Engineering Management Journal

ISSN: 1042-9247 (Print) 2377-0643 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uemj20

Exploring the Relationship Between Multi-

Dimensional Top Management Support and
Project Success: An International Study

Riaz Ahmed & Noor Azmi bin Mohamad

To cite this article: Riaz Ahmed & Noor Azmi bin Mohamad (2016) Exploring the Relationship
Between Multi-Dimensional Top Management Support and Project Success: An International
Study, Engineering Management Journal, 28:1, 54-67, DOI: 10.1080/10429247.2015.1136525

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2015.1136525

Published online: 17 Mar 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 18

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uemj20

Download by: [Kraft Foods/ GT&Q], [mounika indupriyal] Date: 12 April 2016, At: 01:36
 Exploring the Relationship Between Multi-Dimensional Top
Management Support and Project Success: An International Study
Riaz Ahmed, Bahria University
Noor Azmi bin Mohamad, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
Abstract: The role of top management support in achieving
project success has gained much attention in research and
practice. A number of studies on single dimensional top man-
agement support have been conducted. In the engineering man-
agement literature, top management support has rarely been
studied as a multi-dimensional construct. This research exam-
ines the relationship between multiple dimensions of top man-
agement support and project success. Different data analysis
methods were employed to test the research hypotheses and to
Downloaded by [Kraft Foods/ GT&Q], [mounika indupriyal] at 01:36 12 April 2016
validate the multi-dimensionality of top management support.
Findings indicate a significant and positive relationship between
multi-dimensional top management support and project success.
Keywords: Top Management Support, Project Success, Multi-
Dimensional, Relationship, Engineering Management
EMJ Focus Areas: Program & Project Management
P
rojects are often used as a means to implement strategies
in organizations. Research has brought insight into the
management of projects over the last 60 years (Jugdev &
Müller, 2005), but still only a limited number of projects are
completed successfully (Muller, Geraldi, & Turner, 2012). The
basic determinant of project failure or abandonment is lack of
support from top management (Anantatmula, 2010; Edwards,
1989; Lyytinen & Hirschheim, 1988; Pinto & Slevin, 1987; Sauer,
1993). Top management support is a critical factor for successful
completion of projects (Li, Chen, Lee, & Rao, 2013), but little
attention has been paid to the essence of top management
support (Dong, Neufeld, & Higgins, 2009; Staehr, 2010). Boon-
stra (2013) conducted a descriptive exploratory study to identify
and categorize potential top management supportive behaviors.
According to Boonstra (2013), more research is required to
examine the appropriateness of different kinds of support pro-
vided by top management, in order to ensure apt assistance to
project managers.
According to Karlsen and Gottschalk (2004), support pro-
vided by top management is an important factor for project
success but little attention has been given to identifying the
relationship between multiple dimensions of top management
support and project success . The study conducted by Karlsen
and Gottschalk (2004) was limited to project managers or
members of the project management group. The opinions of
other stakeholders, including top management, middle manage-
ment, lower management, consultants, or entrepreneurs, may be
different based on whether or not projects were completed
successfully. As highlighted by Boonstra (2013), exploratory
research has left a number of questions unanswered regarding
the extent that top management supportive behaviors are inter-
related and/or complementary for project success. Boonstra
Refereed Research Manuscript. Accepted by Associate Editor Jan Karlsen.
54
(2013) suggested that such relationships should be explored
with quantitative research. The aim of this study is to include
different project stakeholders as respondents to address the
limitations of previous studies, such as Karlsen and Gottschalk
(2004), and to further investigate the relationship between mul-
tiple dimensions of top management support and determinants
of project success, as suggested by Boonstra (2013).
The goal of this work is to significantly contribute to the
existing body of knowledge and to provide a guide for future
research on multi-dimensional top management support. A
number of studies used top management support as a single
dimensional construct starting from Pinto and Slevin (1987) to
Manfreda and Štemberger (2014). Boonstra’s (2013) study of
multi-dimensional top management support was limited to
only identification and classification of multi-dimensional top
management support. Literature reveals that no substantial
efforts have been made to develop or validate top management
support as a multi-dimensional construct. Further, studies using
quantitative research methods to examine the relationship
between multi-dimensional top management support and pro-
ject success have rarely been conducted, especially in the engi-
neering management literature. Therefore, strong empirical
evidence is required to demonstrate the relationship between
top management support and project success (Young & Poon,
2013). This study addresses these research gaps by adapting a
multi-dimensional framework of top management support
based on Boonstra (2013) and a multifaceted project success
model from Shenhar and Dvir (2007). This quantitative study
aims to address the following research question: Does multi-
dimensional top management support have a significant rela-
tionship with project success?
This study contributes to the engineering management and
the project management literature in terms of theory, empirical
knowledge, and management practices. Karlsen and Gottschalk
(2004) distributed a survey in Norway by using a 5-point Likert
Scale (5 = high to 1 = low), which had limited generalizability due
to the small sample size (71 respondents). This study follows the
methodology employed by Karlsen and Gottschalk (2004), but
utilizes a larger sample size (208 participants) in order to provide
a broader sample and potentially greater generalizability. Thus,
this study addresses calls from previous research in the engineer-
ing management and project management literature (Boonstra,
2013; Chollet, Brion, Chauvet, Mothe, & Géraudel, 2012; Karlsen
& Gottschalk, 2004; Patanakul, 2011). This study presents a
comprehensive framework and partially extends the research of
Boonstra (2013) and Karlsen and Gottschalk (2004), exploring the
relationship between multi-dimensional top management support
and project success. This study provides an opportunity for
researchers and practitioners to formulate a comprehensive policy
for effective and efficient accomplishment of strategies through
successful delivery of projects.
Engineering Management Journal Vol. 28 No. 1 March 2016
 The remainder of this article is organized in the following
manner. The next section presents the literature review and
theoretical framework, including development of the dimensions
of top management support and project success used in the
study. Following this, the research methods are discussed.
Then, the study results and a discussion are presented. Finally,
the article concludes with a discussion of the contributions,
implications, limitations, and directions for future research.
Literature Review and Theoretical Framework
Top Management Support
The review of literature reveals that top management support
has been identified as critical for project success over the last
three decades, starting from Pinto and Slevin (1987) up
through more recent work, such as Boonstra (2013) and Man-
freda and Štemberger (2014). The term ‘top management sup-
port’ implies the financial, material, and human support
Downloaded by [Kraft Foods/ GT&Q], [mounika indupriyal] at 01:36 12 April 2016
provided to a team for successful completion of a project.
Involvement or participation of top-level management in pro-
ject or organizational activities is referred to as top manage-
ment support (Tan & Noor, 2013). Top management support
is one of the most frequently-identified barriers to project
success and is also considered as a root cause for other barriers
(Ali & Kidd, 2014). A number of studies show that lack of
upper management support is a major concern in the perfor-
mance of projects (Burgess, McKee, & Kidd, 2005; Gonzalez,
1997) and inadequate support from top management is a major
concern for many projects and in many business processes (Da
Silva, Damian, & De Pádua, 2012).
The significance of top management support in projects
has been recognized by theories of project management and
engineering management (McComb, Kennedy, Green, Comp-
ton, & McComb, 2008; Rodgers, Hunter, & Rogers, 1993).
According to Zwikael (2008), top management support is one
of the most critical success factors in project management.
However, the literature does not provide a list of effective top
management support practices. Karlsen and Gottschalk (2004)
argued that people believe that systems and projects failed
because top management did not really support them. Zwi-
kael (2008) introduced a detailed list of critical top manage-
ment processes for multiple industries and countries that
contribute to project success. Although it is important for
project managers to receive support from senior management
in the organization (Anantatmula, 2010), it is challenging for
project managers to obtain such support in traditional orga-
nizations, as resources are controlled by functional managers.
This domain presents a rich field for further research due to
human complexity associated with the role of project manager
or a top manager.
Zwikael (2008) conducted a study on top management
involvement by considering different project scenarios and
examining the relationship between single dimensional top
management support and project success measures. Bonner,
Ruekert, and Walker (2002) explored the relationship between
top management control of new product development and
project performance. Chollet et al. (2012) conducted a study
on new product development projects in search of top man-
agement support, to investigate the relationship between new
product development performance and single dimensional top
management support. Young and Poon (2013) used fuzzy set
analysis of 15 cases to determine that “top management sup-
port is almost always necessary and sometimes sufficient for
Engineering Management Journal Vol. 28 No. 1
success.” The findings from these studies on single dimen-
sional top management support show contradictory results.
Zwikael (2008) found a significant positive relationship
between single dimensional top management support and pro-
ject success measures—specifically, the role of top management
commitment and successful project completion. Alternatively,
Bonner et al. (2002) found a significant negative association
between top management control of new product development
and project performance. The study by Chollet et al. (2012)
found a significant positive relationship between new product
development performance and single dimensional top manage-
ment support. The findings of Young and Poon (2013) show
strong evidence for the importance of top management support
for project success.
Top management plays a key role in facilitating project
implementation and achieving project objectives (Kuratko,
Hornsby, & Covin, 2014). Top management acts as a critical
link between the strategic or executive levels of the organiza-
tion and project managers in successful projects (Too & Wea-
ver, 2014). To improve the chances of project success,
organizations need to choose senior management with an
interest in the outcome to act as the project’s sponsors
(Tesch & Kloppenborg, 2015). A project sponsor performs a
variety of roles and engages in different ways over the duration
of the project as an important link between the project man-
ager and top management (Kloppenborg, Tesch, & Manolis,
2014). Based on Boonstra’s (2013) framework, five dimensions
of top management support included in this study are as
follows.
Provide Resources. Top management provides adequate
financial, material, and human resources to ensure successful
completion of the project. Top management plays a critical role
in achieving project objectives where the project champion is the
top management. Top management working directly in an
organizational structure can share resources more effectively
for projects than a matrix or pure project matrix (Dwivedi
et al., 2013).
Structural Arrangements. Senior management establishes and
