrieved from http://www.cmosurvey.org/blog/who-has-the- biggest-marketing-budgets/#more-4288

Dr. Julien Pollack is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Technology Sydney, Australia. His PhD, which was completed in 2005, focused on practical ways to combine systems thinking techniques with project management. His research then moved to examine the application of complexity theory to project manage-

pollack adler 2014

Documents