ensures that appropriate procedures, processes, and project
structures are adapted to implement organizational change.
Top management needs to improve organizational efficacy,
strengthen stakeholders’ support, and establish effective
control mechanisms for successful completion of a project
(Boonstra, 2013).
Communication. Senior management should frequently
communicate with various stakeholders to explain potential
system changes and organizational implications. Top
management provides support to the project team by
communicating with visible enthusiasm and by communicating
support when there is a need to adapt the system, the
organization, and/or the relationships among stakeholders
(Boonstra, 2013).
Expertise. Top management needs to possess sufficient
knowledge and expertise in project management. Top
management must have an understanding of the content,
context, and implications of the project. To ensure project
success, top management should be aware of the interest and
influence of project stakeholders. Top management must
March 2016 55
 advance the skills and understanding of role theory, while
managing conflicts and dealing with project stakeholders
(Ehsani et al., 2013).
Power. Top management should exercise their power to
support the project team during crises. Top management
should be capable of using this power for key project
decisions. Strong support from top management is crucial for
projects, and senior management must be willing to advance the
project by resolving conflicts and protecting the project team
(Boonstra, 2013; Chander, Jain, & Shankar, 2013).
Project Success
Project success is the result of three variables: cost, time, and
scope. However, project success criteria differ for stakeholders,
as different stakeholders have different expectations from a
project (Karlsen & Gottschalk, 2004). Karlsen and Gottschalk
(2004) used five success criteria, including project performance,
Downloaded by [Kraft Foods/ GT&Q], [mounika indupriyal] at 01:36 12 April 2016
project outcome, system implementation, benefit to users, and
benefits to stakeholders. According to Freeman and Beale
(1992), project success measurement’s criteria include technolo-
gical performance, execution efficiency, personal growth, custo-
mer satisfaction, manufacturability, and business performance,
which is similar to Kerzner’s (2006) work on measurement of
project success. Perceived project success involves the following
three parameters: (a) schedule and budget; (b) perceived value;
and (c) client satisfaction, which includes product utilization,
benefits to end user through improved effectiveness or employee
efficiency (Pinto & Prescott, 1990).
Measuring project success utilizing only time, cost, and
scope is not sufficient (Nixon, Harrington, & Parker, 2012).
PMI (2013) suggests three additional measures, including risk,
quality, and resources to determine project success. Shenhar
and Dvir (2007) developed a project success measurement
model comprised of five dimensions: (a) project efficiency; (b)
impact on customer; (c) impact on the team; (d) direct busi-
ness and organizational success; and (e) preparing for the
future. The constraints of time, cost, scope, quality, and risk
are covered under the dimension of project efficiency. The
literature frequently discusses project constraints as cost,
time, and scope but few authors use quality in place of scope.
This study follows the PMI (2013) definition of the triple
constraints to measure project success, provided in the Project
Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), which is consis-
tent with the dimensions of project efficiency adapted from
Shenhar and Dvir (2007). In this study, we adapt the multi-
dimensional project success model from Shenhar and Dvir
(2007) and the project success model from Karlsen and
Gottschalk (2004) to form the dependent variable for measure-
ment of project success. Thus, project success is comprised of
the following five dimensions.
Project Efficiency. In agreement with Ahmed, Mohamad, and
Ahmad (2016), performance of budget, schedule, and utilization
of other resources is measured through project efficiency.
Efficient management of projects is not a guarantee of ultimate
project success, but efficient utilization of resources provides
long-term benefits to the organization. Project efficiency is a
short-term measure of project success (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007).
Impact on Customers. In line with Ahmed et al. (2016, p. 161),
the “impact on customer dimension” is used “to assess
56
customer’s satisfaction level, product performance, customer’s
loyalty, functional and technical requirements, and the extent of
customer product adoption.” Impact on the customer provides a
measure of whether or not a customer’s requirements are
fulfilled and can be used to improve customer satisfaction
(Shenhar & Dvir, 2007).
Impact on the Team. This dimension is used “to measure the
level of growth and learning achieved by the team, professional
and management capabilities attained by the team, the indirect
investment for the development of team members, and newly
acquired skills” (Ahmed et al., 2016, p. 161). The dimension of
impact on team includes team satisfaction, morale, overall team
loyalty, and retention of team members after project completion
(Shenhar & Dvir, 2007).
Direct Organizational and Business Success. This dimension
measures direct and immediate effect of income, profits, cash
flow, sales levels, and other financial elements on organizations
(Ahmed et al., 2016, p. 162). This dimension is often used to
outline the expected profit, growth, and sales from the product
in a typical business plan (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007).
Preparing for the Future. Classical measures in this dimension
may include development of organizational competencies,
creating a new product line, developing new organizational
processes, creating a new market, introducing technology
development, and additional technological competences for
future infrastructure (Ahmed et al., 2016, p. 162). Preparing
for the future measures how well projects support the
organization in developing its infrastructure for the future.
This dimension addresses long-term benefits and measures
how new opportunities are created (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007).
Research Hypotheses and Research Model
The review of past literature was conducted to identify and
formulate measures of top management support. Within the
literature, there are discussions of how a single dimensional
construct of top management support includes items such as
availability of resources, communication, structural planning,
expertise, and power. However, these items did not emerge as
multiple dimensions of top management support prior to Boon-
stra’s (2013) study. This study has adapted a multi-dimensional
top management support construct based on Boonstra’s (2013)
framework, to investigate the relationship between top manage-
ment support and project success. A research model was devel-
oped to test the research hypotheses formulated for this study
and is presented in Exhibit 1.
Top management support is essential for allocation of
resources (Avolio, 2000). Top management must provide ade-
quate financial, material, and human resources in a timely
manner to support successful implementation of projects and
to achieve business success (Boonstra, 2013). Some authors
emphasize that timely provision of resources by top manage-
ment facilitates the completion of projects on time, within
budget, and satisfies the needs of customers and project team
members (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Bajwa, Rai, & Brennan,
1998; Manfreda & Štemberger, 2014; Pinto & Prescott, 1988;
Thite, 2000; Yap, Soh, & Raman, 1992).
Engineering Management Journal Vol. 28 No. 1 March 2016
 Exhibit 1. Research Model.
Top Management Support
Provide Resources
Structural Arrangements
Communication
Expertise
Power
Hypothesis I: There is a positive relationship between top
Downloaded by [Kraft Foods/ GT&Q], [mounika indupriyal] at 01:36 12 April 2016
management provision of resources and project success.
For successful implementation of projects, structural
arrangement is an essential element of top management support.
Top management institutes and enforces simplified procedures,
appropriate processes, and effective project structures. To
achieve project objectives, top management implements organi-
zational change, improves organizational efficacy, and strength-
ens stakeholder support (Boonstra, 2013). A number of authors
suggest that top managers should establish adequate processes,
structures, and standards to ensure successful accomplishment
of project objectives (Ancona & Caldwell, 1992; Bajwa et al.,
1998; Manfreda & Štemberger, 2014; Pinto & Prescott, 1988;
Thite, 2000; Yap et al., 1992).
Hypothesis II: There is a positive relationship between top
management structural arrangements and project success.
Vaish and Varma (2010) found that top management com-
munication is one of the most important success factors for a
project. Top management should establish communication chan-
nels to manage project activities. Examples of these activities
include regularly communicating support for the project, commu-
nications to motivate the team, communications to sell the project
to the rest of the organization, collaborating with various groups of
stakeholders, explaining potential system changes, and discussing
organizational implications and organizational changes (Boonstra,
2013). A number of researchers suggest that top management
should communicate frequently with project teams and other
project stakeholders, to meet technical requirements and achieve
project objectives (Bajwa et al., 1998; Cragg, Mills, & Suraweera,
2013; Hwang & Min, 2013; Kuen, Zailani, & Fernando, 2009;
Manfreda & Štemberger, 2014; Mat, Jantan, Mat, & Romli;
Umble, Haft, & Umble, 2003; Yaghootkar & Gil, 2012).
Hypothesis III: There is a positive relationship between top
management communication and project success.
Top management needs to possess sufficient knowledge and
expertise in project management, recognize the implications and
changes associated with project implementation, and be aware
of the power and interest of project stakeholders (Boonstra,
2013). Top management ensures the successful completion of
Engineering Management Journal Vol. 28 No. 1
H1
Project Success
H2
• Project Efficiency
• Impact on Customer
H3 • Impact on the Team
• Direct organizational and
H4 business success
• Preparing for the Future
H5
each and every activity at all levels in organizations (Singh &
Kant, 2008). Some scholars recommend that top management
must be aware of, and possess, project management expertise
and skills to ensure project success and organizational success
(Hwang, Lin, & Lin, 2012; Liu & Seddon, 2009; Manfreda &
Štemberger, 2014; Pinto & Prescott, 1988).
Hypothesis IV: There is a positive relationship between top
management expertise and project success.
In projects, top management with power or authority is vital
for project success (Chander et al., 2013; Knapp, Marshall, Rainer,
& Morrow, 2006). Top management possesses power and must use
this power to encourage team members, provide support to the
project, facilitate system changes, and identify the needs and
responsibilities of project stakeholders (Boonstra, 2013). Several
studies emphasized that senior management should use its author-
ity to develop better project management practices, and the project
team should employ best practices for increasing the likelihood of
project success (Belout & Gauvreau, 2004; Cragg et al., 2013; Hol-
land & Light, 1999; Liu & Seddon, 2009; Madanayake, Gregor,
Hayes, & Fraser, 2009; Pinto & Prescott, 1988).
Hypothesis V: There is a positive relationship between top
management power and project success.
Methods
Exhibit 2 summarizes the research design for the current study.
Data collection methods, participants, procedures, and the oper-
ationalization of research variables are discussed next.
Data Collection
To test the proposed research model, data were collected from
the Project Management Institute (PMI) community members.
An online survey instrument was developed and data were
collected from October 2013 to December 2013. Kifle (2008)
suggested that a structured survey instrument is the best
approach to collect data for cross-sectional studies. A survey
instrument was distributed through email among 300 members
of the PMI leadership community. The unit of analysis for the
study was an individual project, successfully completed or exe-
cuted as the most recent project by the respondents. Respon-
dents were asked to rate top management support and project
March 2016 57
 Exhibit 2. Flow Chart of Research Design.

Research Design

Literature Review

Research Questions Theoretical Framework Research Objectives

Phase 1 Research Hypotheses

Downloaded by [Kraft Foods/ GT&Q], [mounika indupriyal] at 01:36 12 April 2016

Sampling Procedure Quantitative Methods Cross Sectional Study

Phase 2 Data Collection Methods

Data Analysis

Findings, Implications
Phase 3
and Conclusion

success for their last completed project. This study employed a
three-wave follow-up approach for collection of data from
potential respondents. A total of 208 responses were received
and used for data analysis; this corresponds to a 69% response
rate.
Participants
The participants of this study were the active members of the
Project Management Institute (PMI) leadership community. In
order to minimize single-informant bias, respondents had
diverse experiences in managing projects across the world.
Respondents worked in different positions including top man-
agement, middle management, or project management.
Measurement Scale
The authors created the final version of the survey instrument
using context-specific changes, based on feedback received from
the panel of experts and the results of the pilot study. Content
validity was assessed by a panel of ten experts, comprised of
seven experts from academia (four Professors and three PhD
scholars) and three industry practitioners. Out of ten experts,
five have a PhD and all others hold Masters Degrees from the
United States, Europe, or Asia. Construct validity was assessed
through a pilot study after establishing content validity.
A 5-point Likert scale was used for measuring the dimen-
sions of top management support (ranging from ‘Not at all’ to
‘Frequently (if not always)’. For this purpose, the authors devel-
oped and validated the Top Management Support Questionnaire
(TMSQ) as reported in Ahmed et al. (2016). The scale
development process for measurement of a five-dimensional
construct of top management support included item creation,
item sorting, instrument testing, and instrument validation pro-
cesses, adapted from earlier studies (Akter, D’Ambra, & Ray,
2013; Amundsen & Martinsen, 2014; Schmiedel, Vom, &
Recker, 2014). Project success was also measured using a 5-
point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Neu-
tral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly Agree).
Shenhar and Dvir’s (2007) Project Success Assessment
Questionnaire (PSAQ) was the most reliable scale found in the
literature for measurement of five-dimensional project success.
The PSAQ instrument was developed and validated by Shenhar
and Dvir (2007) and used a 4-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly
Disagree; 2 = Disagree; 3 = Agree; and 4 = Strongly Agree). This
study used a 5-point Likert scale for measurement of project
success dimensions (1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 = Disagree;
3 = Neutral; 4 = Agree; and 5 = Strongly Agree) based on
previous studies (Kuen et al., 2009; Muller et al., 2012; Müller
& Turner, 2010). Summary of the instruments used and oper-
ationalization of variables is presented in Exhibit 3.
Pilot Study
Prior to this study, the authors conducted a pilot study to
ensure appropriateness of content, wording, format and layout,
sequence, instructions, level of difficulty, and scale range of the
survey questions. A pilot study (N = 54) was conducted to
assess the construct validity and reliability of survey measures.
For the pilot study, data were collected from the members of

58 Engineering Management Journal Vol. 28 No. 1 March 2016

 Exhibit 3. Instrumentation and Operationalization of Variables.

Variables Items Scale

Top Management Support 26 5-Point Likert (TMSQ)
1 Provide Resources 5 1 = Not at all; 2 = Once in a
2 Structural Arrangements 5 While; 3 = Sometimes; 4 =
3 Communication 6 Fairly Often; and 5 =
4 Expertise 5 Frequently, if not always.
5 Power 5

Project Success 25 5-Point Likert (PSAQ)

1 Project Efficiency 5 1 = Strongly Disagree; 2 =
2 Impact on Customer 5 Disagree; 3 = Neutral; 4 =
3 Impact on Team 5 Agree; and 5 = Strongly Agree.
4 Direct Organizational and 5
Business Success
5 Preparing for the Future 5

Sample of Measurement Items:

Downloaded by [Kraft Foods/ GT&Q], [mounika indupriyal] at 01:36 12 April 2016

Top Management:
provided adequate resources for successful implementation of the project
provided adequate resources to facilitate system adaptations in the organizational setting
provided adequate resources to encourage a supportive stakeholder environment for successful project completion
ensured availability of necessary resources to support the project team during crises
established effective communication with project team members for successful implementation of the project
often communicated to sell the project to the rest of the organization
frequently communicated to discuss potential system changes with those involved in project implementation
continuously communicated to discuss implications of the project with various groups of stakeholders
effectively communicated with the stakeholders to enhance organizational efficiency

Project Success:
The project was completed on time or earlier
The project was completed within or below budget
The project had only minor changes in scope
The project achieved overall efficiency measures
The project was completed on predefined quality
The project was an economic business success
The project increased the organization’s productivity
The project enhanced the organization’s market value
The project contributed to organization’s direct performance

three PMI Chapters in Pakistan, located in Islamabad, Lahore,
and Karachi.
Factor analysis is an effective tool to ensure construct valid-
ity (Bernstein & Nunnally, 1994; Gorsuch, 1983; Guilford, 1946;
Nunnally, 1978), and is a statistical technique used to either
identify or validate the hypothesized structure of latent variables
(Pison, Rousseeuw, Filzmoser, & Croux, 2003). Exploratory fac-
tor analysis was performed by using the varimax rotation. To
evaluate the appropriateness of the factor analysis, Kaiser–
Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity were per-
formed. Factor loadings for top management support items
ranged from 0.453 to 0.891, and factor loadings for project
success items ranged from 0.520 to 0.809, which are well
above the cutoff value of 0.40 and reported in Appendix 1. In
agreement with Conway and Huffcutt (2003), all items above a
cutoff value of 0.40 were loaded. No item was dropped from the
survey instrument, and the pilot study resulted in only minor
adjustments to the survey instrument.
The pilot study also used the eigenvalue-greater-than-one
rule (Kaiser, 1960), Bartlett (1950) Test of Sphericity, and Scree
test methods (Cattell, 1966) to identify a preferred solution for
factor retention. Five factors for top management support with
eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted. The eigenvalues were
12.966, 1.806, 1.474, 1.193, and 1.082, after rotation. The sums
of squared loadings from the five top management support
components explained 71% of the total variance in the data.
The eigenvalues of the five factors for project success were 9.895,
2.849, 1.830, 1.286, and 1.044, after rotation. The five compo-
nents of project success explained 68% of the total variance in
the data.
Results and Discussion
The current study was undertaken to investigate the relationship
between multiple dimensions of top management support and
project success because previous studies have treated top man-
agement support as a single dimensional construct. This study
adopted a multi-dimensional framework of top management
support from Boonstra (2013) and multi-dimensional project
success model from Shenhar and Dvir (2007). The demographic
profile of respondents and projects for this study are summar-
ized in Exhibit 4.
Reliability and Validity
In agreement with Roberts, Priest, and Traynor (2006), Cron-
bach’s alpha coefficient of 0.70 was used as the cutoff value in
selecting survey items for multiple dimensions of top manage-
ment support and project success. Following Conway and Huff-
cutt (2003), all items were loaded above a cutoff value of 0.40

Engineering Management Journal Vol. 28 No. 1 March 2016 59

 Exhibit 4. Summary of Demographic Data (Ahmed et al., 2016).

Item Characteristics N Item Characteristics N Item Characteristics N

Gende r Experience Country*
Male 162 < 3 Years 5 USA 84
Female 46 3 to 5 Years 28 India 22
Education 5 to 10 Years 54 Canada 7
PhD 11 10 to 15 Years 50 Italy 5
MS/MPhil 10 > 15 Years 71 Brazil 11
Master 95 Position Saudi Arabia 5
Bachelor 84 Top Management 31 Jordan 4
Diploma 4 Middle Management 63 Singapore 2
Associate 2 Lower Management 13 Egypt 3
High School 2 Project Manager 76 Colombia 3
Industry Consultant 4 Greece 2
Education 8 Entrepreneur 8 New Zealand 2
Health 12 Other 13 Australia 8
Manufacturing 23 Team Size Nigeria 5
Infrastructure 27 <= 10 members 79 Pakistan 2
Financial 8 11-20 members 64 Iran 2
Downloaded by [Kraft Foods/ GT&Q], [mounika indupriyal] at 01:36 12 April 2016

Chemicals 5 21-30 members 21 China 1

IT & Telecom 62 31-40 members 14 Russia 3
Services 14 >40 members 30 Mexico 2
Energy 20 Project Duration Ghana 2
Other 29 <= 1 year 69 Argentina 3
Sector <= 3 year 109 UK 2
Government 48 <= 5 year 20 Spain 1
Public Sector 25 <= 7 year 5 Portugal 2
For Profit 126 > 7 year 5 Nicaragua 2
Non-Profit 9 Syria 2
PMP France 1
Certified 157 Germany 1
Non-certified 51 Other 19
* Country of the Respondents, where projects were executed.

during exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The Cronbach’s alpha
of each factor exceeded the cutoff value of 0.70. Hair, Black,
Babin, Anderson, and Tatham (2010) suggested that a minimum
sample size of 100 is required to run EFA. This study’s sample
size (N = 208) fulfills the requirement of EFA to test construct
validity as recommended by Hair et al. (2010).
Hair et al. (2010) recommend evaluating the appropriate-
ness of factor analysis by assessing Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO)
measure of sampling adequacy (Kaiser, 1974) and Bartlett
(1950) Test of Sphericity for factorability of the exploratory
factor analysis. A KMO test revealed a value of 0.832 for top
management support, which is above the suggested cutoff value
of 0.60, and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity [χ2 (1091.429), N = 54,
df = 325, p < .001] yielded significant results (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007). Similarly, a KMO test revealed a value of 0.806 for
project success, which is above the suggested cutoff value of 0.60,
and the Bartlett’s test yielded a significant result [χ2 = 856.852,
N = 208, df = 300, p < .001]. The details of factor loadings for
each item as well as Cronbach’s alpha, Barlett’s Test of Spheri-
city, KMO measure of sampling adequacy, and df values for both
top management support and project success are summarized in
Exhibit 5 and 6, respectively.
Testing of Research Hypotheses
The key objective of this study was to investigate the relationship
between the dimensions of top management support and project
success. Conditions of normality, linearity, homoscedasticity,
and multicollinearity were satisfied and regression analyses
were completed to test all five hypotheses of the study. Following
the regression analysis procedure suggested by Hair et al. (2010)
and Huselid (1995), each dimension of top management support
was entered in the regression analysis. Results indicate that each
dimension of top management support significantly correlate
with project success.
The Pearson correlation results (see Exhibit 7) indicate a
significant positive correlation between the various dimensions
of top management support. For instance, ‘provide resources’
has a significant positive relationship with ‘structural arrange-
ments’ (r = 0.799, p = 0.000), ‘communication’ (r = 0.743,
p = 0.000), ‘expertise’ (r = 0.723, p = 0.000), and ‘power’
(r = 0.700, p = 0.000). The dimension of ‘structural arrange-
ments’ has a significant positive relationship with ‘communica-
tion’ (r = 827, p = 0.000), ‘expertise’ (r = 0.790, p = 0.000), and
‘power’ (r = 0.798, p = 0.000). Communication has a significant
positive relationship with ‘expertise’ (r = 0.852, p = 0.000) and
‘power’ (r = 0.840, p = 0.000). Finally, ‘expertise’ has a significant
positive relationship with ‘power’ (r = 0.843, p = 0.000).
Hair et al. (2010) suggested that two conditions “toler-
ance” and “variance inflation factor” should be used to deter-
mine multicollinearity due to high correlation among the
dimensions of variables. The maximum cutoff value suggested
for variance inflation factor (VIF) is 10, and the minimum cut-
off value suggested for tolerance is 0.10 (Hair et al., 2010;
Pallant, 2010). This study examined the issue of multicollinear-
ity, due to the high correlation between dimensions of top
management support. No serious issues of multicollinearity
were found based on the values of tolerance and VIF, which
were well above 0.10 and well below 10, respectively (see
Exhibit 8).

60 Engineering Management Journal Vol. 28 No. 1 March 2016

 Exhibit 5. Summary of Top Management Support Reliability and Validity Statistics (adapted from Ahmed et al., 2016).

Bartlett’s Test EFA Cronbach’s

Variables of Study KMO df Item
of Sphericity Loading Alpha
Top Management Support 0.964 4781.805 325 0.973
Provide Resources 0.849 592.174 10 POR1 0.845 0.889
POR2 0.751
POR3 0.722
POR4 0.663
POR5 0.724
Structural Arrangements 0.881 696.095 10 STA1 0.681 0.913
STA2 0.636
STA3 0.589
STA4 0.649
STA5 0.596
Communication 0.900 851.285 15 COM1 0.612 0.920
COM2 0.703
COM3 0.742
Downloaded by [Kraft Foods/ GT&Q], [mounika indupriyal] at 01:36 12 April 2016

COM4 0.681
COM5 0.693
COM6 0.761
Expertise 0.860 548.157 10 EXP1 0.600 0.882
EXP2 0.688
EXP3 0.707
EXP4 0.634
EXP5 0.747
Power 0.888 725.162 10 PWR1 0.746 0.917
PWR2 0.795
PWR3 0.753
PWR4 0.781
PWR5 0.767

In agreement with Hair et al. (2010), demographic vari-
ables were entered concurrently in the regression model dur-
ing the first step. In the next step, an independent variable
(provide resources) was entered in the regression model. We
followed the same process for testing of all five hypotheses of
this study. As a result, top management provision of
resources explained 22.7% variance in project success
(ΔF = 31.44, p < .001). The standardized beta value of provide
resources was positive and significant (β = 0.45, p < .001).
Structural arrangement explained 23.6% variance in project
success (ΔF = 33.05, p < .001). standardized beta value was
positive and indicated a significant relationship with project
success (β = 0.46, p < .001).
About one-fourth (23.9%) of the variance was explained
by communication in project success (ΔF = 33.50, p < .001).
The standardized beta value of communication was positive
and indicated a significant relationship with project success
(β = 0.46, p < .001). The dimension of expertise explained
21% variance in project success, which was highly significant
as shown by ΔF-value of 28.59 (p < .001). The standardized
beta value indicates that a significant and positive relationship
exists between top management expertise and project success
(β = 0.43, p < .001). The power dimension explained 24.8%
variance in project success (ΔF = 35.11, p < .001). The
standardized beta value of power indicated a positive and
significant relationship with project success (β = 0.47,
p < .001). A summary of the regression analysis is presented
in Exhibit 8.
Contributions of the Study
The contributing role of a multi-dimensional construct of top
management support towards project success was not well
explored previously in the literature. In response to calls from
multiple researchers (Boonstra, 2013; Chollet et al., 2012; Karl-
sen & Gottschalk, 2004; Patanakul, 2011), this study addresses
these gaps by adapting Boonstra’s (2013) multi-dimensional
framework and Shenhar and Dvir (2007) multi-dimensional
project success model. This study validated the Top Manage-
ment Support Questionnaire (TMSQ) developed by Ahmed
et al. (2016) as a measure of top management support for five
dimensions, namely, provide resources, structural arrangement,
communication, expertise, and power.
The contribution to the existing body of knowledge lies in
exploring top management support as a multi-dimensional con-
struct, as well as investigating its relationship with project suc-
cess. Boonstra’s (2013) study was aimed at both mapping and
analyzing several behaviors of top management support but did
not attempt to make assertions with respect to the causal rela-
tionships between these behaviors and their relationships with
project success. Boonstra (2013) suggested that a multi-dimen-
sional framework should be used to identify possible research
gaps relating to the relationship between types and combina-
tions of top management support and project success. Based on
Boonstra’s (2013) recommendations, we empirically examined
the relationships between multi-dimensions of top management
support and project success to advance the engineering and
project management bodies of knowledge. The practical

Engineering Management Journal Vol. 28 No. 1 March 2016 61

 Exhibit 6. Summary of Project Success Reliability and Validity Statistics (adapted from Ahmed et al., 2016).

Bartlett’s Test EFA Cronbach’s

Variables of Study KMO df Item
of Sphericity Loading Alpha
Project Success 0.885 2542.984 300 0.921
Project Efficiency 0.754 250.228 10 PE1 0.725 0.759
PE2 0.809
PE3 0.633
PE4 0.501
PE5 0.456
Impact on Customer 0.789 393.112 10 IU1 0.712 0.830
IU2 0.727
IU3 0.735
IU4 0.608
IU5 0.697
Impact on Team 0.792 448.336 10 IT1 0.559 0.844
IT2 0.734
IT3 0.837
Downloaded by [Kraft Foods/ GT&Q], [mounika indupriyal] at 01:36 12 April 2016

IT4 0.667
IT5 0.521
Direct Organizational and 0.795 396.603 10 BS1 0.538 0.835
Business success
BS2 0.703
BS3 0.793
BS4 0.628
BS5 0.544
Preparing for the Future 0.797 271.723 10 PF1 0.419 0.783
PF2 0.662
PF3 0.761
PF4 0.721
PF5 0.466

Exhibit 7. Correlation between Top Management Support and Project Success.

Sr. Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Provide Resources 1

Structural Arrangements .799** 1

2

3 Communication .743** .827** 1

4 Expertise .723** .790** .852** 1

5 Power .700** .798** .840** .843** 1

6 Project Success .470** .480** .476** .444** .491** 1

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

contribution of this quantitative, cross-sectional study is of value
to both engineering managers and senior managers.
Implications of the Study
In the literature, top management support is often presented as a
single construct related to project success. Although some
authors conceptualize top management support as a set of
desirable attitudes and behaviors (McComb et al., 2008;
Naranjo-Gil, 2009), their studies fail to relate these behaviors
to each other and do not address the development of top
management support as a multi-dimensional construct (Boon-
stra, 2013). However, top management support does not reflect
the multidimensionality and complexity as a single dimensional
construct (Ragu-Nathan, Apigian, Ragu-Nathan, & Tu, 2004).
Boonstra (2013) identified dimensions and pattern to concep-
tualize top management support as a multi-dimensional

62 Engineering Management Journal Vol. 28 No. 1 March 2016

 Exhibit 8. Summary of Regression Analysis for Testing of Research Hypotheses.

Project Success

Hyp Variables Coefficients Model Summary ANOVA Multicollinearity

B β t Sig R R2 Adj R2 ΔF Sig. Tolerance VIF

(>.10) (<10)

1 Provide Resources 0.250 0.449 7.25 .000 0.485 0.235 0.227 31.44 0.000 0.34 2.95

2 Structural Arrangements 0.231 0.460 7.46 .000 0.494 0.244 0.236 33.05 0.000 0.22 4.51

3 Communication 0.234 0.459 7.518 .000 0.496 0.246 0.239 33.50 0.000 0.22 4.57

4 Expertise 0.219 0.427 6.86 .000 0.467 0.218 0.210 28.59 0.000 0.21 4.68

5 Power 0.235 0.472 7.721 .000 0.505 0.255 0.248 35.11 0.000 0.26 3.85

construct, and articulated the necessity of research to investigate with five dimensions (i.e., provide resources, communication,
expertise, structural arrangements, and power). Findings indi-
Downloaded by [Kraft Foods/ GT&Q], [mounika indupriyal] at 01:36 12 April 2016

relationships between dimensions of top management support

and project success.
Findings from this study imply that provision of
resources, communication, expertise, power, and structural
arrangements are important dimensions of top management
support, having a significant positive relationship with pro-
ject success. This study substantiates findings of earlier stu-
dies suggesting a positive relationship between top
management support and project success (Boonstra, 2013;
Chollet et al., 2012; Pinto & Prescott, 1988; Yap et al.,
1992; Young & Jordan, 2008; Young & Poon, 2013). In
agreement with Yazici (2011), top management working in
engineering organizations should facilitate effective, efficient,
cohesive, smooth-functioning teamwork in projects to ensure
high performance. The findings of the current study are in
line with studies of Zwikael (2008), Chollet et al. (2012), and
Young and Poon (2013). However, the results of the study by
Bonner et al. (2002) are not consistent with the results of
this study.
The model hypothesized in this study offers insight into
how top management support dimensions influence project
success. For engineering managers, this framework underscores
the point that having good skills is not enough and that multi-
dimensional support from top management is almost always
required for successful delivery of projects. Multi-dimensional
top management support increases the likelihood of successful
project completion. When top management provides adequate
resources, encourages constructive communication, utilizes its
expertise and power, and establishes structural arrangements,
projects are more likely to be successful. Engineering managers
should work to ensure these multiple dimensions of support
from top management. Findings suggest that resource manage-
ment and effective communication should be the foremost
priority of both top management and engineering managers.
Conclusions
This study presents empirical evidence that enhances the under-
standing of the role of multi-dimensional top management sup-
port on project success. While a single dimensional view of top
management support emerged as a critical success factor in
project success, models of multi-dimensional top management
support were not empirically validated during the last three
decades. This study extends previous research and validates
top management support as a multi-dimensional construct
cate significant positive relationships between all five dimensions
of top management support and project success. The study
provides critical insights for academicians and practitioners to
increase the likelihood of project success.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
This study included only Project Management Institute
(PMI) community members across different countries. The
study contains the typical limitations as the data were col-
lected from the respondents under a cross-sectional design
from different countries. The findings were also confined to a
single point in time. However, observing how relationships
will develop over time between dimensions of top manage-
ment support and project success, and the level of support
required from top management would be a fruitful extension
of this work. Thus, a longitudinal study could be useful to
better understand the impact of top management support
over time. This study also collected data on completed pro-
jects to explore relationships, so the results may be influenced
by retrospective views. It would be useful to collect data
during projects and investigate whether different types of
top management support are required in different project
phases.
The focus of the current study was limited to engineering
and project management practitioners. The sample size of 208
was enough to validate the instrument and test research
hypotheses, but a larger sample size may produce results
that are more generalizable. Although top management sup-
port is context specific in nature, replication in other contexts
at a specific industry, sector, or country level would increase
the confidence in the hypothesized model further improving
understanding of the multi-dimensional construct of top
management support. Future studies could extend this
research by considering multi-dimensional top management
support as a potential moderator or mediator variable, includ-
ing different areas, such as health, education, manufacturing,
services, information technology, telecommunication, and
infrastructure development or specific countries. Future
research studies could also explore the influence of support
from sponsors, contractors, and suppliers, which might clarify
the combination of needs and support required for project
success.

Engineering Management Journal Vol. 28 No. 1 March 2016 63

 Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge and appreciate the guidance and con-
structive comments provided by the anonymous reviewers. Spe-
cial thanks to the editors and associate editor for their kind
support, feedback, and suggestions for improving the quality of
the manuscript. We also acknowledge the suggestions and com-
ments of Professor Albert Boonstra and a panel of experts. We
are thankful to the respondents from the PMI leadership com-
munity for their voluntary participation in the survey. We would
like to thank all colleagues and friends who supported us in
conducting this study.
References
Ahmed, R., Mohamad, N. A. B., & Ahmad, M. S. (2016). Effect
of multidimensional top management support on project
success: An empirical investigation. Quality & Quantity,
Downloaded by [Kraft Foods/ GT&Q], [mounika indupriyal] at 01:36 12 April 2016
50(1), 151–176.
Akter, S., D’Ambra, J., & Ray, P. (2013). Development and
validation of an instrument to measure user perceived ser-
vice quality of mHealth. Information & Management, 50(4),
181–195.
Ali, U., & Kidd, C. (2014). Barriers to effective configuration
management application in a project context: An
empirical investigation. International Journal of Project
Management, 32(3), 508–518.
Amundsen, S., & Martinsen, Ø. L. (2014). Empowering leader-
ship: Construct clarification, conceptualization, and valida-
tion of a new scale. The Leadership Quarterly, 25(3), 478–
511.
Anantatmula, V. S. (2010). Project manager leadership role in
improving project performance. Engineering Management
Journal, 22(1), 13–22.
Ancona, D. G., & Caldwell, D. F. (1992). Bridging the boundary:
External activity and performance in organizational teams.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 37, 634–665.
Avolio, F. M. (2000). Best practices in network security. Network
Computing, 11(5), 60–71.
Bajwa, D. S., Rai, A., & Brennan, I. (1998). Key antecedents of
executive information system success: A path analytic
approach. Decision Support Systems, 22(1), 31–43.
Bartlett, M. S. (1950). Tests of significance in factor analysis.
British Journal of Psychology, 3(3), 77–85.
Belout, A., & Gauvreau, C. (2004). Factors influencing project
success: The impact of human resource management. Inter-
national Journal of Project Management, 22(1), 1–11.
doi:10.1016/s0263-7863(03)00003-6
Bernstein, I. H., & Nunnally, J. (1994). Psychometric theory. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Bonner, J. M., Ruekert, R. W., & Walker, O. C. (2002). Upper
management control of new product development projects
and project performance. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 19(3), 233–245.
Boonstra, A. (2013). How do top managers support strategic
information system projects and why do they sometimes
withhold this support? International Journal of Project
Management, 31, 498–512.
Burgess, T., McKee, D., & Kidd, C. (2005). Configuration man-
agement in the aerospace industry: A review of industry
practice. International Journal of Operations & Production
Management, 25(3), 290–301.
64
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.
Chander, M., Jain, S. K., & Shankar, R. (2013). Modeling of
information security management parameters in Indian
organizations using ISM and MICMAC approach. Jour-
nal of Modelling in Management, 8(2), 171–189.
Chollet, B., Brion, S., Chauvet, V., Mothe, C., & Géraudel, M.
(2012). NPD projects in search of top management support:
The role of team leader social capital. Management, 15(1),
44–75.
Conway, J. M., & Huffcutt, A. I. (2003). A review and
evaluation of exploratory factor analysis practices in
organizational research. Organizational Research Meth-
ods, 6(2), 147–168.
Cragg, P., Mills, A., & Suraweera, T. (2013). The Influence of IT
management sophistication and IT support on IT success in
small and medium‐sized enterprises. Journal of Small Busi-
ness Management, 51, 617–636.
Da Silva, L. A., Damian, I. P. M., & De Pádua, S. I. D. (2012).
Process management tasks and barriers: Functional to pro-
cesses approach. Business Process Management Journal, 18
(5), 762–776.
Dong, F., Neufeld, D., & Higgins, C. (2009). Top management
support of enterprise systems implementations. Journal of
Information Technology, 24(1), 55–80.
Dwivedi, Y. K., Ravichandran, K., Williams, M. D., Miller, S.,
Lal, B., Antony, G. V., & Kartik, M. (2013). IS/IT project
failures: A review of the extant literature for deriving
a taxonomy of failure factors grand successes and failures
in IT. Public and private sectors (pp. 73–88). Berlin,
Heidelberg: Springer.
Edwards, B. (1989). Project sponsors: In their contribution to
effective IT implementation. Paper presented at the Oxford,
PA Conference, July.
Ehsani, M., Izadi, B., Yoon, Y.-J., Cho, K. M., Koozechian, H., &
Tojari, F. (2013). An investigation of the effect of fan
relationship management factors on fan lifetime value.
Asian Social Science, 9(4), 248.
Freeman, M., & Beale, P. (1992). Measuring project success.
Project Management Journal, 23(1), 8–17.
Gonzalez, R. (1997). Configuration management—Crossing the
boundaries. Paper presented at the American Power Con-
ference, April, Chicago, IL.
Gorsuch, R. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
LEA.
Guilford, J. P. (1946). New standards for test evaluation. Educa-
tional and Psychological Measurement, 6(4), 427–438.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham,
R. L. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (Vol. 7). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Holland, C., & Light, B. (1999). A critical success factors
model for ERP implementation. IEEE Software, 16(3),
30–36.
Huselid, M. A. (1995). The impact of human resource manage-
ment practices on turnover, productivity, and corporate
financial performance. Academy of Management Journal,
38(3), 635–672.
Hwang, M. I., Lin, C. T., & Lin, J. W. (2012). Organizational
factors for successful implementation of information systems:
Disentangling the effect of top management support and
training. Atlanta, GA: Southern Association for Information
Systems.
Engineering Management Journal Vol. 28 No. 1 March 2016
 Hwang, D. W., & Min, H. (2013). Assessing the impact of ERP
on supplier performance. Industrial Management & Data
Systems, 113(7), 1025–1047.
Jugdev, K., & Müller, R. (2005). A retrospective look at our
evolving understanding of project success. Project Manage-
ment Journal, 36(4), 19–31.
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to
factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement,
20(1), 141–151.
Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychome-
trika, 39, 31–36.
Karlsen, J. T., & Gottschalk, P. (2004). Factors affecting knowl-
edge transfer in IT projects. Engineering Management Jour-
nal, 16, 3–11.
Kerzner, H. (2006). Project management: A systems approach to
planning, scheduling, and controlling. Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Downloaded by [Kraft Foods/ GT&Q], [mounika indupriyal] at 01:36 12 April 2016
Kifle, H. (2008). Policy and its implications to ICT innovations:
The case of e-government in Brunei Darussalam. Paper pre-
sented at the e-Government Workshop, Brunel University,
London, UK, September.
Kloppenborg, T. J., Tesch, D., & Manolis, C. (2014). Project
success and executive sponsor behaviors: Empirical life
cycle stage investigations. Project Management Journal, 45
(1), 9–20.
Knapp, K. J., Marshall, T. E., Rainer Jr., R. K., & Morrow, D. W.
(2006). The top information security issues facing organiza-
tions: What can government do to help? Network Security,
1, 327.
Kuen, C. W., Zailani, S., & Fernando, Y. (2009). Critical factors
influencing the project success amongst manufacturing
companies in Malaysia. African Journal of Business Manage-
ment, 3(1), 16–27.
Kuratko, D. F., Hornsby, J. S., & Covin, J. G. (2014). Diagnosing
a firm’s internal environment for corporate entrepreneur-
ship. Business Horizons, 57(1), 37–47.
Li, J. P., Chen, R., Lee, J., & Rao, H. R. (2013). A case study of
private–public collaboration for humanitarian free and
open source disaster management software deployment.
Decision Support Systems, 55(1), 1–11.
Liu, A. Z., & Seddon, P. B. (2009). Understanding how project
critical success factors affect organizational benefits from
enterprise systems. Business Process Management Journal,
15(5), 716–743.
Lyytinen, K., & Hirschheim, R. (1988). Information systems
failures—A survey and classification of the empirical litera-
ture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Madanayake, O., Gregor, S., Hayes, C., & Fraser, S. (2009). What
we need: Project managers evaluation of top management
actions required for software development projects. Paper
presented at the ECIS, June, Verona, Italy.
Manfreda, A., & Štemberger, M. I. (2014). Factors causing the
relationship gap between top management and IS person-
nel. Journal of Enterprise Information Management, 27(2),
107–121.
Mat, N., Jantan, M., Mat, N., & Romli, R. (2012). Team factors
and the moderating effect of top management support on
product innovation performance: The Malaysian experience.
Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on
Business and Economic Research, 12–13 March.
McComb, S. A., Kennedy, D. M., Green, S. G., & Compton,
W. D. (2008). Project team effectiveness: The case for
Engineering Management Journal Vol. 28 No. 1
sufficient setup and top management involvement. Produc-
tion Planning and Control, 19(4), 301–311.
Muller, R., Geraldi, J., & Turner, J. R. (2012). Relationships
between leadership and success in different types of project
complexities. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Manage-
ment, 59(1), 77–90. doi:10.1109/tem.2011.2114350
Müller, R., & Turner, J. R. (2010). Attitudes and leadership
competences for project success. Baltic Journal of Manage-
ment, 5, 307–329. doi:10.1108/17465261011079730
Naranjo-Gil, D. (2009). Management information systems and
strategic performances: The role of top team composition.
International Journal of Information Management, 29(2),
104–110.
Nixon, P., Harrington, M., & Parker, D. (2012). Leadership
performance is significant to project success or failure: A
critical analysis. International Journal of Productivity and
Performance Management, 61(2), 204–216.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step
guide to data analysis using SPSS. Berkshire, UK:
McGraw-Hill International.
Patanakul, P. (2011). Project manager assignment and its impact
on multiple project management effectiveness: An empirical
study of an IT organization. Engineering Management Jour-
nal, 23, 14–23.
Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1988). Variations in critical success
factors over the stages in the project life cycle. Journal of
Management, 14(1), 5–18. doi:10.1177/014920638801400102
Pinto, J. K., & Prescott, J. E. (1990). Planning and tactical factors
in the project implementation process. Journal of Manage-
ment Studies, 27(3), 305–327.
Pinto, J. K., & Slevin, D. P. (1987). Critical factors in successful
project implementation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering
Management, 34(1), 22–27.
Pison, G., Rousseeuw, P. J., Filzmoser, P., & Croux, C. (2003).
Robust factor analysis. Journal of Multivariate Analysis, 84
(1), 145–172.
PMI. (2013). A guide to the project management body of knowl-
edge (PMBOK) (5th ed.). Newtown Square, PA: Author.
Ragu-Nathan, B. S., Apigian, C. H., Ragu-Nathan, T., & Tu, Q.
(2004). A path analytic study of the effect of top manage-
ment support for information systems performance. Omega,
32(6), 459–471.
Roberts, P., Priest, H., & Traynor, M. (2006). Reliability and
validity in research. Nursing Standard, 20(44), 41–45.
Rodgers, R., Hunter, J. E., & Rogers, D. L. (1993). Influence of
top management commitment on management program
success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 151–155.
Sauer, C. (1993). Why information systems fail: A case study
approach. Oxford, UK: Alfred Waller, Henley-on-Thames.
Schmiedel, T., Vom Brocke, B. J., & Recker, J. (2014). Develop-
ment and validation of an instrument to measure organiza-
tional cultures’ support of business process management.
Information & Management, 51(1), 43–56.
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project manage-
ment: The diamond approach to successful growth and inno-
vation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Singh, M., & Kant, R. (2008). Knowledge management barriers:
An interpretive structural modeling approach. International
Journal of Management Science and Engineering Manage-
ment, 3(2), 141–150.
March 2016 65
 Staehr, L. (2010). Understanding the role of managerial agency
in achieving business benefits from ERP systems. Informa-
tion Systems Journal, 20(3), 213–238.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate
statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Tan, C. N.-L., & Noor, S. M. (2013). Knowledge management
enablers, knowledge sharing and research collaboration: A
study of knowledge management at research universities in
Malaysia. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation, 21(2),
251–276.
Tesch, D., & Kloppenborg, T. J. (2015). The impact of executive
sponsor behavior on project success. MIT Sloan Manage-
ment Review, 56(3), 27–30.
Thite, M. (2000). Leadership styles in information technology
projects. International Journal of Project Management, 18,
235–241. doi:10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00021-6
Too, E. G., & Weaver, P. (2014). The management of project
Downloaded by [Kraft Foods/ GT&Q], [mounika indupriyal] at 01:36 12 April 2016
management: A conceptual framework for project govern-
ance. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8),
1382–1394.
Umble, E. J., Haft, R. R., & Umble, M. M. (2003). Enterprise
resource planning: Implementation procedures and critical
success factors. European Journal of Operational Research,
146(2), 241–257.
Vaish, A., & Varma, S. (2010). Parameter extraction for mea-
surement of the effective information security manage-
ment–statistical analysis. International Journal of
Computer and Electrical Engineering, 2(4), 654–659.
Yaghootkar, K., & Gil, N. (2012). The effects of schedule-
driven project management in multi-project environ-
ments. International Journal of Project Management, 30
(1), 127–140.
Yap, C., Soh, C., & Raman, K. (1992). Information systems
success factors in small business. Omega, 20(5–6),
597–609.
Yazici, H. J. (2011). Significance of organizational culture in
perceived project and business performance. Engineering
Management Journal, 23, 20–29.
66
Young, R., & Jordan, E. (2008). Top management support:
Mantra or necessity?. International Journal of Project Man-
agement, 26(7), 713–725.
Young, R., & Poon, S. (2013). Top management support—Almost
always necessary and sometimes sufficient for success: Findings
from a fuzzy set analysis. International Journal of Project Man-
agement, 31, 943–957. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.11.013
Zwikael, O. (2008). Top management involvement in project
management-exclusive support practices for different pro-
ject scenarios. International Journal of Managing Projects in
Business, 1, 387–403.
About the Authors
Riaz Ahmed, PhD, PMP is a Senior Assistant Professor in
the Department of Management Sciences at Bahria University
in Islamabad, Pakistan. He obtained his PhD from the Uni-
versiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) in Malaysia, receiving the
“Best Postgraduate Student Award.” He has worked in higher
education institutions for the last 15 years, including COM-
SATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT), National
University of Science & Technology (NUST) in Islamabad,
and the University of Engineering & Technology (UET) in
Lahore, Pakistan. He has published a number of scholarly
articles in journals. His areas of interest include project lea-
dership, project management, top management, internationa-
lization, and higher education.
Noor Azmi bin Mohamad, PhD is currently a Senior Lec-
turer with the Faculty of Management at the Universiti Tekno-
logi Malaysia (UTM) in Malaysia. He has actively been involved
in teaching and research for more than 20 years. He has pub-
lished a number of journal articles and conference papers. He
has supervised a number of PhD and Master’s students in his
academic career. His areas of interest include leadership, strate-
gic management, policy research, and project management.
Contact: Riaz Ahmed, PhD, PMP, Department of Man-
agement Sciences, Bahria University, Sector E-8, Islamabad
54000, Pakistan; riaz.ahmed@bui.edu.pk
Engineering Management Journal Vol. 28 No. 1 March 2016
 Appendix 1: Results of Pilot Study

KMO and Bartlett’s Test—Top Management Support

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy .832
Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-square 1,091.429

Df 325
Sig. .000

Factor Loading—Top Management Support

Item code Provision of resources Structural arrangement Communication Experience Power

Downloaded by [Kraft Foods/ GT&Q], [mounika indupriyal] at 01:36 12 April 2016

POR1 .755
POR2 .836
POR3 .631
POR4 .671
POR5 .792
(α = .817)
STA1 .574
STA2 .747
STA3 .891
STA4 .552
STA5 .611
(α = .833)
COM1 .565
COM2 .598
COM3 .631
COM4 .474
COM5 .453
COM6 .687
(α = .871)
EXP1 .767
EXP2 .483
EXP3 .543
EXP4 .692
EXP5 .630
(α = .859)
PWR1 .738
PWR2 .839
PWR3 .850
PWR4 .615
PWR5 .604
(α = .904)
Eigenvalues 12.966 1.806 1.474 1.193 1.082
% of variance 49.87 6.94 5.67 4.59 4.162

Engineering Management Journal Vol. 28 No. 1 March 2016 67

Copyright of Engineering Management Journal is the property of American Society for
Engineering Management and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.